The Border Wall: Why Dems Say “No!”

I have struggled with this for some time. I remember when many well known Democrats verbally excoriated the fact that illegals were entering the U.S. through our southern border:

Bill Clinton

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

President Obama

But even with leading Democrats on record blasting what seems to have evolved into an “open border” policy during Barack Obama’s Administration, Democrats (and some Republicans) still refuse to demand adherence to American immigration laws. Who can forget the embarrassing surprise video from the Oval Office in which Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  were shocked President Trump invited the media to look-in live at the meeting that was to somehow resolve the differences and get resolution on funding for the border wall? Pelosi and Schumer were ill-prepared for what happened: they were exposed for their hypocrisy regarding the funding of the border wall. Both Pelosi and Schumer had previously supported such a measure to stem the flow of illegals.

But even in the wake of such an embarrassing exposure of their hypocrisy, still, there is NO consensus from Democrats to support what almost all of them previously supported: funding as necessary for a wall, fencing, and other security measures to stop mass illegal migration into the United States. Why is that?

Today we are going to dispel any questions you may have had for the hesitance of any and all from the Left to support a southern border wall.

The Rest of the Story

What could really be going on? What was it that happened to not only alter the opinions of those Dems shown and heard above but to alter their opinions by 180 degrees! Something or some-things dramatically turned them around. What could it be?

Could it be that Democrats in leadership in Congress found they really had hearts — that they cared so deeply for the plights of Central American and Mexican people that they threw their previous political and personal opinions on illegalities of criminals entering the U.S. at the southern border?

Could it be that the Democrat base that cared not for the criminality of those entering the U.S. illegally primarily for work decided it was smart to not only allow but to encourage illegal migrants to sneak into the country to take blue collar jobs away from those Americans who worked in the agriculture, food and beverage, and construction sectors?

Or could there be some other reason or reasons?

I choose the latter.

What could their reasoning be?

Votes

Every educated American voter realizes that political might means control. And that control comes from party support: primarily Republican and Democrat. What does that look like?

Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. Among the party registration states are some of the nation’s most populous: California, New York, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts.

The basic facts: In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million.

Still, Republican Donald Trump found a route to victory in 2016 that went through the party registration states. He scored a near sweep of those where there were more Republicans than Democrats, winning 11 of the 12, while also taking six of the 19 states where there were more Democrats than Republicans — a group that included the pivotal battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

At this point, it might be wise to pause and ask the question: Why do these numbers matter, either individually or in the aggregate?

Certainly, there are facts that argue that they should be taken with a grain or two of salt. Most party registration states are found in more Democratic terrain: the Northeast (11 states plus the District of Columbia) and the West (10 states), followed by the South (six states) and the Midwest (four states), all of the latter rural states west of the Mississippi River.

To be sure, there are a number of major states that do not register voters by parties, such as Texas, Georgia, Washington, and the keystones of the industrial Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If they did register by party, Texas, Georgia, and Indiana would almost certainly add to the Republican total; the industrial states probably less so.

And there is some sentiment that a voter’s party identification may mean less than it once did, as the number of individuals who register as “Independent” (or “No Party Preference,” “Unaffiliated,” or whatever other voter label the individual states prefer) steadily grows. At the beginning of this century, barely 20% of all voters in party registration states were independents. Nowadays, that total is approaching 30%.

Altogether, there are 10 states with more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans. These states are mainly in the Northeast, with a cluster also in the West. By comparison, there are Democratic pluralities of registered voters in 13 states plus the District of Columbia and eight other states with Republicans ahead of both Democrats and independents. In addition, there are six states where there is an independent plurality but Democrats outnumber Republicans, and four states where independents are on top of the registration totals but Republicans outnumber Democrats. That produces the 19 to 12 state registration advantage for the Democrats mentioned earlier.

With the growth in independents, many voters seem to be saying to the two major parties: “a pox on both your houses.”

Yet it also can be argued that registering Democratic or Republican is far more of a statement than it once was. In the current age of sharp-edged partisanship, there is far more than a “dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties, so registering as a Democrat or Republican is a very intentional act of differentiation.

And that makes the party registration figures worth looking at. A comparison of party registration totals on the eve of the 2016 presidential election with the actual voting in November shows a noticeable correlation between party registration and the state by state election outcomes. Twenty-four of the 31 party registration states were won by the nominee whose party had more registered voters (discounting independents for this particular comparison). That is a 77% correlation rate between party registration advantage and a winning electoral outcome. The percentage goes up to 88% if one removes the South, the one area of the country where party registration is a lagging indicator of the fortunes of the two major parties.

You can obviously see the decline in both Democrat (blue) and Republican (red) registrations with the corresponding increase (green) of Independents.

So?

These facts prove something that has become more and more important: policies, over experience with parties, and adherence to campaign promises.

And each of the above — election by election, state by state, and party by party — show voters are now more than ever abandoning their voting habits proven again and again through generations of American voters and are now more than ever voting based on principles.

Of the 31 party registration states, 24 were carried in the 2016 presidential election by the party with the most registered voters in it. Donald Trump swept 11 of the 12 states with a Republican registration advantage, while Hillary Clinton won 13 of the 19 states (plus the District of Columbia) which had more registered Democrats than Republicans. Four of the Democratic registration states that Trump took were in the South, led by Florida and North Carolina. He also overcame Democratic registration advantages in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to win both. The only state with more registered Republicans than Democrats that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 was New Hampshire, where the outcome was very close.

Putting it bluntly: more Democrats abandoned their candidate in the 2016 Presidential race than did Republicans their candidate. Why would voters do that? “Facts and Believability.” Obviously, more voters (based on state by state totals — therefore electoral votes) believed Donald Trump than did Hillary Clinton — enough to tilt the electoral college to the G.O.P.

Tie it Up

We still need to answer the question: Why did Democrats in leadership change their policies on illegal migration?

The answer is simple: political posturing.

Whether justified or not, Democrat Party leadership have weighed all the data listed above, the temperament of their party members, and their tremendous losses over the past decade in Congressional seats, governorships, and state house seats. Adding those to the mass migration AWAY from the Democrat Party by way of movements like “#Walkaway” as documented on Facebook, Democrats have seen the handwriting on the wall. Their conclusion: “The Democrat Party is doomed without a tremendous and immediate influx of new party-line voters.” Their answer: Illegal migrant voter registration.

But if they are not citizens, they cannot vote, right? For federal elections, that is a fact. But who reading this story or listening to this podcast does not believe there were illegals that voted in the 2018 midterms? States like California who have registered illegals to vote in local and state elections operated their 2018 elections just as they have for decades: one voting poll, one set of voting machines, one onsite registration process, and voting for local, state, and federal offices happening simultaneously.

Call me a doubter, but a process structured like that certainly was the perfect spot to “bend the rules.” And we all know most Californians want ALL inhabitants of the state to vote in every election.

No, illegals cannot “legally” vote in federal elections today. But getting them here in some legal fashion is a start — for Democrats. No, it is not certain that illegal migrants would vote Democrat in every instance. But Democrat Party leaders have shown for decades that by “teaching” minorities that they owe the Democrat Party their allegiance AND their votes is a virtual certainty. How do we know that? Take a look at the African American vote.

Democrats have convinced millions of black voters through decades that the Democrat Party is THE party in total support of all things important to the African American community. More importantly, Dems has convinced blacks that Republicans are — on the most part — racists that look at African Americans as unworthy of equal treatment in the U.S. Obviously, facts, in this case, do not matter. Facts show that:

  • Democrats did not fight the Civil War to free slaves. Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party took that action;
  • Democrats did not pass the Amendment to give Blacks the right to vote, Republicans did;
  • Democrats did not pass legislation to allow Blacks to serve in American Armed Forces, Republican Dwight Eisenhower did;
  • Democrats did not take action to integrate public schools, Republicans did.

Summary

Here’s the “Skinny:” The Democrat Party has NO party platform, has NO fundamental principles on which to stand, and NO policies that belong to them exclusively that were used in the 2018 midterm elections, and NONE for the 2020 election. They have NO way to attract new party members.

Their only plan: get a disenfranchised group of migrants into the U.S. that Dems will certainly be able to convince they are obligated to the Democrat Party, which means those migrants will certainly vote for Democrats.

Do I know that for a fact? Facts listed above and the 180-degree departure from their age-old insistence on the perpetuation of the Rule of Law regarding immigration pretty much make that assumption a factual one.

But if you don’t agree, please tell me why they have abandoned the only government fundamental that separates the United States from every other country on Earth.

I’m waiting…….

 

 

Play

“Birthright Citizenship” and the 14th Amendment

Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that he is opposed to so-called “Birthright Citizenship” for the offspring of illegal aliens born in the United States has set off hysterical cries of outrage and protest. This from the President confirms again that much of his appeal lies in the fact that he is willing to address taboo subjects in a way that the public—tired of candidates and elected officials who are bound by rigid protocols of political correctness—finds refreshing. The topic of “Birthright Citizenship” is a perfect example.

Remember when he first brought this up during his 2016 presidential campaign? Within hours of his mentioning it in the shadow of the “Caravan” in Mexico headed for the U.S., there has been more discussion (fueled by considerable popular interest) of this poorly-understood aspect of immigration policy than ever before. Whether or not one agrees with Trump’s immigration policies, one has to concede that he is advancing a national conversation on a critically important issue.

