https://jamieglazov.com/2019/11/21/malkin-video-deadly-diversity-lottery-visas/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/17/pew-research-6-in-11-americans-want-
A majority of Americans say they want to see more deportations of illegal aliens and increased security along the United States-Mexico border, a new survey finds.
The latest Pew Research Center survey reveals that nearly 70 percent of all Americans believe increased security at the porous U.S.-Mexico border is very or somewhat important — including more than 90 percent of Republican voters.Another 54 percent of Americans said more deportations of the nation’s 11 million to 22 million illegal alien population is very or somewhat important. Republican voters by a majority of 83 percent said increasing deportations of illegal aliens is important ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
The findings come as President Trump’s administration has constructed less than 80 miles thus far of border wall along the southern border, though officials have repeatedly said hundreds of miles of construction is on its way.
For almost a year, the Trump administration has promised that 500 miles of border wall will have been completed before next year’s election in November.
https://www.city-journal.org/intergenerational-mobility-us-immigrants
The New York Times has not been in the habit of publishing heartening stories about the American dream in recent years, but last week, the editors made an exception, with an article recounting the findings of a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, showing that the sons of low-income immigrants are moving up the economic ladder—as they have since the Ellis Island era. After the article appeared, the Times reporter, Emily Badger, tweeted: “There is a lot in this study tweaking talking points in the current immigration debate.” I’d put it differently: there is a lot in this study suggesting that we’ve been having the wrong immigration debate.
The study itself, “Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the U.S. over the Last Two Centuries,” won’t give any final answers to our immigration dilemmas, but it merits attention for its remarkable reach. The three authors, all economic historians, linked the incomes of immigrant fathers and their American-born sons in three generational cohorts—1880, 1910, and 1980—from 20 of the major sending countries. (They didn’t include daughters, whose economic outcomes are trickier to evaluate, given name changes and shifting employment patterns for women.) The sending countries vary dramatically over time. The 1880 group, for example, came mostly from Northern and Western Europe, or more specifically, from Germany, Ireland, and England; the 1910 cohort, meantime, hailed from Southern and Eastern Europe. Finally, the 1980 faction is dominated by exiles from Latin America and Asia. (The authors pass over the period between 1924 and 1965, when immigration was highly restricted.)
For each group, the researchers compared the immigrant pairs with native-born fathers and sons. They found that upward mobility between first- and second-generation immigrants has remained a constant in U.S. history, regardless of the sending country. As the Times put it: “The adult children of poor Mexican and Dominican immigrants in the country legally today achieve about the same relative economic success as children of poor immigrants from Finland or Scotland did a century ago.” In fact, immigrant sons were 3 to 6 percentile points more upwardly mobile than the sons of American fathers.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/lefts-immigration-laws-ultimate-con-game-michael-cutler/
I have written ever so many articles about how globalists have used deceptive language to deceive Americans about the true nature of our immigration laws, beginning with President Carter’s edict, issued during his administration, that INS employees, replace the legally accurate term “Illegal Alien” with the deceptive term, “Undocumented Immigrant.”
I focused on this in my article, Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship. Generally we think of immigration fraud as taking two forms – aliens who engage in fraud schemes, such as those who enter into a sham marriage with an American or lawful immigrant, not out of love, but as a ploy to game the immigration system to acquire a green card.
The other traditional form of immigration fraud involves the manufacture of counterfeit or altered identity documents and/or supporting documents such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses or green cards.
However, there is actually a third form of immigration fraud, by which tens of millions Americans have been conned into believing pernicious lies about about our nation’s borders and immigration laws.
Over time, this highly coordinated fraud perpetrated by the mainstream media and globalists in both political parties, has convinced millions of otherwise sensible Americans to accept and even laud politicians and their corrupt immigration policies and practices that undermine public safety, public health, national security and the jobs and wages of American workers.
https://www.city-journal.org/government-benefits-immigrants
Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced that it would expand the list of government benefits it considers when defining a person as a “public charge.” Under the new terms, an immigrant receiving, say, food stamps, emergency cash assistance, or living in public housing may see those benefits count against him when he seeks to upgrade or extend his visa status or apply for citizenship.
