Categories
California Elections Immigration Truth

California’s Existential Threat: Ballot Harvesting Compounded By Illegals And Sanctuaries

Rod Thomson

Almost a year ago, I wrote an article under the headline, “California: A Growing Threat to the American Republic” which some people thought to be a bit of hyperbole, a bit over the top.

It was neither hyperbole nor over the top. As is becoming all too clear on a regular basis, the warning is being borne out. The latest step in this growing stampede to undermine America came with the revelation that a “barely noticed” California law allows what is euphemistically called “ballot harvesting” — but in practice throws the door wide open for what is better known as “ballot stuffing.”

This is the single biggest reason why every contested California Congressional race that Republicans won on election night — some by as much as 14 percentage points, a huge margin — were overturned during the next three to four weeks of continual ballot counting. It’s why solidly red Orange County, California flipped to totally blue. It’s why the Democrats went from picking up 26 seats on election night to 40 a month later. Almost all of those late-changing flips were in California.

And they were the direct result of ballot harvesting.

It’s worth noting that this bill — “passed as a barely noticed change in the state’s vote by mail procedures in 2016” — was all but ignored by the mainstream media. We needn’t wonder why. That cat is long out of the bag on media loyalties. But the Democrats who passed it sure noticed it and they trained their thousands of people to get out and start “harvesting.”

Orange County GOP chair Fred Whitaker wrote after the wave of overturned Republican victories:

‘The number of election day vote-by-mail drop-offs was unprecedented — over 250,000. This is a direct result of ballot harvesting,’ Whitaker wrote. ‘That directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later. … We have to develop a response to this new law that allows us to remain competitive while recognizing the realities of Republican voter attitudes towards handing over their ballot.’

Here’s how ballot harvesting works. The California law allows third parties to pick up ballots from Californians — going house to house for voters of their choice — and drop them off at polling places, theoretically on behalf of the voters. These third parties were not the local garden club or a civic association. They were trained Democratic operatives.

Help Us On Patreon

The Daily Caller, which also has video evidence from Redstate of a Democrat going door to door to collect ballots long after the election, dug into this deeply corruptive law. They wrote:

As the polls closed on election day last month, six California Republican House candidates, including Representatives Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight, and Mimi Walters, were ahead in their respective races. However, as the absentee and provisional ballots rolled in over the intervening weeks, all six lost to their Democratic opponents.

The case of Korean-American GOP candidate Young Kim was one of the most prominent examples. On election night, Kim held an 8,000 vote lead over her Democratic opponent Gil Cisneros, and even attended freshman orientation in Washington, D.C. before watching her lead, and her victory, slowly evaporate over the subsequent weeks.

Her 8,000-vote lead represented 14 percentage points. She lost by a solid 4 percentage points to her male opponent. (Year of the woman, you know.) These were the results that caused Speaker Paul Ryan to tell Washington Post:

“California just defies logic to me…We were only down 26 seats the night of the election, and three weeks later, we lost basically every California contested race. This election system they have — I can’t begin to understand what ‘ballot harvesting’ is.”

It’s self-evident that this new practice of ballot harvesting is a prescription for fraud and abuse. It’s hard not to imagine that was part of the purpose for it, it’s just so obvious. Ballot harvesting is so infested with fraud that it is outright illegal in almost every state. A few states will actually put you in jail if you do it.

One of the army of workers Democrats recruited was a woman named  “Lulu,” who was captured on a home surveillance camera trying to “harvest” what she thought was a Democratic voter’s ballot in Rep. Knight’s district. Lulu told the people through the closed door that it’s a new service for “like, people who are supporting the Democratic Party.”

Like Us On Facebook

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that 250,000 harvested ballots were used in Orange County alone. That totally explains the sweep. It also worked in making the two-thirds super-majority in the California Legislature a near “mega-majority” of three-quarters.

But this ballot harvesting is only the latest in a series of seemingly overt attempts to undermine democracy in California, which then affects the nation as a whole. Because it combines with the state’s open borders attitude and sanctuary state laws.

A year ago, we wrote:

California’s immigration intransigence and progressive disregard for the rule of law is making the nation’s largest state potentially an actual threat to the American Republic.