The issue is whether children born in the United States—even if their parents are foreign nationals who entered this country illegally—automatically become citizens. Current law supposes that they do—a concept termed “Birthright Citizenship.” Many people (in error) think this concept originated from the Constitution and have been confirmed in a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Not so.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment—the Citizenship Clause—states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The 14th Amendment

The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be remembered that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to repair the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations).  The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”   Foreign nationals in the United States and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.

Yes, the language of the Citizenship Clause is slightly different than that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no real evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning.  In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The record of the debate in 1866 is important and should definitely be recounted and considered in this pending issue for which President Trump is planning on issuing an executive order to end.

14th Amendment History

When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What did he mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.”  Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and therefore its “jurisdiction”), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:

I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This communication from Senator Howard supports very strongly the conclusion that the Citizenship Clause was intended to mean the same as the Civil Rights Act of 1866—excluding children born in the United States to foreign nationals (that is, to resident aliens).

Hinging the entire debates over the Citizenship Clause in the 39th Congress admittedly presents some occasional inconsistencies and questions, leading reasonable people—on both the Left and Right—to disagree about the meaning of the Citizenship Clause. Conservatives scholars such as John Eastman, Lino Graglia, Edward Erler, and even former Attorney General Edwin Meese, have written in opposition to Birthright Citizenship. However, it is important to note that this point of view is shared by liberal scholars such as Yale Law School Professor Peter Schuck, who coauthored a book with University of Pennsylvania political scientist Rogers Smith, entitled Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985) making the same argument now critical in this new “Trump debate.” Federal Judge Richard Posner has called the current practice of Birthright Citizenship “an anomaly” that Congress “should rethink” because it “makes no sense.” Judge Posner went on to state (in a published decision, Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F. 3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003)) that “We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.” Posner volunteered that he “doubt[ed]” whether a constitutional amendment was necessary to change the current practice of birthright citizenship.

There are other respected commentators who take a contrary position. But a considerable body of scholarship supports the view that the Citizenship Clause does not compel Birthright Citizenship, and that the current practice could be corrected by legislation, pursuant to Congress’ power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Contrary to the claims of some (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal), amending the 14th Amendment is not required. In fact, such legislation has been introduced in the past—for example,  S.1351 (1993), H.R.1567 (2003), H.R.140 (2015)—and supported by Republicans and Democrats. That includes former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who stated in 1993 that “no sane country” would grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants solely because they were born on American soil. In Oforji, Judge Posner stated that “I hope [H.R.1567] passes.”

Is There a SCOTUS Opinion?

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of Birthright Citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The case most often used to make a case for it — United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) —involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is only mentioned in a footnote!

Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose Birthright Citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll.

Summary

Whether or not you approve of Donald Trump’s policies, methods of communication, divisiveness, arrogance, or just don’t like his hair, he has brought a very serious issue to the forefront. Birthright Citizenship applies to somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 births a year in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers. Those infants are currently considered American citizens.

It is uncertain how many of those illegals actually come to the U.S. expressly to birth babies here to secure their citizenship. But it is beyond contention that most do so.

Those who cry that Americans who are against Birthright Citizenship are uncaring, ungiving, unkind, and selfish need to understand that those who feel that way are on the most part strict adherents to the rule of law. Those Americans trust the U.S. Constitution as written and amended and expect the federal government to — with the power that lies within every branch and agency — to uphold the laws of the U.S.

Once again, this travesty that is entrenched in misunderstood writings and assumptions derived from legal scholars could be done away with by the U.S. Congress simply doing their job: fix existing laws by changing those laws or simply passing new ones to replace those.

One should ask here: why has not Congress already corrected this issue? Do members of Congress in the Majority have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the continuance of Birthright Citizenship, ignoring the spirit of the U.S. Constitution?

Conspiracy theorists lay the blame for such at the feet of a class of political elitists who see doing so as a way to build and/or increase a governing majority who draw their political power from adding citizens in any way possible who hold an obligation to those who make such citizenship possible. Conspiracy theorists or not, the best way — and the only RIGHT way — to alleviate the question and inequities of Birthright Citizenship is for Congress to pass legislation.

And in the meantime, look for an executive order doing so from President Trump. Then look for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to quickly attract cases from Leftist immigration attorneys to stop presidential intervention.

Oh…without Congressional action on this, it will be ultimately determined by the Supreme Court. There are now FIVE Constitutional “originalists” on the bench. Reckon how they will vote on this?

 

Play

Gumballs

Today’s story doesn’t work as a podcast: it’s totally visual. Watch this video and when finished we’ll talk.

Perspective

Perspective of any situation can drastically change the way people view that situation. The current American “debacle of the decade” is immigration. The Left has even narrowed that debacle to no longer be just immigration, but now it’s ILLEGAL immigration, too.

Here’s what the Left’s perspective of illegal immigration is:

  • Americans must be sensitive, caring, and charitable to anyone coming from any country, no matter the details of who they are, what their backgrounds are, or what their abilities are;
  • Americans owe all citizens of every other country on Earth free entry into the United States based solely on one thing and thing only: IF they want to come;
  • Any American who wants actual borders, border security, vetting immigrants — both legal and illegal — a border wall, and a legitimate legal immigration process that is mandatory for any immigrant to become a naturalized American citizen is a racist, Islamophobe, xenophobe, and is un-American;
  • Americans are obligated to — through confiscatory tax policies — underwrite the lives of any/all illegal immigrants. That includes free housing, free education, free healthcare, free transportation, free clothing and food;
  • Americans must agree to allow ALL people who reside inside U.S. borders to freely vote in local, state, and federal elections regardless of legal or illegal status or U.S. citizenship status;
  • Illegal immigrants have all the same rights as any and all American citizens.

Laws

American laws do not matter when it comes to all things dealing with immigration. It does not matter when, where, or how illegals arrive in the U.S. Their doing so — which obviously breaks multiple federal laws — is to be overlooked by law enforcement officials, members of local, state, and federal governments, and all Americans. It seems to many that liberal Americans — Democrats and other liberals — believe the “rule of law” in America is outdated, unfair, and no longer necessary and that it is OK to simply ignore.

Of course, those same Americans want to selectively decide which laws apply to whom and when, in total disregard of the lawmaking process.

Nowhere else is this more obvious than in the immigration process. It is amazing to the majority of Americans to watch as even members of government wink at illegal immigration and all the endangerment allowing it to continue causes Americans on a local level. Laws are meaningless.

In the “gumball” video, we see exactly how feeling obligated to and then trying to “fix” immigration World problems by opening U.S. borders to all can in no way can even touch the problems of billions of world citizens. No country on Earth has the ability or the resources to effectively impact the problems of most of Earth’s population.

Does believing that make Americans evil? Is it evil for Americans to refuse to accept the “no-border concept” as one we should adopt? Are Americans who insist on legal immigration and demand the federal government close our borders and stop ALL illegal immigration racist?

There are millions of political elites in the U.S. that categorically believe allowing only legal immigration is wrong, and that doing so is America shirking its responsibilities to “give” the U.S. to any and all who ask for it.

But how can anyone believe that and still believe in America? The entirety of the American concept and ideal is based on “liberty and justice for all,” the “rule of law,” and the U.S. Constitution as a roadmap for the establishment and maintenance of a system of laws that treat ALL people fairly and equally. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the laws and provisions in the U.S. Constitution that detail Americans rights apply equally to everyone — even those who are NOT Americans.

Summary

There are no easy immigration answers. But there ARE American legal, Constitutional, and lawful answers for “illegal” immigration.

Who is responsible for the regulation of immigration?

Regulation of anything cannot happen without rules (or regulations) that are devised, implemented, and supervised by someone. In the U.S., there’s not just one person or one group that is responsible for this process. It takes the entirety of government.

Congress write and implement laws. The Executive Branch implements and operates laws. In the event of legal disputes, the Judicial System oversees the legalities of laws and the implementation of any Congressional penalties for violation of laws. That process includes courts, judges, a penal system, and the operation of every piece of the legal process.

That is simple enough. Why can’t many in the U.S. simply accept and abide by the process? THAT is simple: it’s a consuming quest for power and all that it takes to acquire and maintain as much power and might as possible.

That caravan in Mexico heading to the southern border of the U.S. is NOT an immigration problem. It is a “symptom” of the immigration problem. And those symptoms will not stop, but will only increase in number and severity unless and until those responsible for making the legal immigration process responsible for ALL immigration stop picking and choosing which immigration laws to enforce and which to simply wink at and turn a back to.

Who are the victims of this immigration mess we are watching in the U.S.? Honestly, EVERYONE directly and indirectly touched by illegal immigrants — and those illegal immigrants themselves — are victims of this process.

Think about this: if ALL immigration into the U.S. was allowed to happen ONLY LEGALLY, how would the landscape of immigration in the U.S. look? Far different than today.

  • There would be NO immigration detention centers;
  • There would be an insignificant number of border patrol agents;
  • No Americans would be injured or killed by illegals because none would be in the U.S. Kate Steinle and many other Americans would still be alive;
  • No illegals would be taken advantage of by employers who cheat with pay and lack of benefits by hiring illegals;
  • The American medical system would not be abused by uninsured illegals;
  • Local school systems would not be forced to underwrite education for illegals;
  • Local, state, and federal law enforcement resources would no longer be dominated by concentration on illegal immigration matters.

