Displaying posts categorized under

IMMIGRATION

Dems Admit They Need Illegals For Their Votes Leaked memo reveals they are fighting to make the DREAMer nightmare permanent. Matthew Vadum

Democrats at the Left’s premier think tank have finally admitted in a leaked memo that illegal immigration is key to their party’s future electoral success.

Republicans may not be angels but they have never wielded compassion as a cudgel the way Democrats do. But this memo ought to end Democrats’ phony compassion shtick for all time. Power is the only thing that matters to them. They don’t care about America or Americans. They care only about winning. Honest observers have known this for years.

What did Democrats actually do this time to help solidify their image as the party of power over principle?

Specifically, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a sister organization of the Center for American Progress, distributed a brief to allies Monday calling the so-called DREAMers, that is, illegal aliens brought to the country at a young age, a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the Daily Caller reports.

Democrats can’t win elections without cheating. They pushed the 1993 Motor-Voter law to make voter fraud easy to commit and difficult to prosecute. They oppose voter ID laws tooth-and-nail for the same reason. They changed immigration laws a long time ago so they could change the electorate by importing new voters.

That’s why left-wingers invented chain migration in the Sixties. It is a magic carpet that brings terrorists, public charges, and low- and no-skilled workers to the United States. Democrats rigged the game by modifying immigration law. The resultant tsunami of immigrants from authoritarian Third World countries over the past half century helped Democrats grow their political base. It supposedly takes generations for immigrant families to back away from collectivism and big government as solutions to life’s problems and become Republicans. Continued high immigration rates benefit Democrats and the crony capitalists who bankroll them, impoverish the workers already here, and virtually guarantee endless growth in the size and scope of government.

Worker skill levels dropped after the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965 which began the flood of immigrants from countries hostile to the traditional American values of limited government, individualism, and a healthy respect for markets and civil society. When the INA was overhauled, a “national origins” formula calculated to maintain the existing population demographic in the nation as of 1924, was dumped in favor of one based on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with U.S. citizens or residents.

Democrats aren’t stupid.

The Imaginary Hispanic: What the Illegal War is About And why a border wall is a threat to the survival of the Democrats. Daniel Greenfield

There are two statistics that explain the Democrat obsession with illegal immigration and open borders.

97% of immigrants in the appropriate grouping identify themselves as Hispanic, but by the fourth generation that number falls to half. Only 7% of immigrants describe themselves as Americans, but 56% in the third generation call themselves Americans. Even the use of Spanish is slowly declining.

If a minority stops existing after a few generations, did it ever actually exist?

The Democrats had abandoned their working class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration.

In the economics of identity politics, Hispanics, unlike African-Americans, are not an enduring group. And that is a serious challenge for Democrats and their leftist allies who treat politics as a game of demographic Risk played with minorities across the states and cities of the United States.

Democrats have pinned their hopes for a national majority on a European origin group whose minority status is cultural and linguistic. And even without the old melting pot, foreign languages and cultural affinities decline across generations as immigrants become Americans. What Democrats really want aren’t a lot of Hispanics, but an endless firehose of first generation immigrants.

Democrat political affiliation falls with each succeeding generation and Republican affiliation rises. A family that speaks English is less likely to vote Democrat or view themselves as an oppressed minority. Even in California, support for subsidized lawyers for illegal aliens falls from a decisive majority among immigrants to a near tie by the second generation. It’s why Trump improved on Romney’s numbers with Hispanic voters despite defying every politically correct recommendation of the post ‘12 RNC autopsy.

Hispanic immigration becomes less politically helpful with each generation. The Dem majorities grow thinner and less reliable. Hispanic immigration, unlike Islamic migration, produces diminishing political returns for its sponsors. The only solution to the retention problem lies with open borders.

Donald Trump—the Grownup in the Room on Immigration By Roger L Simon

Donald Trump gets called crazy a lot. Or infantile. Or senile. More than a bit of projection may be operative in these allegations, however. Watching Tuesday’s televised discussion of immigration (video here) with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, which the president opened to the media, it was hard not to come to an opposite conclusion.

Donald Trump was the real grownup in the room.

Yes, he made occasional jokes, but that’s what grownups do to relax tense situations. To get politicians from both sides of the aisle talking to each other cordially in the current hyper-partisan atmosphere is no easy feat. But Trump did that. He showed himself to be what many of us have thought him to be from the outset, whatever the attendant melodrama — a pragmatic businessman with moderately conservative views, even, dare I say it, sometimes weirdly wise. Above all, he is a man who likes to make progress, who wants to move things forward to a better day while recognizing that there is no perfect. How adult is that.