It’s not about their highest taxes in the nation, or their business-crushing regulations. Those mostly place heavy burdens and consequences on the citizens — well, maybe citizens — who vote into office such reckless progressive politicians.

No, it’s about two major directions the state is taking that are almost duty-bound to bring it into conflict with the republic, if there is the fortitude by the federal government and other states to force the issue.

The two primary issues are these:

Sanctuary for illegal immigrants

California started the sanctuary city lawlessness way back in 1971 in radicalized Berkeley and slowly more cities joined the subversion. But as of Jan. 1, 2018, the entire state of California is now a full-scale sanctuary locale. So no California state, California county or California city law enforcement officers can work with, cooperate with, or turn over known illegal immigrants to federal immigration officials — including illegal immigrants that commit crimes.

California leadership has learned nothing from the heinous case of Kate Steinle, who was shot to death in 2015 in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who, instead of being turned over to federal agents requesting him, was set free and committed the crime. Apparently they see bigger plays at stake than simply protecting people.

But even that is no longer enough. Democratic state leadership is making it clear that not only will they protect and even promote the interests of illegal immigrants within their borders, they are threatening to prosecute Americans who help federal ICE agents enforce the actual law.

This is the governmental attitude that is a powerful part of the equation.

So California, home to at least 2.3 million illegal immigrants — or maybe twice that number, literally — is going to become home to an awful lot more. Once across the border into California, they are here to stay as long as they want. Further, California will graciously provide them schooling, medical care, other welfare benefits, and a driver’s license. Just slip in and head to the nearest California DMV office and you’re golden.

This marries into the next major direction that has the potential to cause even more disruption to the American republic.

Massive voting fraud opportunities for illegal immigrants

California is baking into its laws, regulations and governmental attitude the opportunity for literally millions of Mexican nationals and other non-American residents to be voting in American elections. This has probably already happened at least in some small ways. The problem is, we don’t really know.

Democratic leadership is doing it on purpose and with purpose. There is no other way to look at it. The supermajority Democratic California Assembly and Governor are actively working — sometimes in plain sight, sometimes in a more shadowy, Deep State sort of way — to subvert American elections.

Original reports from World Net Daily that California will automatically register illegals to vote beginning April 1 when they get a driver’s license appear to be exaggerated. However, state actions and judicial rulings are continuing apace to ensure that some, probably many and one day perhaps millions of illegal residents will be casting votes in California.

The single biggest legislative step is known as AB60, the 2015 legislation that allows illegal aliens to get a license in California. Of course, a license is a primary form of identification. That information doesn’t get forwarded to be automatically registered to vote unless they are U.S. citizens. But here is the key: They don’t have to prove it. Just claim it. Check a box or not check a box. Or possibly just not “opt out” as the paperwork requires them to do if they do not want to be registered.

“You’re setting the state up for a disaster. They don’t seem to have a process in place to verify that people are who they say they are. It’s a free-for-all, a process that can be manipulated,” said Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote.

Constitutionalist KrisAnne Hall made the case last March that the states need to fight back against California. They have a right and a duty.

The Constitution is a legal contract between the States, specifically called a compact. This legal fact has been ignored for decades and has been subverted by deception and denial of testimony given by the drafters of the Constitution.

The federal government is the product of that compact, not a party to it. When a party of a contract is violating the terms of that contract it is not the responsibility of the product to seek remedy — it is the duty the parties to the contract to remedy.

California is a party to the Constitution with 49 other States. When California is creating laws establishing terms by which immigrants can obtain the benefits of citizenship, it is violating the terms of that agreement. In this situation, the injured parties are the other States, not the federal government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those injured States to seek proper remedy and correction of California’s breach of contract.

Whether the states will or not is another question. It’s possible that President Trump will. Challenges in the courts will be in the Ninth Circuit, which is hopelessly politicized. They need to reach the Supreme Court. Because what California is doing cannot be allowed to stand.

Because it does not overstate it to say that voter fraud is being made “legal” in California, and that is an absolutely existential threat to America.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Immigration Truth

New Yale Study Makes The Wall And Limiting Immigrants Imperative

Rod Thomson

With thousands of immigrants trying to illegally enter the United States from Mexico — all eyes are focused on Tijuana right now, but the crossings continue along the normal stretches, too — a recent Yale study is actually making a powerful case for building the wall.