You watched the gumball video — you know the U.S. CANNOT subsidize the World and fix the economic conditions of the billions of Earth’s population who are mired in poverty by bringing them to the U.S. It is foolish for any to believe doing so is an obligation of Americans, is feasible, and remotely sustainable.

It’s time for Americans to accept this one fact: we can help many in the World who have far worse life circumstances than we do. But we cannot do so for very many more than the 1 million per year we have been allowing to come to the U.S. legally.

If we continue to allow it to happen, we will eventually find ourselves by sliding into economic devastation ourselves by simply exhausting our resources on others without first making certain we take care of the United States and its citizens.

The book is out on whether Americans will bow up and let that reality rule the day.

What Do We Do?

There are a reported 5000-10,000 Central American people just north of the Guatemala-Mexico border in a caravan headed toward the U.S. southern border. Their intention is to storm the U.S. border to gain entry into the United States. Think about that: a large group of foreigners is planning to en masse enter the U.S. illegally in hopes to obtain permanent residence. (See the Summary below for final comments about the “immigration caravan)

If you put that fact in the context of the first 150-years of United States history, it certainly would be viewed as an unbelievable paradox: “an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises.” Just imagine how American leaders during the first century of this nation would have treated this move from the South: they would certainly have viewed it as an attempt to invade our sovereign nation, and therefore would have taken defensive actions to counter it — even military actions.

In the circumstances currently controlling the U.S., what are the American options?

  • Close the southern border;
  • Pressure Mexico and Central American countries to stop immigrants before they get to the U.S. border;
  • Legislatively (in Congressional emergency session) fix the immigration system.

What are the ramifications and possibilities of each? What Do We Do?

The Past: Americans Facing Illegal Immigration

  • Senator Bernie Sanders in 2015: “When you have 36 percent of Hispanic kids in this country who can’t find jobs, and you bring a lot of unskilled workers into this country, what do you think happens to that 36 percent of kids who are today unemployed? Fifty-one percent of African-American kids? I don’t think there’s any presidential candidate, none, who thinks we should open up the borders,” said Sanders.
  • Senator Chuck Schumer when asked his stance on changes in immigration: “I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world’s best and brightest to America, and keeping them here; requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation.]” Source: League of Women Voters 2010 Candidate Questionnaire , Aug 11, 2010.
  • Senator Schumer’s 2010 stance on Sanctuary Cities and regulation of Immigration: “To create a reserve fund to ensure that Federal assistance does not go to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens.

            Dick Durbin
  • The border wall opinions of Dems including then-Senator Obama:  As a senator, Barack Obama once offered measured praise for the border control legislation that would become the basis for one of Donald Trump’s first acts as president. “The bill before us will certainly do some good,” Obama said on the Senate floor in October 2006. He praised the legislation, saying it would provide “better fences and better security along our borders” and would “help stem some of the tides of illegal immigration in this country.” Obama was talking about the Secure Fence Act of 2006, legislation authorizing a barrier along the southern border passed into law with the support of 26 Democratic senators including party leaders like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer.
  • Senator Dick Durbin, who says President Trump’s use of the term “chain migration,” is offensive and racist to black Americans, said something entirely different PREVIOUSLY about Chain Migration. In 2010, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) advocated on the Senate floor for ending the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S., a term that he now claims insinuates racism. While asking Congress to pass the expansive and failed “DREAM Act” amnesty, which would start by legalizing millions of illegal aliens, Durbin touted the fact that the legislation at the time would have ended chain migration, preventing newly amnestied illegal aliens from bringing their extended family members to the U.S. “The DREAM Act would not allow what is known as chain migration,” Durbin said. “In fact, DREAM Act students would have very limited ability to sponsor their family members for legal status.”

When one reads the above bullet points from America’s recent political past regarding illegal immigration, it is impossible to believe this entire story is NOT setup strictly for political purposes. At this point, it is fruitless to point fingers to place blame on who is responsible for the obvious travesties that have been perpetrated in the American immigration system. What we need are some REAL answers, REAL plans, and REAL implementation with REAL accountability. It IS safe (and accurate) to say that illegal immigration laws and their lack of enforcement can be put at the feet of Presidents Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan. These presidents during the collective 28 years of their presidencies each claimed an intense desire and commitment to tackle illegal immigration during their administrations — NONE DID SO. They each were against illegal immigration during campaigns for initial election but did nothing to stop it during their administrations.

Who is going to do that?

The answer to that question is simpler than you may think: the only ones that CAN do anything about it are those in the United States Congress — unless you toss the Justice Department into that basket with Congress. You see, there are plenty of immigration laws on the books that previous congresses have passed and were signed into law. The exclusive problem at our southern border is a product not of just laws, but the enforcement of existing laws. The Justice Department is woefully inadequate in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

The hands of border patrol agents are tied; ICE agents are prohibited from taking all actions necessary to seal the southern border and bring offenders to justice for illegal entry; illegals have learned (primarily from smugglers) that U.S. border immigration courts are covered up with cases and that those courts cannot possibly process all illegal crossing perpetrators, which means those waiting for court dates are allowed into general population in the U.S. and are seldom prosecuted later. Congress refuses to provide the necessary funding to even make a dent in the illegal immigration problem that initiates at our border with Mexico. There are not nearly enough Border Patrol agents, ICE agents, immigration courts and immigration judges, holding and detention centers for illegals while they are processed, and the “big one:” funds to build the border wall.

Congress can do all of the above. And this President has given Congress the framework for an immigration bill that would do ALL of the above. But apparently, there are not enough members of Congress — Republican and Democrat — who have the political will to support President Trump in doing what he promised voters during his campaign and that American citizens largely support: stop illegal immigration by first closing our southern border. A BORDER WALL!

The Border Wall

Globalization was supposed to tear down barriers, but security fears and a widespread refusal to help migrants and refugees have fuelled a new spate of wall-building across the world, with a third of the world’s countries constructing them along their borders. When the Berlin Wall was torn down a quarter-century ago, there were 16 border fences around the world. Today, there are 65 either completed or under construction, according to Quebec University expert Elisabeth Vallet.

From Israel’s separation barrier (or ‘apartheid wall’ as it is known by the Palestinians), to the 2,500-mile barbed-wire fence India is building around Bangladesh, to the enormous sand ‘berm’ that separates Morocco from rebel-held parts of Western Sahara – walls and fences are ever-more popular with politicians wanting to look tough on migration and security.

In July, Hungary’s right-wing government began building a four-meter-high (13 feet) fence along its border with Serbia to stanch the flow of refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. ‘We have only recently taken down walls in Europe; we should not be putting them up,’ was one EU spokesperson’s exasperated response.

Three other countries – Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey – are all constructing border fences in a bid to keep out jihadist groups next door in Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. Seven miles of the barrier have already been erected along the border at Reyhanli town in Hatay province – the main point for smuggling and border-crossing from Syria – the private Dogan news agency said. The fence in Turkey will eventually stretch for 28 miles along a key stretch of its border with Syria. But the Turkish wall pales into insignificance when compared to the multi-layered fence which will one day stretch 600 miles from Jordan to Kuwait along Saudi’s border with Iraq – a line of defense against ISIS.

There is no doubt that border walls do not absolutely stop those who live on one side wanting to get to the other side. And somehow some will always be successful. But when one objective considers that 65 countries either have or are building walls on their borders to stop illegal entry into their countries, there are obvious reasons and benefits for governments and their citizens to spend the huge national resources necessary for doing so.

No doubt the U.S. border with Mexico presents tremendous security challenges, and that a traditional brick-and-mortar wall does not make sense for part of that border. But a significant portion of it (according to experts) could be closed with a traditional wall. And that in combination with electronic surveillance and aviation security measures that are available, the U.S. could basically shut down the border and begin to improve our existing legal immigration process to better serve legal immigrants AND the American citizens already here.

Don’t Americans deserve that from our government? Is it unfair or callous for Americans to expect our government to enforce American laws? And if those laws are outdated, unjust, unfair and need to be changed, is it unfair for Americans to expect Congress to amend existing laws or implement new more appropriate immigration laws and the President to sign those new or amended statutes into law? Isn’t that what politicians ALL say when campaigning: “The most important role of a member of Congress is to first keep Americans safe?”