It was long believed that immigrants to the United States should not impose social burdens and should thus secure local sponsors who could guarantee their expenses until they got settled. The Immigration Act of 1891, for example, excluded from entry “insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease,” and other undesirable categories, including felons and polygamists.
Progressive localities have responded furiously to Trump’s directive. New York City and State have joined a lawsuit to prevent the expansion of public-charge criteria, alleging that it reflects animus against nonwhite immigrants. “The ultimate city of immigrants will never stop fighting President Trump’s xenophobic policies,” declared New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. New York attorney general Letitia James called the rule change “a clear violation of our laws and our values” that would make “more children go hungry,” though aid to children was excluded from consideration in the new rule.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/cali-governor-newsom-continues-thwart-immigration-frontpagemagcom/
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who presides over the nation’s leading sanctuary state, decided last week that pardoning three immigrant felons to help shield them from being deported was more important than keeping the citizens of his state secure. One of the recipients of Newsom’s misplaced compassion was 42-year old Arnou Aghamalian from Iran. Aghamalian, a refugee in this country since the age of 15, was convicted at the age of 22 of helping to set fire to a car. The damage he did was most likely not as easily made to disappear as was his criminal record, thanks to Newsom. Then there was Thear Seam from Cambodia, a refugee admitted to the U.S at the age of 4 who managed in his late teens to be convicted of two felonies – second-degree robbery and acting as an accessory after the fact by helping someone evade police arrest. Finally, Newsom pardoned Victor Ayala from El Salvador. Ayala was only 2 years old when he was admitted legally to the U.S. He showed his gratitude by being convicted at the age of 21 for felony robbery after having been previously convicted for misdemeanor theft and hit-and-run. Newsom’s office claimed that the pardons were issued in part to “prevent unjust collateral consequences of conviction.” That’s doubletalk for saying the immigrants’ pardons were issued to remove one ground for their possible deportations – serious criminal records.
“They are now trusted employees, husbands, fathers to young children and sons to aging parents,’’ the governor’s office said in justification for the pardon grants. “Their deportation would be an unjust collateral consequence that would harm their families and communities.” In other words, just make their criminal records disappear and all will be fine for these poor souls, who years ago had “made bad decisions and broke the law” but “served their sentences and turned their lives around.”
https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&
“Vile.” “Repugnant to the American dream.” “Cruel.” “Callous and despicable.” “An abhorrent act of moral terrorism.” These are just a few of the comments that have been uttered in the past few weeks with respect to a policy change recently announced by the federal government. (These comments come, respectively, from Attorney General Xavier Bacerra of California, U.S. District Judge George Daniels, Congresswoman Grace Meng (D-NY), Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-CA), and Families USA.)
I know what you are thinking: What completely sensible thing has the Trump administration done now?
The quoted comments all relate to a so-called “final rule” issued by the Department of Homeland Security in the Federal Register on August 14, scheduled to take effect on October 15, on the subject of “Inadmissibility [for immigration] Based on Public Charge Grounds.”
So what is this new rule, and what about it has caused the progressive left to go completely berserk?
Here’s my take: Since Immigration Act of 1882, the U.S. immigration statutes have in clear terms explicitly instructed that entry be denied to any person deemed “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” Despite the rather explicit language of Congress, the Clinton administration, in “guidance” issued in 1999, found a way to effectively read this provision out of the statute and admit large numbers of immigrants without regard to whether they were likely to become, or even were already, public charges. The Trump administration has now specified a basis on which the statute can and will be enforced as written and intended. Cue the outrage!
Let’s go through this in some more detail. The Immigration Act of 1882 was the very first general immigration statute in the U.S., so the “public charge” basis for exclusion of an applicant for a visa has existed for as long as we have had immigration laws. The relevant language has changed somewhat over the years, as extensive amendments and updates to immigration laws have been enacted; however, as far as I can determine, none of the changes have been material. Here is the current version of the “public charge” provision, as codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(4):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/immigration-enforcement-mexico-cooperating-with-us/
‘No one will come to trample our country, our land!’
One of the reasons border apprehensions have dropped from their alarming peak in May is that Mexico has been pretty aggressive in stopping third-country nationals from traversing its territory on their way north to make bogus asylum claims so they can be released into the U.S.