It wasn’t supposed to. But kudos to honest researchers.

The study by two Yale professors and an instructor at MIT Sloan School of Management found that the number of undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens in legal, non-PC terms) living in the United States is double what has been estimated and used continually in the media.

Double, as in 22.1 million illegals living here. The number widely used in the media, in studies and in conversations is generally around 11 million. This has implications for the entire debate, because it means that everything from the numbers coming in during good economic times (now) to the costs to American taxpayers are much, much higher than what has been estimated.

Researchers Edward Kaplan, Jonathan Feinstein and Mohammad Fazel‐Zarandi used a more full method to determine that the common estimate of 11 million immigrants is likely way off base.

“Our original idea was just to do a sanity check on the existing number,” said Kaplan, a professor of operations research at Yale School of Management. “Instead of a number which was smaller, we got a number that was…higher. That caused us to scratch our heads.”

So obviously, these researchers were actually wondering if the 11 million number was too high. They were expecting to get a smaller number.

Fellow Yale researcher Feinstein expanded on that point. “There’s a number that everybody quotes, but when you actually dig down and say, “What is it based on?” you find it’s based on one very specific survey and possibly an approach that has some difficulties. So we went in and just took a very different approach.”

Help Us On Patreon

When researchers say an approach has “some difficulties,” they mean it is flawed, poorly done and so probably yielding wrong results. Difficulties.

Yale Insights wrote about the research:

“The 11.3 million number is extrapolated from the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey. “It’s been the only method used for the last three decades,” says Mohammad Fazel‐Zarandi, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management and formerly a postdoctoral associate and lecturer in operations at the Yale School of Management. That made the researchers curious—could they reproduce the number using a different methodology?”

The three researchers used data from deportations and visa overstays, as well as demographic data like death rates and immigration rates, to get a better number. Their approach benefits from being logical.

“’The population today is equal to the initial population plus everyone who came in minus everyone who went out. It’s that simple,” Kaplan said. There don’t appear to be any “difficulties” with that broad concept. He went on: “The analysis we’ve done can be thought of as estimating the size of a hidden population. People who are undocumented immigrants are not walking around with labels on their foreheads.”

The study reported that the greatest growth of illegal immigrants was in the 1990s and early 2000s and that the population has remained fairly steady since 2008.

That simply coincides with economic activity in the United States. A strong economy in the 1990s and up to 2007 (with one short exception) caused an ongoing influx that has only partially been captured. Then eight years of economic stagnation under President Obama made the risk and travails of illegally coming here less worth it and the population stabilized.

Like Us On Facebook

These trend lines aligning with the economy suggest that the number is climbing again as the economy is booming. This increasing number would be in addition to the thousands that are part of the migrant caravan, and ultimately would swamp those numbers.

The trends in the new study are the same as the earlier one, but the totals are vastly greater, Fazel‐Zarandi said. “They are capturing part of this population, but not the whole population.” Something like half of it, apparently.

The researchers went to great lengths to say the study has no political agenda, because they know of course such data is ultimately a political weapon. And remember, they originally expected the 11 million number to be lower — not double.

“Our purpose is just to provide better information,” Feinstein said. “This paper 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.”

Being that he is on a liberal Ivy League campus where students are empowered to bully professors into submission or out of a job, he’s smart to really reinforce the point — if he wants to keep his job and live peaceably.

He added: ‘We wouldn’t want people to walk away from this research thinking that suddenly there’s a large influx happening now. It’s really something that happened in the past and maybe was not properly counted or documented.”

Right. They have been here all along, and Americans have been supporting them and some have been materially hurt by them, all along.

What you can walk away from this paper with is illegal aliens are likely costing taxpayers twice as much money as was previously suggested — and that number may one day be found to have “difficulties.”

You can also walk away from this study with the reality that we desperately need to secure our border with Mexico, with a wall in many places and enhanced terrain in others. But the barrier needs to be complete.

It turns out that when you make America great again, the world agrees that it’s great, and wants to come along for the ride!

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Immigration Judges Leftists Truth

Reversing ‘Obama Judge’ Ruling On Asylum Seekers

Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

An Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred — in direction contradiction to both the immigration law and to the Supreme Court’s ruling this year.