March 3, 2017

On this day, the TruthNewsNetwork (TNN) offered a realistic and workable framework for a plan to fix our illegal immigration process. The offered plan is a skeleton that would need a lot of “tweaks” and adjustments applicable to each impacted state, but it would be a tremendous starting point. I thought it beneficial to reprint just the bullet-point framework today:

  • Illegal Immigrants are granted a 12-month window to “get legal.” That “get legal” means this: they voluntarily register themselves and any family members with U.S. Immigration or Homeland Security.  This registration is simply the demographic and identity details for application into this “get legal” program.  Upon registration, they will then begin a formal “revised” 5-year application for U.S. citizenship.  This process includes the current requirements for citizenship plus a penalty payment of $2500 per illegal family member to be paid during this 5 year period along with normal income taxes due to federal, state, and local municipalities as applicable.  To be accepted into this program, they must provide proof of employment sufficient to support all those who are part of each application.
  • Upon completion of this process, each is eligible for U.S. citizenship on the same basis as those who have entered the U.S. legally who go through the normal immigration process.  If any registrants do not complete the process including payment of the penalty payment, they will immediately be processed for deportation and will not be eligible for re-entry into the U.S.
  • “Dreamers” (who are those who were brought here illegally by their parents) will be given a similar opportunity:  they will receive a 12-month window to “get legal.”  They will go through the same 5-year application process for U.S. citizenship but will not be obligated for payment of a penalty.  Upon completion of this process, each is eligible for U.S. citizenship on the same basis as those illegals above and also those who have taken the path of legal immigration.  If any Dreamers do not complete the process they will immediately be processed for deportation and will not be eligible for re-entry into the U.S.
  • Any illegals that fail to register in this immigration process during the 12-month period will be as they are identified processed for deportation immediately and will not be eligible for re-entry into the U.S.
  • Any illegals that do NOT complete the 5-year application process will be immediately processed for deportation and will not be eligible for re-entry into the U.S.
  • This process applies to ALL illegals, including men, women, and children.
  • After the initiation of this program, any U.S. employer who employs any illegals who do not have proof of entry into the 5-year application process will be assessed a $25,000 fine per illegal in their employment.  A second offense of such carries a $50,000 fine per illegal. Third offense and any subsequent offense carries a $100,000 fine per illegal and termination of their Federal Tax ID Number, which is required for businesses to operate legally in the U.S.
  • This system will be costly. But after a burdensome startup, revenue generated from legalizing these immigrants, getting them into the system in which they pay taxes, work and create legitimate income that goes into the U.S. economy, financial benefits will more than take care of the startup expense.
  • While U.S. Immigration will be charged with overall supervision of the program, this will be implemented and managed at the state level.  Funds for doing so will come through federal block grants to the states.  Each state’s immigration issues are not identical to other states, therefore states know better how to manage this process than the federal government.  Any state found to be non-compliant with any and all process guidelines that must be in this program will not only lose their block grants but will be subject to further financial penalties in other monies paid to them by the federal government.

Summary

That caravan full of illegals headed from Central America through Mexico to the U.S. prompted this story today. Have you wondered who is “driving that ship,” who is funding the 5000-7000 immigrants for that 2000-mile journey? Think about this: they all must eat, they all have biological functions that must be met, (primarily bathroom obligations) there are many children in the entourage and medical necessities along the way. SOMEONE IS FOOTING THE BILL!

Many think whoever is initiating and funding this trip are trying to impact the U.S. midterm elections — primarily in a negative way for conservatives running for office. But every day that objective becomes more and more unbelievable. Why? Do the math:

A good bike rider could travel 50 miles per day. Walking, an aggressive goal would be 20-25 miles per day. At that rate, the caravan can be expected to arrive at the nearest point of the southern U.S. border in 50-60 days. If there is an expectation of funders of the caravan of any significant border-conflict situation to occur before or during those midterm elections set for 13 days from today, there is no way that will be accomplished.

There must be some other reason or reasons for this caravan (and the other one that has just formed behind the first).

You know what: there are probably a dozen possibilities for the reasons and the timing for this caravan’s move north. Sadly, I seriously doubt that any of those reasons are legitimately to help Central and South American immigrants escape dangerous and unbearable circumstances in the countries they are coming from. They have been sold a pipedream of a “land of honey” in the U.S. where there is a government with open arms that will not only take them in, but house them, feed them, medicate them, educate them, and pay them to live in America.

Who could be painting such a rosey picture for those immigrants?

It could be smugglers, human traffickers, and drug cartels who see these immigrants as goods to be traded and targets, too. It could be rogue branches of governments from those countries who are using the pie-in-the-sky dream of the “easy life” to get rid of many of their poor and possible criminal citizens.

It could be members of the Mexican and Central American immigration specialists who see the U.S. as a hot-bed of financial opportunity for Latinos and who know American laws are certainly going to be changed or at least tightened up in the Trump Administration. And they see their honey-pot of fortune about to be shut down.

Whoever the source and whatever their reason, you can bet they are not driven by trying to give those immigrants to a better life as their motives.

What’s saddest in this entire story is it is doubtful that anyone in the United States that is in anyway supporting this caravan that on its own is putting the lives of thousands of immigrants at risk everyday is doing so for the purpose of helping these immigrants.

Sadly, the greed of human nature is driving this boat.

Also sadly, the reason the American border after 28 years of presidents who each had a good opportunity to fix this issue (and who at some point in their administrations had the legislative support to do so) did not take care of the problem.

That’s not an immigrant problem. That problem is purely an American political problem.

And it is certainly politically driven — as is almost everything of importance in Washington.

It’s certainly NOT “government of the People, by the People, and for the People.” It’s for political POWER!

 

 

Play

A Refugee Crisis Is Real

Several years ago I spent several months on business in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and northern Italy with a short stop in Southeast Asia. I have not been much of a world traveler, so much of the differences of culture in Europe and Malaysia impacted me — at least initially — the way one would expect. But what was common among all those countries was the way European and Malaysian natives viewed immigrants — especially refugee immigrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa — who are primarily Muslim.

I know: discussing religious issues — especially regarding Muslims — is a faux pas and journalists should not do that. But it is time for us to become objective, honest, and serious about immigration.

The “American” Refugee Crisis

Do we have an illegal immigration crisis in the U.S.? It depends on who you ask. First, it is important to remember during this conversation that the U.S. annually allows more legal immigrants into our country than do all the other countries in the world COMBINED. That number is 1 million per year. Illegal immigration is a totally separate matter.

Hopefully, Congress will in 2019 legitimately and honestly tackle outdated and obsolete immigration laws. It is imperative that this South and Central American refugee immigration flood to the southern border of the U.S. be addressed. In spite of promise after promise from politicians from every political party to “fix” immigration laws, NOTHING has been done. When asked why an immigration House bill would not be considered in the Senate, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explained it by saying, “We cannot allow Republicans or President Trump to win on any legislation regarding immigration.”

Congress’s inaction on the matter so far can be blamed on (at least one party’s) identity politics and its elitist political agenda. That agenda has NOTHING at all to do with illegal immigrants and what’s best for them OR the United States. It’s partisan rather than humanitarian.

Who can forget the back-and-forth during the first year of the Trump Administration when Congress was supposedly poised to consider the southern border illegal immigration crisis? The fake news pictures showing illegal immigrant children being held in cages were passed around among different news outlets to whip up the emotions of Americans to hopefully result in an open-border policy being implemented. Later it was revealed those pictures of caged children were NOT taken during this presidency but during Obama’s tenure in office.

We have written extensively about the critical nature of restructuring our immigration system and the necessity to craft new laws and/or amend old laws to end the horrors experienced by those immigrants in getting to the U.S. and their ill effects. Those effects impact every sector of America, including economics, education, medical, social, and labor. NOT making corrections in immigration law is no different than NOT tackling problems in any other area of public life: Congress should recognize the problem, devise a fix, implement the fix and make sure it works, or watch the beginning of a slide of the U.S. backward.

Is this a cowardly or fear-driven concern? Absolutely not. While it is true that the United States is the wealthiest, strongest, and most powerful nation on Earth, the U.S. does not have the unlimited resources that are necessary to perpetuate the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. Allowing it to continue as-is puts us on the path toward certain destruction.

For some European countries (and a couple in Southeast Asia), their citizens are standing watch as immigration — primarily from North African and Middle Eastern countries — are tearing their countries apart.

Under Angela Merkel’s watch, her country — Germany — has welcomed more than 1 million immigrants on the basis of a real humanitarian crisis. Most of those who have come to Germany are Muslim. And most of those have refused to assimilate into German culture in any meaningful way. That has created mountains of problems in the national sectors mentioned above.

The German medical community is really struggling. Recently, a German doctor wrote a letter explaining what medical professionals and others are experiencing. It’s scary at best. Here’s the letter:

Muslim Immigration issues in Germany

“Yesterday, at the hospital, we had a meeting about how the situation here and at the other Munich hospitals are unsustainable. Clinics cannot handle the number of migrant medical emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the main hospitals.

Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff, and we women are now refusing to go among those migrants!

Relations between the staff and migrants are going from bad to worse. Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units.

Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we in Europe do not know how to treat.

If they receive a prescription to the pharmacy, they suddenly learn they have to pay cash. This leads to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words:

“So, cure them here yourselves!” So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also the large pharmacies.

We ask openly where are all those who welcomed the migrants in front of TV cameras with signs at train stations? Yes, for now, the border has been closed, but a million of them are already here and we will definitely not be able to get rid of them.

Until now, the number of unemployed in Germany was 2.2 million. Now it will be at least 3.5 million. Most of these people are completely unemployable.

Only a small minimum of them have any education. What is more, their women usually do not work at all. I estimate that one in ten is pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of them have brought along infants and little kids under six, many emaciated and very needy. If this continues and Germany re-opens its borders, I am going home to the Czech Republic. Nobody can keep me here in this situation, not even for double the salary back home. I came to Germany to work, not to Africa or the Middle East!

Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who has cleaned every day for years for 800 euros and then meets crowds of young men in the hallways who just wait with their hands outstretched, wanting everything for free, and when they don’t get it they throw a fit.

I really don’t need this! But I am afraid that if I return home, at some point it will be the same in the Czech Republic. If the Germans, with their systems, cannot handle this, then, guaranteed, back home will be total chaos…..

You – who have not come in contact with these people have absolutely no idea what kind of badly behaved desperados these people are, and how Muslims act superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.

For now, the local hospital staff has not come down with the diseases these people brought here, but with so many hundreds of patients, every day of this is just a question of time.

In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, who they’d dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died two days later, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The pediatric physician had to undergo surgery and the two nurses are recovering in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.

The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we can only inform you through email. What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed the doctor and nurses with a knife? Or if he had flung his own syphilis-infected urine into a nurse’s face and so threatened her with infection? At a minimum, he would have gone straight to jail and later to court. With these people so far, nothing has happened.

And so I ask: Where are all those greeters and receivers from the train stations? Sitting pretty at home, enjoying their uncomplicated, safe lives. If it were up to me, I would round up all those greeters and bring them here first to our hospitals emergency ward as attendants! Then they go into one of the buildings housing the migrants, so they can really look after them there themselves, without armed police and police dogs, who, sadly today, are in every hospital here in Bavaria.”

Summary

Let me set the record straight: I am NOT anti-Muslim. I am NOT Islamophobic. I am for LEGAL immigration.

So what’s wrong with this German immigration issue? German political leaders did NOT think through what such a flood of immigrants would do to its thriving infrastructure. Think about it: planning for certainties is one thing, but planning for UN-certainties is more important. Germany’s leadership in error assumed that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants would be much like Germany’s own citizens — would have the same or similar work ethic, social culture, desire to assimilate with others, respect for authority and the rights of others, etc. How wrong they were!

Germany’s immigration crisis began two years ago and remains unsolved to this day. The conditions for German citizens remains just as dangerous and dire as they were when the above letter was written. Angela Merkel has been unable to initiate an effective process to handle this crisis. And it is destroying Germany’s social, financial, medical, and political systems.

How is that different from U.S. immigration?

  • There are those that will say the big difference is that most of those flooding into the U.S. through our southern border are not Muslim like most of those immigrants in Germany. That’s true;
  • Some say most coming to the U.S. are looking for work as compared to those entering Germany who are not. That’s true;
  • MANY immigration pundits claim over and over on national television immigrants bring far more money into the U.S. than they spend of taxpayer dollars. That’s NOT-TRUE. In fact, according to the non-partisan Immigration Council:
  • The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
  • The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
  • At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
  • Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
  • The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and a larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.

So What’s the Problem?

Here’s a story that illustrates the immigration dilemma now faced by every American:

A miner operates a secret gold mine out in the country next to a really shallow river. The only way he can transport the gold that he mines to market is down that river. Everything goes well for a few months. But one day as he rows his heavily loaded boat up the river to market, he sees water pouring into the boat from below. The boat takes on water at an amazing rate and bogs down on the bottom of the shallow river. He cannot get his gold to market that day.

The next day, the miner tries again. This time he does not even get as far up the river as the day before. Holes in the boat quickly fill it with water and it bogs down again.

The miner secretly tells his friend about his mine and how successful he has been at finding gold. He explains to his friend what has happened to the boat and that holes in the boat have kept him from getting to market. His friend commits to join the miner the next day so the pair can get that gold to market.

They tried hard the next day. But they could not get the boat up the river to market. They tried the same thing over and over again. But after no success, the miner was forced to shut down and board up the mine and walk away — even knowing just how much gold there was in that mine.

The miner had to apply for financial assistance because he had no income. When he explained what had happened in his mining operation to the assistance agent, the agent asked him “Why could you working together with your friend not figure out a way to get the boat up the river to market?” The miner replied, “We tried, again and again, to get all the water out of the river so it would stop making the boat run aground. But even though we dipped and poured water out of the river as fast as we could, the river kept filling the boat up. We couldn’t stop the water.”

Conclusion

The story may seem a bit trite, but it gives a true picture of the immigration issue the U.S. is facing today. The boat represents the U.S.; the gold represents the goods and services the U.S. produces for its internal purposes as well as transporting to “market” — the rest of the World — that are sold for money to fund our internal and external operations for the good of the people. In this case, the “water” is the illegal immigrants that flood into our boat through holes in the boat.

Instead of plugging the holes, we continue to deal with the water in the river instead of making certain not too much of it gets into the boat. When that happens, the boat cannot get to market, we cannot process our goods and services, and before long we’re out of a job.

This really is simple: we don’t have a Muslim problem, we don’t have a Mexican problem, we don’t have a Central American problem, and we don’t have a legal immigration problem. We have far too much water in the boat that we are not prepared to handle. And that water — the flood of illegal immigrants — is running our boat aground.

Let’s stop simply bailing water out of the boat. We MUST plug the holes!

 

 

 

Play

The “Real” Illegal Immigrant U.S. Population

Reports from immigration experts and population studies have for years pegged the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. somewhere between 10 and 13 million. No one has ever really identified the sources used to validate those numbers. Americans have been forced to simply take them at face value — until the last few years.

Illegal immigration has become if not THE #1 topic of discussion in political debates, at least 1 of the top 3 most discussed political hot-button items — and justifiably so. By any legitimate calculations, the economic strain on the U.S. government (and therefore American taxpayers) is astronomical.  The toll on the American infrastructure and government resources drawn upon by these 10-12 million illegals is at least significant if not astronomical. Illegal immigrants — who in large part are known to be (in comparison with legal Americans) poorer, less educated — are more dependent on government direct and indirect financial support than legal immigrants and Americans.

Yes, there are reports published by immigration pundits who make claims of vast economic value of these immigrants who take blue-collar jobs shunned by Americans. That is true, at least in part. It IS factual that illegals in large slip into the U.S. primarily for employment. And because of their minimal job skills and education are forced into these industries for manual labor jobs.

Immigration pundits claim — and rightfully so — many American employers relish the ability to draw workers from this pool of illegals, but not because of the unavailability of legals to fill those jobs. Some employers use illegals to take advantage of their availability to work, their willingness to work for much lower wages with fewer or without any normal employee benefits. In those circumstances, illegal employees are not enrolled in federal and state employment programs, which enables employers to reduce their operating costs: unemployment insurance, matching employer payroll tax, Social Security and Medicare employer payments, paid leave, employee health insurance programs, etc.) which rewards employers, but at the expense of these immigrant workers.

Many illegal immigration advocates also take advantage of these unknowns in creating and marketing their illegal immigration policies. In doing so, they appeal to the emotions of good Americans, demeaning all those who cry for stronger border security, a wall at the U.S. southern border, and a strict adherence to illegal immigration law enforcement. The lack of verifiable illegal immigration data acts as fuel for their arguments. How? Without the truth of illegal immigrant numbers and its true costs to Americans, many have for decades maintained that illegals in America do far more good for our country than bad.

But that narrative is changing — and it is startling.

How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.: the REAL Number?

The population of illegal migrants is roughly 22 million, or twice the establishment estimate of 11 million, say three professors from Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The shocking estimate will force establishment politicians and pro-migration advocates to recalculate the estimated impact of the huge illegal population on wages and salaries, on crime rates, welfare consumption, rental and real-estate prices, productivity rates, and the distribution of job-creating investment funds to coastal vs. heartland states. The higher illegal population estimate helps explain why Americans’ wages and salaries have risen so little amid apparently record-low unemployment rates, and it also undercuts companies’ loud demands for yet more immigration of foreign workers, consumers, and renters.

The population estimate also raises the political and economic stakes of any amnesty legislation. In 2014, public opposition blocked the bipartisan, establishment, media-boosted Gang of Eight Bill, which claimed to offer an amnesty to just 11 million migrants. Currently, advocates for a ‘Dream Act’ amnesty claim it will provide green cards to roughly 3 million sons and daughters of illegal immigrants.

The new estimate also bolsters President Donald Trump’s demand that reluctant GOP and hostile Democratic legislators fund a border wall.

“Our purpose is to provide better information,” said Jonathan Feinstein, an economics professor at Yale. In a video statement, he defended the estimate from likely critics, saying it is an expert analysis, not a political project.

“This report from Yale is not oriented towards politics or policy. I want to be very clear. This paper is about coming up with a better estimate of an important number, and we are really trying to keep away from making any statements about how that could or should be used. It is just a report to help the debate be organized around some better information, which in my opinion is a good thing to do. I think the debate should always be centered around the best information we can develop.”

The academics expected their techniques to show the population is smaller than the consensus estimate of 11.3 million. “Our original idea was just to do a sanity check on the existing number,” said Edward Kaplan, operations research professor at Yale. “Instead of a number which was smaller, we got a number that was 50 percent higher. That caused us to scratch our heads.”

Operations research is a skill that extracts accurate estimates from scraps of data. It began in World War II when academics were enlisted to help track Nazi U-boats and weapons-production. For example, the academics used scraps of information to conclude that the Nazis produced 270 Panther tanks in February 1944. After the war, captured factory data showed the production of 276 Panthers in that month.