And, yes, it’s possible this event was arranged to counteract the bad publicity from Michael Wolff’s bilious, factually challenged book, but so what? Basically, Trump (with the help of the cameras) shamed his fellow and gal politicians into civility and evidently cajoled them into at least a partial solution, later, in closed session, to that most intractable of problems – immigration. If Trump were anything like his detractors say he is, he couldn’t have done either. He even urged them on to a more global solution on immigration, reminding the politicians at the table they were closer to that goal than they realized. If that’s crazy, maybe we need more of it.

But what of this partial solution? By its very nature, ideologues of the left and right will not be satisfied. (Are they ever?) Lefties want to solve DACA first and then, once the “Dreamers” have their “pathway to citizenship,” the left promises to deal with border security and such things as chain migration and the trendily named Diversity Visa Lottery later. Of course, that’s nonsense. They have no intention of doing anything to mitigate the latter two and to the former they will only pay lip service.

Every politician in the room knew that and so, of course, did Trump. He made sure it didn’t happen.

On the right, Anne Coulter and others of her ilk will doubtless be disappointed, to put it mildly, that an impregnable border wall will not immediately be erected across the entire Southern border and all eleven million illegal aliens summarily ejected from our country. They will claim Trump promised this during the campaign, and he did at moments, but if you were listening carefully, you knew where he was ultimately going — he hinted at it and more many times — compromise.

Hungary’s PM: Migrants Aren’t Refugees, but Muslim Invaders By Michael van der Galien

In an interview with German newspaper Bild, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that the “the migrant crisis” is, in effect, “an invasion.”

When asked by Bild why Hungary hasn’t deemed itself able to welcome two thousand refugees while Germany has let in two million of them, Orban answered: “[T]he difference is: you want those migrants. We do not. We do our job by closing the Schengen-border with Serbia. Doing so has cost us one billion euros since 2015 and Brussels pays us nothing for it.”

“The solution to this problem isn’t to divide people who are illegally in the EU among EU member states. We believe that we have to solve the root of the problem instead of bringing these immigrants here [Europe],” the prime minister continued.

“We do not consider these people as Muslim refugees. We consider them as Muslim invaders. To travel to Hungary from Syria they have to cross through four other countries that are, although not as rich as Germany, certainly stable. They don’t flee for their lives. This proves that they are economic migrants seeking a better life,” Orban concluded.

Bild then asked Orban whether this makes those migrants inferior in some way. “If someone wants to come to your home,” the PM answered, “then he knocks on the door and asks: ‘Can we come in, can we stay?’ They did not do that. Instead, they broke through the border illegally. That was not a wave of refugees, that was an invasion.”

He then lashed out at Germany for welcoming these illegals. “I have never understood how in a country like Germany — which we see as the best example of discipline and the rule of law — chaos, anarchy and the illegal crossing of borders can be celebrated,” Orban declared.

Orban then continued to blame Germany’s political leaders (rightfully) for the refugee crisis. “Although the refugee crisis is a European problem,” he explained, “sociologically it is a German problem. When your government addressed the EU refugee quota [the EU wants every country to welcome a specific amount of refugees], why did the Portuguese prime minister cry out: ‘Welcome!’? Because not one single refugee actually wants to go to Portugal. They all want to go to Germany. The reason why these people are in your country isn’t that they’re refugees, but that they want to experience the German way of life.”

Mass Migration: The European Commission’s New “Norm” by Alain Destexhe

The Commission, based in Brussels, is not elected but, according to EU treaties, it has a monopoly — yes, a monopoly — on initiating legislation at the European level. A Commissioner is an appointed bureaucrat, one for each member state — often a former top politician, now sidelined in his country of origin, therefore with very little democratic legitimacy.

First of all, many of the migrants are not qualified; and second, they receive social benefits so there is little or no incentive for them to work. Articles supporting the claims of the officials — that Europe needs more migrants in order to fund the healthcare and pensions of aging Europeans — neglect that this plan can only succeed IF the migrants work. These assumptions, therefore, appear to be based on ideological bias rather than scientific evidence.

The new norms, like the size of apples or the curvature of cucumbers, should, according to the European Commission, be determined by the European Commission. Migration will not be a question open for debate. It will be a “norm” determined by the Commission.

Dimitris Avramopoulos, the European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, recently published a startling opinion, advocating for more immigration as an inescapable reality to which European citizens should just adapt without any further discussion.

The article illustrates much of what is wrong with European institutions, in particular the European Commission, a mixture of bureaucratic arrogance, false creed based on dogma rather than facts, and a disdain for democratic debate. The Commission, based in Brussels, is not elected but, according to EU treaties, it has a monopoly — yes, a monopoly — on initiating legislation at the European level. Each Commissioner is an appointed bureaucrat, one for each member state — often a former top politician, now sidelined in his country of origin, therefore with very little democratic legitimacy.