In dismissing the administration’s new policy requiring that only asylum applicants who entered the country through designated points of entry be processed, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco held that the Trump Administration was essentially rewriting immigration law.

Advocates against President Trump successfully argued before the judge that immigration law required people fleeing persecution to be allowed to seek safety in the United States regardless of how they arrived in the country. 

There’s only one problem with the advocacy groups’ arguments and with the judges ruling; the language within the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) itself. The fact is that Congress foresaw the possibility of explosive situations like the one in Central America.

For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the INA reads, in part, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” [emphasis added.]

That is exactly what the President did.

What Judge Tygar purposely ignores is that Section 1182(f) of the INA actually gives the President the authority to respond to issues such as the one developing in Central America in whatever manner he feels appropriate. Consequently, the President’s proclamation is completely consistent with the powers afforded to him by Congress.  

To make matters even dicier for Judge Tigar, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court decided on June 26, 2018, that the President was granted “broad discretion” in dealing with aliens attempting to enter the country.

Help Us Further The Truth  

So, where are we in this situation?  

Unfortunately for our nation’s security, the court’s ruling essentially amounts to an invitation to all foreign nationals attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States to pursue their entry at all possible costs. The urgency of the matter, particularly in light of the growing wave of migrants accumulating south of the board, makes affirmative action by the White House a must.

First, it is imperative that the President undertake the appellate process with all possible haste. The President must seek emergency judicial review to the Ninth Circuit. Of course, the Ninth Circuit with its consistent liberal agenda will uphold the lower court’s ruling.  

The President must then rapidly proceed to the Supreme Court where this case will undoubtedly be overruled.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Democrats ICE Immigration Truth

Kamala Harris’s Cowardly ICE Attack Reveals Anti-Americanism

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

Last week, Sen. Kamala Harris once again demonstrated her vitriol and antipathy towards an American law-enforcement institution. This time, she directed her leftist, anti-American sentiment to one of the most challenged, selfless, and invaluable institutions of the federal government: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — and the men and women in it.

In a Senate confirmation hearing for ICE Director Nominee Ronald Vitiello, Harris asked whether he shared the perception that ICE was causing fear and mistrust like the Ku Klux Klan.

“Are you aware that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?” she asked.

Vitiello, trying to maintain his composure responded, “I do not see a parallel between the power and authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion [and the KKK].”

Harris’s answer was just as intellectually hollow, “Sir how can you be the head of an agency and be unaware of how your agency is being perceived by certain communities?”

Really, Senator?  Which communities, exactly? Perhaps the ones who broke into the country illegally?

Clearly, what Harris was aiming to do was express her own objectionable opinion that ICE is somehow like the KKK. But Harris knew that if she took ownership of such an opinion, she would get irreparably attacked. What was worse in her mind, is that she would lose support for her desired presidential race. Yet she needed her base, so she hid behind the “perception” drapes.

Harris chose to claim that there was some sort of perception by a made-up group that ICE was as racially motivated and evil as the KKK, which, by the way, arose as the militant arm of the Democratic Party, the same party to which Harris pledges her allegiance. Predictably, Harris has shown no evidence for the existence of such a perception of ICE, or even of a community where such a perception exists. Similarly, we been unable to identify a single major poll that asked whether ICE and its activities are in any way reminiscent or comparable to the KKK.

Use Patreon To Help Us Deliver Truth

In fact, one poll performed by Politico in July 2018 showed the opposite.

In this poll, 54% favored retaining ICE while only 25% wished to “get rid of” it. Additionally, in that same poll, 40%, a plurality, looked less favorably upon a congressional candidate wishing to get rid of ICE. This compared to 26% who favored such candidates. Interestingly, this latter percentage was smaller than those who either didn’t care one way or the other, or had no opinion, combined (33%).

The fact is that Harris used this fictitious, fabricated community to express what is, in fact, her own rancid opinion about law enforcing, patriotic, self-sacrificing Americans. It is also the view of the radical part of the Democratic Party’s base.

Of course, Kamala Harris’s cowardly attack did not shield her from scorn. In fact, there is a community that perceives Harris to be anti-American. Not that she necessarily is, of course. But that’s the perception of many communities.