“We have a conservative estimate that the number is at least 16.7 million,” said Edward Kaplan, an operations research professor at Yale. The study used “over 1 million scenarios accounting for all of the variability in the various parameters that we need for this model [and] on average, we’re estimating something like 22 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.”

The study says:

The figure [below] also shows our conservative estimate of 16.7 million in Red, and the most widely accepted estimate heretofore of 11.3 million in Blue on the far left. We note that this last estimate is for 2015, but should be comparable since both the estimates based on the survey approach and our modeling approach indicate that the number of undocumented immigrants has remained relatively constant in recent years. Finally, the mean estimate of 22.1 million is shown in black in the center of the distribution.

The new estimate uses new sources of data, such as the fingerprints of migrants caught at the Mexican border, said Mohammad Fazel‐Zarandi, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management. In contrast, the current estimate of 11.3 million is based on the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey. “It’s been the only method used for the last three decades,” says Fazel‐Zarandi.

“The illegal population is higher than expected because more migrants crowded into the United States during the cheap-labor policies of Presidents’ George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush,” the researchers said. “The inflow leveled off in 2008 once the economy crashed when millions of new migrants and poor Americans were unable to pay their rising mortgage costs.”

The existing population of illegals tends to decline as many die of natural causes, or return home, or get “Adjustment of Status” to become legal residents. But the population is being kept level because new migrants — especially foreigners who overstay their visas or who migrate from Central America — offset the natural decline.

The Yale study goes up to 2016, and so does not offer 2017 and 2018 numbers. Many new migrants are overstaying their visas and sneaking across the borders, but President Donald Trump has tightened border defenses against overstays and border-crossers.

The Yale study complements the Census Bureau’s new estimate of the nation’s population and workforce. The bureau concluded the nation has been enlarged by 44.5 million legal or illegal immigrants, plus 17 million children of legal immigrants. Together, the new estimates conclude that the nation’s has a record-breaking foreign-born population of 55 million migrants. That number is roughly 16.9 percent of the population, or roughly one person six living in the United States.

Summary

There certainly is no absolute answer to the question “What should the United States do regarding illegal immigration and those who break immigration laws in doing so?” The issue has become a hotly debated political one. And it has been one of the top “hot potato” political issues for decades.

Here’s the only solution that in my mind makes sense: remove the issue from the political forum, and call it what it really is: an American economic issue.

No, I’m not in doing so turning a cold shoulder to the many woes of foreigners who fight hard to escape often unbearable circumstances in their own countries, fleeing to the Shangri-La of America. In making that statement, I recognize that economic issues drive the machine that runs the United States of America.

Think about that: if the U.S. and its people do not prosper, its people cannot pay taxes. If Americans cannot pay sufficient taxes, the U.S. government has insufficient funds to operate. Those operations include a system that for decades has facilitated the LEGAL immigration into the U.S. of 1 million aliens each year. How does that compare? Here’s one immigration number you can rely on: 1 million immigrants allowed legal status in the U.S. each year equals MORE than the combined number of legal immigrants allowed into every other country on Earth each year COMBINED!

Let’s Fix It

The illegal immigration system in the U.S. will be fixed ONLY using the following process:

  1. Stop ALL illegal immigration…PERIOD!
  2. Close the southern U.S. border
  3. Immediately revise the legal immigration process internally AND the process for aliens to quickly enter the U.S. LEGAL immigration system from within their OWN country
  4. Congress: get off your rears and create and pass legitimate legal immigration laws that address these and other immigration policies that will be best FIRST for Americans!

Let’s be blunt: the United States does not “owe” immigration status to anyone on Earth. As the most powerful and most blessed country on the planet, Americans certainly “should” pay-it-forward by blessing others with assistance and economic and social opportunities as we can. In large part, we already do that for millions around the world.

Americans are simply tired of the political immigration merry-go-round; Americans are tired of party politics and party agendas that use immigrants, American minorities and less fortunate people as pawns in stupid political wars. Americans are better than that!

President Trump — though you may not like him personally, his policies, or his choice of messaging — as a businessman has a career in which he successfully developed a basic understanding of problem-solving. The problem-solving process should always be based on reason, consideration of all facts inherent to the problem and its possible solutions, then choosing a course of action, drawing on any and all resources necessary for a chosen solution, implementing the solution, and managing it to a successful conclusion.

The President has given the American people and Congress a template that includes pieces to a solution for this illegal immigration problem. It’s time for Congress to put aside the petty political partisanship, stop worrying about any political costs of the implementation of this or any other proposed solution, and implement the chosen solution. Any chosen problem solution (like illegal immigration) should be used for one reason and one reason only: IT’S THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

American voters: it’s YOUR job to make sure your Congressional representatives in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are on board in their support for a specific plan to fix illegal immigration problems. And if they are not on board and simply want to maintain the existing immigration circus or put another such ridiculous plan in place, MAKE CHANGES IN WHO REPRESENTS YOU!

See: that wasn’t so hard. Sometimes the right solution to an issue is the simplest one.

In this case, it’s simply “Get R’ Done!”

 

Play

A Drunk Sits at a Bar….

You’re a bartender and a guy sits at the bar ordering drink after drink for 3 hours and you continue to pour for him long after it is obvious he’s drunk. He finally leaves the bar, gets in his car, and while driving home hits a car head-on and kills 4 members of a family. Who is responsible for those deaths?

Certainly, the drunk is. But in most venues, so is the bartender. You’d be charged as well.

Juan Ramon Vasquez — an illegal immigrant who was deported  — returned to Philadelphia, was arrested and plead guilty for returning after being deported. ICE requested Philly hold him to be picked up for deportation. Mayor Jim Kennedy (because Philadephia had been proclaimed to be a Sanctuary City) refused an ICE deportation hold and released Vasquez. He then raped a little girl, was found guilty, and is serving a sentence. Of course, that little girl will never be the same. Outrage?

If the bartender who continued pouring drinks for the drunk who killed those family members was complicit in that crime, shouldn’t Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kennedy be complicit in that little girl’s rape? He should have been prosecuted for refusing to hold Vasquez which led to a felony rape that would not have happened if the Mayor had simply followed federal law.

It’s ironic that our nation with the greatest justice system on Earth, though established to be governed by the “rule of law” now has a ruling class of politicians who thumb their noses at laws they do not like and refuse to enforce. Regarding illegal immigration, we have statistics that show the numbers of federal prosecutions of illegal immigrants for felonies, but we have no idea of the validity of the numbers or how many illegal immigrants who commit crimes skate through the system paying nothing for their crimes. We are told only about a few of the most heinous acts of just a few.

The American public as a whole is shocked when these stories slip through the media filters and are played out on a national stage. But that doesn’t happen too often. Why? Because the Mainstream Media are “in the tank” for acceptance of illegal immigration and illegal immigrants, even at the cost of “a few crimes.” In fact, liberal media outlets go after President Trump viciously for instructing U.S. immigration officials to go after offenders and for the prosecution of every offender.

Here’s an example of one such case. The Washington Post published the following story regarding stepped up illegal immigration enforcement policy changes under President Trump immediately after taking office:

“A week after he won the election, President Trump promised that his administration would round up millions of immigrant gang members and drug dealers. And after he took office, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers surged 40 percent. Officials at the agency commonly known as ICE praise Trump for putting teeth back into immigration enforcement, and they say their agency continues to prioritize national security threats and violent criminals, much as the Obama administration did.

But as ICE officers get wider latitude to determine whom they detain, the biggest jump in arrests has been of immigrants with no criminal convictions. The agency made 37,734 “noncriminal” arrests in the government’s 2017 fiscal year, more than twice the number in the previous year. The category includes suspects facing possible charges as well as those without criminal records. Critics say ICE is increasingly grabbing at the lowest-hanging fruit of deportation-eligible immigrants to meet the president’s unrealistic goals, replacing a targeted system with a scattershot approach aimed at boosting the agency’s enforcement statistics. ICE has not carried out mass roundups or major workplace raids under Trump, but nearly every week brings a contentious new arrest.

A Virginia mother was sent back to El Salvador in June after her 11 years in the United States unraveled because of a traffic stop. A Connecticut man with an American-born wife and children and no criminal record was deported to Guatemala. And an immigration activist in New York, Ravi Ragbir, was detained in a case that brought ICE a scathing rebuke from a federal judge. ‘It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust,’ said U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest, reading her opinion in court before ordering ICE to release Ragbir. ‘We are not that country,’ she said. ‘Immigrants whose only crime was living in the country illegally were largely left alone during the latter years of the Obama administration. But that policy has been scrapped.’

Notice that last phrase: “But that policy has been scrapped.” That scrapped policy was the Obama Administration policy to ignore illegal immigrants living in the U.S. that had not before committed crimes. What happened to their being here illegally is a crime making them subject to immediate deportation BECAUSE OF THEIR BREAKING THE LAW!

“Politically Correct”

“The President’s immigration actions and Muslim ban will make America less safe. As a prosecutor, I can tell you, it is a serious mistake to conflate criminal justice policy with immigration policy as if they are the same thing. They are not. I have personally prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides. I know what a crime looks like. I will tell you: an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal. But that’s what these actions do. They suggest all immigrants are criminals and treat immigrants like criminals.”