“It is time to face the truth…. The only way to make our asylum and migration policies future-proof is collectively to change our way of thinking first,” wrote Avramopoulos. Does he think that grass-roots citizens do not think? Like Zeus — another Greek — on Mount Olympus, the truth comes from the upper floor of the Berlaymont building, the official headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels, as a top-down process. Hey, stupid dudes who want to control immigration, just listen the new self-proclaimed God-bureaucrat and shut up because: “we cannot and will never be able to stop migration”. Period.

#18 The Humanitarian Hoax of Sanctuary States: Killing America With Kindness Linda Goudsmit

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years by persuading America to accept his crippling politically correct sanctuary city policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed to destabilize and destroy civil society. His legacy, a Leftist Democrat Party starring sycophant California Governor Jerry Brown, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy the capitalist infrastructure of American democracy and replace it with socialism. This is how it works.

A previous article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Sanctuary Cities: Killing America With Kindness discussed how the Left deliberately perverted the original mission of protecting innocent refugees to the protection of criminal aliens at the expense of public safety. In defiance of United States immigration laws sanctuary cities provide safe haven for criminal illegal aliens and establish a reprehensible two-tier system of justice that protects the illegals.

Why would any American patriot support such an anti-American policy?

The extremely anti-American motive for supporting sanctuary cities was introduced in another previous article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Community Organizing: Killing America With Kindness. This article detailed radical socialists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven’s strategy of using poverty as a weapon of destruction to destroy capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with unsustainable demands that push society into social chaos and economic collapse.

If You Hate America, Why Not Go Back to Your Country? by Majid Rafizadeh

No matter what the Islamists’ current status or situation, they would lash out at the US, the West and Americans. Meanwhile, American taxpayers were providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to them in scholarships, free accommodation, and often even a monthly stipend. By comparison, many American students struggle to pay their own tuition and housing; many graduate with debt.

Some believed that the US was simply supposed to do these favors for them for free of charge. Others argued that this was an opportunity to take advantage of America, and should be done for the sake of furthering Islamic political and religious views.

The US has been funding the lives of these extremists as they endanger our country and the lives of all Americans, and spread hatred towards America, Christianity, Judaism and the West. Is this how American taxpayers want their hard-earned contributions to be used?

When I first arrived in America, I would ask every extremist and fundamentalist Muslim I met: “How has your life been since you came to the United States?”

It was clear that their living standards were much better than back home. I knew well the lands they had come from, their economic standards and restrictions, their lifestyle, the social, and the religious, economic and political landscapes of the region.

They were surely about to say how much their lives had improved, and how grateful they were to be in a new, less restricted environment. Instead, they expressed anger and even hatred of their new country and its culture. What they could not put into words, was clearly written across their faces: revulsion and disgust.

It seemed they were comfortable disclosing their true feelings in Farsi or Arabic about the US, Americans, the West, Christians, and Jews. As we had all come from, grown up in, and worked in the same region, many of them mistakenly assumed that we both shared the same hate-filled views. Once they discovered that was not the situation, some even tried to reshape my views: as I was new to the country, I probably did not yet understand.

Everything in this country, they patiently explained, was kufr: blasphemy, filthy, infidel. They went on harshly to criticize American culture and the Western lifestyle. Their list of complaints was unending: how men and women dress, how people interact, how people work and celebrate life, go to parties, date, marry, dance, drink — there did not seem one aspect of American life that did not enrage them.

Illegal Immigration And Crime The stunning numbers the Left cannot refute. Michael Cutler

On December 21, 2017 the Department of Justice issued a press release, “Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Data on Incarcerated Aliens—94 Percent of All Confirmed Aliens in DOJ Custody Are Unlawfully Present.”

The initial statistic cited in the title of that DOJ press release shows that there is a truly significant distinction to be drawn between aliens who are lawfully present in the United States and aliens who are illegally present in the United States, either because they have entered the United States illegally or they have violated the terms of admission after entering the United States via the inspections procedure at ports of entry.

The press release begins with the following statement:

President Trump’s Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on data collection efforts. On Dec. 18, 2017, DOJ and DHS released the FY 2017 4th Quarter Alien Incarceration Report, complying with this order. The report found that more than one-in-five of all persons in Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94 percent of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present.

Although immigration anarchists have consistently manipulated language, engaged in tactics of bullying and intimidation and, when all else failed, flat-out lied about every aspect of immigration, the Trump administration is providing the truth.

The DOJ press release, upon which my commentary today is based, lays out the cold, hard and unequivocal facts. It is significant to note that the title of the press release included the phrase, “confirmed aliens in DOJ custody” because all too frequently aliens who face deportation make false claims to United States citizenship to avoid being deported. Therefore there may even be more deportable aliens in federal custody, while the actual number of such aliens in local and state custody are unknown and unknowable particularly in Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States.