One American who wished to remain anonymous even asked, “How can Kamala remain a Senator or think of becoming President when she is unaware that there is a community that perceives her to be anti-American?”

As of this writing, Sen. Harris has not responded to numerous attempts to have her answer this question.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Immigration Truth

Countering The False Claims As Immigration Takes Center Stage

by Peter B. Gemma

Immigration will be center stage with the Democrats now in charge of the House and President Trump determined to secure America’s borders and control who can come in.

And so the surplus of claims made by immigration advocates that are either misleading, incomplete, a rewriting of history or just flat wrong will be rolling forward unabated through the partisan mainstream media. But these claims are not hard to correct. And in fact, they can be supported through the insightful commentary of historic American leaders.

Here are the major claims made by open immigration advocates, and the necessary responses to them for every American who wants to maintain America as a Shining City on a Hill.

 

Claim: We’re a nation of immigrants.

Reply: Our heritage of immigration is just one facet of our national identity. First and foremost, we’re a nation of Americans, a nation built on ideals — not ethnicities. As a free people, we have the right to regulate immigration for the benefit of our national interest.

Alexander Hamilton: “Foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. In the composition and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.” 

 

Claim: The descendants of immigrants cannot in good conscience keep out new immigrants.

Reply: This is like saying that a private business, staffed by people who were once job applicants, is morally obligated to hire all new applicants. This is ridiculous on the face of it because the purpose of a business is to sell products and make money, and it must gear its hiring program to meet those ends. Similarly, a nation exits to serve its national interests — and it should regulate immigration by that standard.

Frederick Douglass: “The old employments by which we have heretofore gained our livelihood, are gradually, and it may seem inevitably, passing into other hands. Every hour sees the black man elbowed out of employment by some newly arrived immigrant whose hunger and whose color are thought to give him a better title to the place.” 

More Truth On Patreon

Claim: Immigration has been good for America; we need it to keep benefitting us. Immigrants after all built America.

Reply: Certainly immigration can help America, but to say that it is always good, regardless of quantity or quality, is absurd. It’s like saying that alcohol is always beneficial because a daily glass of red wine will improve a person’s health — and from that observation going on to claim that two bottles of wine a day will be even more beneficial. The specific question to ask is whether our massive level of immigration today is helpful or harmful. In the past, a high level of immigration helped to populate and develop a vast and undeveloped country. But today our nation is populated and built. So why do we need to keep on admitting so many builders?

Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL): “America must not be overwhelmed. Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces. One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages.”

 

Claim: We have the moral duty to be a haven for the world’s poor and downtrodden.

Reply: Morality does not require us to do what is impossible and self-destructive. World population now increases at the rate of about 80 million a year, with most of this increase in poor and relatively poor countries. Let’s suppose we decided to admit one-tenth of that number a year, eight million, a total about six times higher than our current annual intake of legal and illegal immigrants. With immigration causing problems now, imagine what stress that increase would cause, one which would add 100 million people in little more than a decade. For most people in the world, prosperity is something they will have to create at home. If America remains strong, we can provide them with assistance. But if we are overwhelmed, we will lack the capacity to help anyone.

Francis A. Walker, President, MIT 1881-1897: “Charity begins at home; and while the people of the United States have gladly offered an asylum to millions upon millions of the distressed and unfortunate of other lands and climes, they have no right to carry their hospitality one step beyond the line where American institutions, the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, are brought into serious peril.”

More Truth On Facebook

Claim: Diversity is our strength. All cultures are equal and equally enriching.

Reply: Anything labeled as good cannot be discerned without reference to quantity and quality. Certainly we can enjoy the diversity of having a number of ethnic restaurants in a city and some retained cultural customs, but that hardly means we should welcome such profound cultural differences that threaten our national unity. Some diversity is good, but taken as universal can be divisive and destructive. The statement that “all cultures are equal and equally enriching” is one that flatly contradicts reality. In terms of things that nearly all people want, such as freedom and prosperity, it is manifestly clear that some cultures provide them far better than others. Western countries, led by the United States, are a case in point. That’s why so many people around the world want to move here. If all cultures were truly equal, those people could find the satisfactions they want within their own cultures without leaving home.

Calvin Coolidge“American institutions rest solely on good citizenship, created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.” 