These statements were included in a speech by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). She is almost certainly going to make herself available for a White House run in 2020 and has become one of the chief opponents of all things President Trump. Harris’ staff explained her claim as meaning “illegal immigrants are not guilty of a crime for crossing the border illegally, but simply violated civil law.” No, their crossing breaks a U.S. immigration law which is a crime, albeit a misdemeanor and not a felony. One would think a former prosecutor would know the meaning of the word “crime! Harris does know: it’s just politically correct for her to say illegal crossing the U.S. border is not a crime, they just shouldn’t do it.

Kamala Harris and fellow California Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein simply cannot find it in their hearts to push local, state, and federal authorities to enforce immigration laws. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Did you hear the outcry from Dianne Feinstein when in her hometown, Kate Steinle was gunned down at Fisherman’s Wharf by a 5-time deported illegal immigrant? Crickets. Feinstein stood silently by while Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon in the killing of Steinle. He was deported 5 times before his 6th arrest for being in the U.S. illegally. He was NOT deported the 6th time because the city of San Francisco had taken the title of “Sanctuary City,” and therefore refused an ICE deportation “hold” notice for Garcia and released him. 32-year-old Kate Steinle paid with her life for Sanctuary City status for San Francisco when Garcia walked out of jail and found that gun and used it.

Pelosi was recently spotted in El Paso touting to a group of Hispanic the glory of voting for Democrats in November so to take back the House of Representatives to allow her as Speaker to marshall the U.S. Government to once again open the southern border to any and all illegals:

Summary

It is sad that the United States at its core is under assault from the inside. Under attack is the very backbone of the Nation that made us different from every other country. Without the rule of law, the U.S. will look just like Venezuela, Cuba, and European socialist nations. It is becoming more and more obvious that is what Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, Schumer and company want to see happen.

But on second thought, maybe that’s not true. Maybe the quartet is just trying to come up with any way possible to take back control of Congress. They have experienced the rush that power gives one who is the ultimate government official in charge. Both Pelosi and Schumer have led their respective Congressional chambers. They both know the fat-cat benefits that come with the House Speaker and Senate Majority titles: private government jets, huge House and Senate office and staff budgets, unlimited expense accounts, junkets with lobbyists from everywhere, cush jobs for friends, relatives, and campaign donors and craved-for Congressional appointments of those to whom they feel obligated. Yes, with power comes all the goodies D.C. has to offer. And Pelosi and Schumer don’t have it. Fighting FOR illegal immigrant safe status in the U.S. is just a means to their objective: get the immigrants legal and with the right to vote and convince them that for a lifetime, they owe all they have to Democrats.

What would fix this problem the right way? Congress needs to fix Immigration Law! We could spend days discussing whether or not members of Congress really want to fix immigration laws — but that would be based on opinion. Right now I am not certain there is sufficient political will to pay what the price would be for their political careers in either Party to go down that road. But it COULD be fixed with legislation — it SHOUD be fixed with legislation!

Lost in all the immigration noise is this: what would Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer AND Barack Obama think about Sanctuary City status and ignoring ICE deportation holds IF Kate Steinle was THEIR daughter? Or is Kate’s death and the virginity of that little girl in Philadelphia simply the justified price to pay to regain and maintain their political power?

Play

The TRUTH of Illegal Children’s Detention

Do like I did: conduct a computer search using this line: “How many children were separated from accompanying adults and detained during the Obama Administration?” You’ll be shocked as I was to find almost universal statements that such did not happen under the past Administration. And each story stating this quickly jumped on the recent travesty of approximately 3000 children separated from adults upon illegal U.S. entry under THIS Administration.

So how did the Obama Administration handle the problem?

Mainstream Media still does not believe American citizens are capable of or will take the time to do a little research — even on such a controversial issue. But this American citizen did.

It seems that conveniently, the Obama Department of Homeland Security either did not keep accurate records of such separations or those records are buried somewhere far away from the light of certain exposure if discovered. Remember this: Obama himself bragged about the huge number of deportations his Immigration officials initiated on his watch — far more than have occurred in the first year of the Trump Administration. Knowing that begs a question: “Were all of those deportees adults that brought no children?” And even a second question: “How could the Obama Administration under such circumstances — and there surely was a vast number of juvenile children with their parents and other adults — not deal with children caught-up in those detentions?”

Rather than just take for granted that all members of the Obama Administration were Mother Teresa models whose driving purpose was to keep every illegal child with their illegal parent(s), I decided to do a little digging. What I discovered was a little different than the perspective left by the Obama folks when they cleaned out their office.

The “Rest of the Story”

“The Obama administration’s strategy was to expedite deportations of refugee children oftentimes without a lawyer, and jail refugee mothers with children as a deterrent,” said Matthew Kolken, an immigration lawyer whose clients include children seeking political asylum. “Yes, Trump’s zero-tolerance policy is concerning, but it isn’t a huge departure from what we saw under Obama, as 52 percent of all federal criminal prosecutions were for immigration-related crimes when he left office.”

In late May, the American Civil Liberties Union announced that it had obtained thousands of government documents that showed evidence of “the pervasive abuse and neglect of unaccompanied immigrant children detained by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection” during the Obama presidency, from 2009 through 2014.

“These documents provide a glimpse into a federal immigration enforcement system marked by brutality and lawlessness,” Mitra Ebadolahi, ACLU Border Litigation Project staff attorney, said in a report about the abuses. “All human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status — and children, in particular, deserve special protection.”

“Like so much else in immigration, this administration has taken weapons that Obama’s folks loaded and left on the table on the way out and then they picked these weapons up and started firing, and that’s what’s happened here,” Free said. “The previous administration created and stood up this infrastructure and refused to demand accountability from the people that were responsible for running it, and now you have its predictable consequence in the hands of this administration.”

Human Rights Watch documented inhumane conditions at various family detention facilities. “Women and children must frequently go without showering while in these cells, regardless of the length of time they are held,” the report said. “In some cases, holding cells lack toilet paper or do not provide sanitary pads or tampons for women and girls who are menstruating.”

Charles Kuck, a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told Fox News the outcry over the treatment of children arriving at the border is, in some respect, mind-boggling. “This is not new,” Kuck said. “What is new is how we’re handling it publicly.”

A major reason for the outcry, Kuck said, is the knee-jerk tendency to lash out at this president’s actions and put them in disproportionate perspective. “Everyone in [immigration law] was screaming from the rooftops about Obama” detaining families, Kuck said. “Obama said they had to enforce the law so that conservatives in Congress will fix the law.”

Obama administration officials also argued they had to implement tough enforcement for the sake of providing a deterrent. They considered separating children from parents as they weighed how to deal with the Central American surge, but decided against it, The New York Times reported.

“It was the practice of the Obama administration to abuse refugee children, and refugee mothers with children,” Kolken said. “I don’t really care which type of abuse or abuser people find more abhorrent, because it is all abuse, and it is all abhorrent.”

Immigration authorities say detention is necessary because many people who are released pending an immigration hearing never show up to court. Many advocates for more lenient policies have pushed for alternatives — such as ankle monitors — to detention for asylum seekers and others who are not deemed a danger to the public.

“It’s exponentially worse when the children are taken away,” Kuck said, adding that the real solution is congressional action to fix immigration. “The pressure is on Congress. But one side wants to return them, and the other side deems that unacceptable.”

Bullet Points

  • Why no incessant drumbeats of war against President Obama by the Media for his Administration’s detaining young children separated from parents?
  • Why then does this same Media cry daily against Trump and all Conservatives for not caring about children, the jailing of children, and the travesty of not allowing everyone from any other country into the U.S.?
  • Why has there been NO mention of the conditions in which those illegal children were kept under Obama — including being held in cages?
  • Does the fact that NO members of Congress introduced legislation to fix those problems for those children and their parents fall at the feet of the Obama White House or members of Congress for responsibility?
  • Why hasn’t Congress taken action to resolve this issue — under Clinton, Bush, or Obama, and now Trump?

Summary

It’s obvious that this president hasn’t and will not get any breaks from the Mainstream Media. When all three of the major TV networks have been rated as providing bad “Trump” news 90+ percent of the time, Americans are forced to dig for truthful news about our government on their own.  Know what: that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

More and more I am finding Americans who while watching and listening to “attack tv and radio,” realize that the stories the Media is dishing out do not parallel what these Americans are seeing in their own lives: lower taxes, lower unemployment, pay increases, new companies with new jobs, and respect from foreign governments unseen for at least 8 years. What has changed?

Quite a bit under this President. And Americans understand that the policies and attitudes that were emitted from the Obama White House have been vacated by this President and replaced with good reports of good things for the U.S., and through the U.S., good things for other countries, too.

Barack Obama before he really got started with his promise to “initiate fundamental change to this country” was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. That was a symbolic gesture at best but was based on NO substantive accomplishments by Mr. Obama. And “accomplishments” went downhill for him after that prize award. Immigration issues were a thorn in his flesh — even if the Mainstream Media pretty much gave him a pass. But “Truth will out.” And it did. The “could do no wrong” leader discovered that governing a nation — THIS nation — could not be accomplished successfully by simply being cool and suave while giving “good” speeches.