Mass Migration: Uninvited Guests by Philip Carl Salzman

Refugees and immigrants bring their own cultures, their own assumptions, beliefs, values, fears and hopes from their homelands. One cannot just assume that they wish to integrate or assimilate into the Western culture. Willingness to assimilate might well vary from individual to individual, and from culture to culture.

A society can only function smoothly if there is a large degree of agreement and commonality regarding to what language people shall speak, what rules they should follow in dealing with one another, and how government is to be established. Where is it written that all cultures are necessarily compatible with one another?

The success of immigrants in North America is a result of immigrants assimilating to Western culture and society, not due to immigrants clinging to the laws and practices of the lands they have left behind. We welcome them to become Americans and Canadians; we welcome to them to the West.

In our desire to insure an inclusive, humane, and tolerant society, we seem to have constructed a simplistic and inadequate picture of refugees and illegal immigrants.

Perhaps the majority of Americans and Canadians do not approach the question of refugees and immigrants with an open mind, but with a set of “progressive” assumptions:

The idea that all cultures are equally good and equally valuable, sometimes known as “cultural relativism.” When faced with an uninvited influx of outsiders, we do not worry about what culture the incomers are bringing, because, whatever it is, it supposedly must be fine.

That multiculturalism, the coexistence of a variety of cultures, is desirable. The more cultures in a multicultural society, the more cultural diversity, the better.

That in our society, and in the world generally, each person falls into the category of either oppressor or oppressed. our simple classification of oppressor and oppressed can generally class refugee claimants and illegal migrants as oppressed, because they are leaving a place of conflict or poverty or despotism, are people of colour, are Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or from a smaller, non-Christian group, or are homosexual. We therefore define refugee claimants and illegal refugees as oppressed, as victims, desperate, and in need. We view them through a humanitarian lens, with generosity and sympathy.

If we open our hearts to the oppressed, we must view the oppressors with disdain. Who are the oppressors? We are quite certain that women are oppressed by men, that homosexuals are oppressed by heterosexuals, that people of colour are oppressed by whites, that the poor are oppressed by the well off, and that Muslims are oppressed by Christians and Jews.

Peter Smith The Boat People of Bethlehem

Ah, Christmas, when the air rings with sleigh bells and carols, the laughter of families gathered and the happy squeals of small children destroying their new toys. Oh, and from the left side of the Yuletide table, more nonsense about the Holy Family being the original refugees.

You may have noticed the recent propaganda in support of the West absorbing unlimited numbers of Muslim refugees. It starts with the Bible and with Matthew 2:13-23 were it is told that Joseph, Mary and their children escaped to Egypt from Bethlehem in Judaea for fear of King Herod. Only when the King was dead did they return to Israel; settling in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, because they remained wary of Herod’s son who ruled in Judaea.

Thus, so the story goes, Jesus was for a time a time a refugee in Egypt. A tenuous and tendentious leap of logic follows: if Jesus was indeed a refugee how can anyone in good conscience not welcome all refugees with open arms and generous hearts.

As an example, here is Martin O’Malley – the ex-governor of Maryland and short-lived competitor with Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president – talking with Fox News front man Tucker Carlson. “Remember Jesus too was a refugee child. What would you do if he came to your border?”

I liked Carlson’s reply: “That’s so stupid, it’s hard to respond.”

It’s monumentally stupid. Or, alternatively, is it part of a duplicitous plan to undo our civilisation and culture? Christianity being used to destroy Christendom. The devil quoting scripture for his purpose. But that can’t be right when the Archbishop of Canterbury is on board. Can it?

Here is an extract from Justin Welby’s Christmas sermon preached at Canterbury Cathedral on December 25.

Yet after the moments of miracles life goes on almost as before – the shepherds return to their sheep, Joseph settles back as a carpenter, Mary raises children. They flee as refugees, like over 60 million people today.

Get the point? Joseph, Mary and Jesus are just like tens of millions of Mussulmen from, say, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, or Somalia. The fact that the latter follow a poisonous creed which denies the divinity of Christ; who follow a false prophet as prophesised by Christ; and who have allegiance to a god who instructs them to disdain and kill infidels, is all by the way to the Archbishop apparently.

But let’s be practical as well as spiritual. Germans, Belgians, Swedes, Italians, the French, the British, Americans and Australians, and other Westerners, face heavy costs of providing accommodation, health, welfare, education and policing in trying to absorb millions of refugees. And that is the least of it. Their very culture and values are at stake. Their safety is at stake through additional crime and, of course, through Islamic terrorism.

In Cologne, for example, separate train carriages have been set aside for women and young children. Nothing of course to do with asylum-seekers assaulting women. God forbid the authorities would ever concede that. And, yes, don’t you know, Melbourne pedestrians allegedly were mowed down by a drug-addled madman who just happened, coincidently, to be an Afghan refugee expressing grievance at the world-wide treatment of Muslims. Obviously, we are being taken for saps by the powers that be and by Christian church leaders