 

Claim: This land belongs to the American Indians. Only they have the right to set immigration policy.

Reply: Whoever truly believes this claim, should be the first to call for an end to immigration. Why allow more foreign thieves to come and take Indian land? Of course no one really believes this claim. It’s just a rhetorical cheap shot to denigrate immigration control by manipulating guilt about historic injustices done to Indians. Those were real and unfortunate, but dwelling on past moral failings should not keep us from living in the present and dealing with present realities. Today, American land belongs to Americans of all backgrounds, including American Indians. Allowing guilt to paralyze our will to make necessary decisions about immigration is gross irresponsibility, a patent evil which will jeopardize our country’s future. We can make up what we owe to Indians by treating them justly as citizens today, allowing them full participation in the American way of life.

Teddy Roosevelt“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

 

And, finally, an admonition on the whole concept of immigration from John Adams: “Among the number of applications, cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?

If that sounds harsh, just realize the reality that if we wreck America with unwise immigration policies, we wreck it for our children and also for the rest of the world. There will be no shining city on a hill for throngs to aspire to.

That is the cost of foolish immigration policies, and the real harshness.

Peter B. Gemma is an award-winning freelance writer whose articles have appeared in the websites DailyCaller and AmericanThinker, as well as USA Today and the Washington Examiner.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Immigration Trump Truth

Trump Has The Authority — And Duty — To End Birthright Citizenship

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

President Trump has voiced his intent to end birthright citizenship through an executive order. To those on the left, his comment sounded outlandish and devoid of any attachment to reality. To others, the comment was an expression of wishful thinking, or worse yet, a hollow political stunt.

Indeed, the President’s only defense of his claim when pressed was, “Now, they’re saying that I can.”  

Well, who is they? And to whom are they saying it?

Immediately, reporters and politicians alike responded with claims of the plan’s unconstitutionality. On the same day that President Trump spoke of the idea, Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote that President Trump’s claim was at odds with the legal consensus.  

Liptak reached back to the testimony of then Head Counsel for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Walter Dellinger, before Congress in 1995 who said, “Because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution.” Similarly, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in an interview with “Larry Glover Live” on WVLK, “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”

But like so many other things in law, innovative approaches and ideas that are in fact allowable become so only because the idea is viewed under the scrutiny of a different prism. This case, I believe, is no exception.

 

Presidential powers

The powers of the President of the United States, and indeed the entirety of the executive branch, are defined in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. The Framers made it perfectly clear in Article II, Section 3, that the President of the United States “. . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . .”

The mandate goes straight to the most elemental check upon the President, and indeed, the whole executive branch. The President cannot create any new laws. All the President has the power to do is make sure that statute passed by Congress, or authorities given to him by the Constitution, are carried out in a manner consistent with the statutes enacted by Congress and with the language contained within the Constitution.  

As a matter of fact, the question of whether the President has the authority to write new laws has already been reviewed by the Supreme Court and struck down. In Clinton v. City of New York, U.S. (1998), the Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 giving the President the power to veto certain items in the budget if he so desired.

More Truth On Patreon

So strict was the interpretation of the prohibition upon the President to in any way alter a law presented to him or her by Congress, that even the mere alteration through a line-item veto was interpreted as giving the President the authority to amend the statute he was altering. The power of amendment, the Court said, rested only with Congress, a signature feature of the Separation of Powers doctrine that colored the Constitution. Any intrusion through amendment or line item veto by the executive was expressly prohibited.

So clearly, the President, and all departments of the executive branch are bound to the charter of faithfully executing the laws of the United States and may not alter them.  

But interpreting the laws of the United States is an altogether different matter. Both the executive branch and the President are continuously tasked with interpreting the laws passed by Congress. Essentially, the President lacks any authority to do anything that either the Congress or the Constitution does not allow him to do. But if Congress grants the executive the authority to carry out a particular task, then it is fundamental to the successful execution of that task that the President and the departments answerable to him interpret Congress’s mandate.

In certain areas, Congress has made perfectly clear what it is that they wish for the President or agencies to do. Elsewhere, Congress has not been specific, either because it purposely wished to give the authority of interpretation or policy design to the executive, or because it lacked the political will to pass the law inclusive of specific definitions or directions.