Americans now have a benchmark to use in Obama — Trump accomplishment measurements. In many categories, President Trump has already accomplished far more than did O in 2 terms. But let’s not judge this President’s success or failure in office just yet: let’s wait a few years. Why? You’ve heard and seen Democrat pundits reward Obama for ALL of the economic success in the last 18 months. Of course, they do so in error. But let’s wait a while to see if Trump can achieve even more of his promises from his 2016 campaign.

Regarding illegal immigration: something definitive and comprehensive MUST be done. Immigration laws are antiquated, unbending, and unacceptable. Americans want the illegal immigration problem addressed and resolved. Most Americans agree that “illegal” means “illegal!” And people who do illegal things break the law. Americans expect all who break laws to receive whatever penalties accompany each law broken. Until those laws are changed, Americans expect U.S. immigration laws to be enforced. Without enforcement of laws, what purpose does having laws at all serve?

How to fix illegal immigration? There are two ways that will work separately, or preferably together. These two are the only viable options that could fairly and comprehensively solve the problem:

  1.  Congressional revision of current immigration laws with a comprehensive replacement or revisions. No one but Congress can possibly make that happen. AND THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO DO! Why hasn’t that already happened? Partisan Party Politics.
  2. Close U.S. borders completely: allow NO illegals into the country. This too is a tough one — but if implemented could be effective. “If” all illegals who are contemplating coming into the U.S. illegally knew that they would not be allowed in period unless completing one of the legal ways to emigrate to the U.S., they would stop attempting to break-through our borders. This would save millions of dollars these illegals are forced to pay smugglers AND save illegals’ lives. Many are lost from the grueling conditions that prevail when human traffickers and smugglers transport them through deserts in 100+ degree temperatures to cross the U.S. border illegally.

What Honduran mother would send a child with a human trafficker to attempt an illegal crossing of the U.S. border knowing that being stopped short before gaining illegal entry or immediately taken back across that border when discovered was going to happen EVERY TIME? They wouldn’t.

Part of the legislative “fix” cries for a major streamlining of the process that is antiquated and ineffective.

Congress needs to act, and act now. U.S. Presidents can only apply a temporary fix with an Executive Order. And we’ve seen this President struggle to enact such successfully because of certain court action taken by immigration specialists.

It takes Congress.

Congress MUST act, and act NOW! Children’s lives are at stake.

Play

A Border Wall: Is it Worth It?

Discussions of the practicality, need for, and cost of the proposed border wall are ongoing, even if they are not the hot “topic-of-the-day” right now. Political distractions make us concentrate on other issues, but — make no mistake — even if those border wall conversations are not front and center, they are ongoing.

Chief in these discussions is the cost of illegal immigration to Americans. There are heretofore credible individuals and groups who make the claim that illegal immigrants — because of their working in the U.S. and paying federal, state, and local taxes while here — more than pay for any costs to taxpayers. In many cases, those claims have been simply accepted simply because it sounds somewhat plausible. Those illegal immigration supporters have never offered any statistical proof of their claims. But now there are facts of the “net” costs of illegal immigration to the U.S., and even though many illegals do contribute to the nation financially through taxes and through their spending, there is NO net financial plus for their being here. In fact, the truth is far from that.

Let’s push this conversation forward with facts and drop all conjecture. The Centers for Immigration Studies (CIS) exhaustively researches all things immigration-related and a few months ago shared a portion of their current statistical analysis of illegal immigration costs, the fiscal viability of a proposed border wall, and significant other details of immigration’s impact on U.S. taxpayers. Immediately below you will find a synopsis of some CIS research. At the bottom of this report, I am attaching the full report for any to download and use personally or in your immigration conversations with others.

Illegal immigration in the U.S. is front and center during this national political season as we ramp up for the 2018 mid-terms. When taking political positions on every important issue, it is critical for Americans to be armed with facts. Not knowing something doesn’t mean someone is stupid. Not knowing something and doing nothing to get the facts IS being stupid! Let’s look at FACTS:

The “Findings”

The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as “net present values,” which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $15 to $25 billion cost of the wall.

Among the findings:

  • There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.
  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.- born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated costs of the wall.
  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.
  • While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.
  • In addition to crossing the border surreptitiously, aliens join the illegal population primarily by overstaying a temporary visa. A southern border wall would not address this part of the illegal flow.
  • A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government.
  • To create its long-term fiscal estimates for immigrants by education level, the NAS uses the concept of “net present value” (NPV). This concept, which is commonly used by economists, has the effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that unskilled immigrants will create in the future.
  • The NAS does this because costs or benefits years from now are valued less in economics relative to more immediate costs. But this means the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes if the NPV concept is not used.

Summary

Wow! I knew illegal immigrant costs had to be extensive, just because of the personal costs of living in the U.S. my family sustains. These numbers — if they continue at current levels — are staggering.

Here’s the most important factor for Truth News Network followers: Democrats are making illegal immigration almost their entire 2018 election platform. Why? They have no other story to tell that could possibly result in Congressional, state, and local victories at the polls. They currently have the mystery of illegal immigration costs in their favor. Democrats are good at messaging — even if their messages are partially or totally untrue. In this case, the stories being sold by Democrats and other liberals to all who will listen regarding the tremendous benefits to the U.S. of having open borders are patently false in total!

Please download the .pdf of the NAS study. It includes not only complete statistics, it documents their findings and conclusions with sourcing explanations. FACTS ARE GOING TO BE MANDATORY FOR AMERICANS TO MAKE INFORMED ELECTION CHOICES!

camarota-wall-costs

Play

Illegal Immigration Family Separation: Mostly Media “NOISE”

I hate to spend any more space and/or time discussing the obvious partisan, Leftist, venomous, vitriolic lies being spewed by the Media regarding illegal alien interception at the southern border that have sometimes resulted in children being separated from adults who sometimes are those children’s parents but who sometimes child traffickers. Of course, everything wrong with this (according to the Leftist Media) lies at the feet of this President. After all, HE makes the laws, HE hates immigrants — especially children — and HE chose to purposely “rip babies out of the arms of their mothers” and “put immigrant children in cages.” Of course, everything I just said has been parroted again and again by the American “Truth-Sayers” who consider themselves to be the purveyors of all things righteous for the U.S. — ESPECIALLY regarding how to treat illegals who invade our borders.

The lunacy of the Leftist Media pundits is no better illustrated than by the cover picture of the new TIME Magazine — illustrated best by the picture of a really small girl.

Journalist Kevin Ryan said it best:

“There’s been quite the trend of misleading photos in the media lately. The viral photo of a child crying in a cage was not actually from a government detention facility, but was instead staged by protesters at a Dallas demonstration. The numerous pictures of kids crowded onto mattresses behind chain link fences WERE at a detention facility… during the Obama presidency.

And now the most iconic photo of the whole family separation controversy turns out not to be from a family separation at all. The photo of a little girl looking up and crying as her mother is apprehended by border patrol has been presented by nearly every major media outlet as an example of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, in which illegal immigrants are arrested at the border and sent to jail, separating them from their children.

The Washington Post: “By now, millions of people have seen a photo of a 2-year-old girl screaming while a U.S. border agent pats down her mother. Taken last Tuesday, the image has become a symbol of the Trump administration’s new ‘zero tolerance’ border policies, which have caused hundreds of children to be removed from the parents who brought them here.”

The New York Daily News, with a photo of the girl on its cover:

“Callous.
Soulless.
Craven.
Trump.
2,000 children ripped from parents at border in just 6 weeks.”

The New York Times featured the photo several times in stories about family separations, including on its front page.

And now Time magazine has put the photo on its cover, with the crying little girl depicted alone, separated from her mother, looking up at a heartless, uncaring President Trump. “Welcome to America” the caption reads. Except, according to her father, that little girl was not taken from her mother.

Denis Hernandez said his wife Sandra and daughter Yanela were never separated by border control agents and remain together, housed in a family residential center in Texas and are doing ‘fine.’

In fact Hernandez says his daughter was taken by his wife, against his wishes, leaving behind their three other children. He says his wife had previously mentioned her wish to go to the United States for a “better future” but did not tell him nor any of their family members that she was planning to make the trek.

‘I didn’t support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that?’ said Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes.

Sandra took 2-year-old Yanela from their home in Honduras on June 3rd, for an 1,800 mile trek through treacherous desert and drug cartel-occupied territory, across the Rio Grande in the middle of a night on a rubber raft, and over the border, where they turned themselves in to the first U.S. agents they found. She paid $6,000 to a coyote – someone who smuggles people across the border.

That’s when John Moore, an award-winning photographer for Getty Images, took the now famous photo. Moore had been at the river, under an agreement with Border Patrol, for seven hours by then. And although he had taken many photos, he did not yet have the ‘one he needed.’

‘I still had no picture that conveyed the emotional impact of family separations,’ he said.

And technically, he still doesn’t, as Sandra and Yanela Hernandez were never actually separated.

 

SOURCES:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Father-two-year-old-face-child…
https://www.yahoo.com/…/father-says-little-honduran-girl-ti…
https://www.cbsnews.com/…/border-patrol-agent-involved-dra…/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/i-wanted-to-stop-her-cryi…/
https://www.nytimes.com/…/poli…/family-separation-trump.html
https://www.nytimes.com/…/raices-charity-border-immigrants.…