But why has Mexico been willing to work with us like this? It’s especially curious because in the past, Mexico was not at all eager to help us limit illegal immigration, a pattern we might have expected to intensify with last year’s election as president of left-wing populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (commonly known as AMLO, pronounced as a word rather than initials).
No doubt President Trump’s tariff threats had some effect. Three-quarters of Mexico’s exports go to the U.S., and despite increased integration of our economies over the past couple of decades, they still need us a lot more than we need them. Also, Trump’s mercurial temperament clearly has the Mexicans worried that he could do something rash (similar to Iran’s fears about Reagan if the hostages weren’t released before he was inaugurated).
But it’s unlikely that these things would be enough to move a sometimes touchy nationalist like AMLO. Rather, I think a big part of the explanation is that the current flow of illegals is mainly made up of foreigners, not Mexicans. Earlier waves of mass infiltration across our southern border consisted mainly of Mexicans, and while Mexico quickly took back its people who had been nabbed by the Border Patrol, it did little if anything to reduce the flow. They did establish a police-like unit of the country’s immigration agency called Grupo Beta, which worked on Mexico’s northern border (opposite our southern border), but its remit was to help potential illegals with water and first aid and protect them from criminals.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/senate-voted-end-emergency-border-michael-cutler/
On September 25, 2019 the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch posted a disturbing report, “Senate votes to end border emergency under which Trump redirected military funds to wall construction” that began with the following paragraph:
The Senate again approved a resolution to end President Trump’s national emergency at the southern border, with Republicans joining Democrats in a bid to prevent the president from redirecting military funds toward a border wall, though Trump was expected to veto it again.
The report went on to note that the Republicans control the Senate and ended with this sentence:
The vote was an unusual display of Republican rebellion against the president’s quest for his signature policy initiative, which led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history that ended earlier this year.
The Democrats refused to accept that there was a crisis on the southern border in the first place, and now the Republican-controlled Senate has voted, yet again, to “end the crisis”!
What has not been determined, or reported upon, is how our politicians from either political party have come to the insane conclusion that the emergency on the treacherous southern border has ended.
Certainly the “all clear” has not sounded.
While President Trump has been successful in reducing the number of illegal aliens who are being apprehended by the Border Patrol along the southern border–though a number of tactics including getting Mexico to deploy their forces along the border and with other diplomatic initiatives–tens of thousands of illegal aliens continue to be apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol each month and narcotics continue to be seized along that troubled border.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/nyc-term-illegal-alien-can-cost-you-25000000-michael-cutler/
The September 26, 2019 edition of the Washington Times included an article, NYC bans calling someone an ‘illegal alien’ or threatening to contact ICE that began with the following excerpt:
New York City has made it against the law to call someone an “illegal alien” or threaten them by calling immigration officials on them.
City Hall’s Commission on Human Rights released the new measures this week that could pose up to a $250,000 fine.
The restrictions say the term “alien” — typically used to refer to a noncitizen — is a loaded phrase meant to categorize migrants as “other” and dehumanize them.
Before we consider the attack on the First Amendment that protects our freedoms of expression to guarantee freedom of thought by the increasingly radicalized Democrats of New York City, we must consider how we have come to this point where our political “leaders” and the mainstream media have, in essence, become the “Ministry of Truth” that is found in Orwell’s novel, “1984.” In that novel of a terrifying dystopia future, the Ministry of Truth formulated propaganda and administered the expansion of Newspeak, and was backed up by the Thought Police.
The misuse language to confound understanding, at least where immigration is concerned, can be traced back decades to the administration of Jimmy Carter, who began process of expunging the term “illegal alien” and even the term alien from the official lexicon that pertains to immigration.
The Carter administration coercively mandated that all INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) employees substitute the term “Undocumented Immigrant) for the term “Illegal Alien.” Under his outrageous edict, recalcitrant INS employees who continued use the legally accurate term illegal aliens would face extreme disciplinary punishment for using that proscribed term.
Indeed, the term “Alien” is a legal term that is defined in section, 8 USC §1101 of the Immigration And Nationality Act (INA) as simply being, “Any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”
There is certainly no insult in that term or its definition- only clarity. However, con artists seek to obfuscate the truth in order to swindle their intended victims.