 

The 14th Amendment on birthright citizenship

In 1866, the country was reeling from the devastating effects of the Civil War. The South lay in ruins. The Democrat establishment inculcated in the southern states, although militarily defeated, was doing everything it could to maintain its old class and economic system. Although slavery had been outlawed and former slaves emancipated, southern Democrats were busy building roadblocks to the success of former slaves and African Americans in general.

Yes, slavery was no longer an option, but southern Democrats still had the Dred Scott decision at their disposal. In the most offensive Supreme Court ruling in American history, the Court in Dred Scott held that black Americans were not citizens of the United States, and that even if a state had afforded the person citizenship, such an act did not concurrently grant American, or federal citizenship. In other words, merely because an individual of African descent was a citizen of a certain state, he or she still would not be considered an American citizen. The post-war Southern States, under Democrat hands, aimed to capitalize on that still governing opinion.

More Truth On Our Facebook Page

The Reconstructionist Congress immediately took to rectify that situation and repeal the Dred Scott opinion. It would do this through a Constitutional amendment. Congress had already outlawed slavery by passing and ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Now, it was hard at work at correcting this latest affront to former slaves by fashioning an amendment that would accomplish five things:

1) clarify that citizenship of the United States supersedes state citizenship;

2) define who is a citizen of the United States;

3) guarantee equal protection under the law to all citizens;

4) guarantee due process rights to all citizens; and

5) guarantee the same privileges and immunities to all citizens.  

The result of their efforts was the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a rather voluminous addition addressing all the aforementioned issues. Regarding who is recognized as a citizen of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment states, “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.”

Notice that the Fourteenth Amendment does not state that all persons born in the United States are citizens, but rather, those who are born in the United States and who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

So, what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? For that, we have information from debates and Supreme Court cases.

In the debates leading to the passage of the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, some senators agreed that the phrase essentially meant “subject to full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Consequently, the phrase was included to make sure that certain persons born in the United States would not be considered citizens. These included American Indians, foreign invaders, and foreign dignitaries, such that, for example, if a foreign dignitary were to find herself pregnant in the United States and gave birth to a baby on American soil, that child was not considered to be a citizen of the United States.  

The question of the citizenship of a baby who was born on American soil to someone who found herself in the United States illegally was never contemplated. Clearly, upon interpreting the language and the intent of the addition of the clause, it is clear that such an individual would not be subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States and would likely not have been intended to be a citizen of the United States according to the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

For the contrary interpretation we would have to go to the few cases decided by the Supreme Court where the Court dealt with the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, but whose circumstances were not identical to the questions posited by President Trump.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. (1898) was a case dealing with the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese, non-citizen immigrants. In that case, the Court ruled that the child was indeed a citizen of the United States. The stickler here is that the baby’s parents, although non-citizens, had come to the United States and were residing within the United States, legally.

Contrarily, the Court held in Elk v. Wilkins, U.S. (1884) that the children of American Indians were not automatically considered citizens of the United States because, even though they were born on U.S. soil, the parents, by virtue of belonging to an American Indian tribe had not subjected themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.  

There are cases dealing with government benefits where courts, even the Supreme Court, have decided that the children of illegal immigrants born on American soil are eligible for benefits because they are citizens of the United States, but in such cases the courts began their analyses under the assumption that these children were citizens.

More to the point, the Court has never decided whether birthright citizenship is absolute and immutable under the Constitution, or whether it is subject to regulatory oversight. In other words, the question of whether Congress or the executive can interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in such a manner that clarifies the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thereby limit certain classes of individuals from being citizens has never been entertained by the Court.

 

Congress Opens The Door To The President’s Executive Order

Whether the President has the authority to make a policy interpretation directly from the language in the Constitution of the United States is an interesting discussion, but our analysis does not have to reach that question because Congress passed a statute codifying the citizenship clause within the Fourteenth Amendment.  

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress in 1952 actually codifies the citizenship and naturalization provision of the Fourteenth Amendment in 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). It reads, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; . . . ”  However, in it Congress did not define the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Consequently, so long as Congress fails to define the meaning of the clause, it falls upon the executive or the President to do so. Therein lies the invitation by Congress for the President to interpret eligibility for birthright citizenship born to a person illegally in the United States.

Admittedly, the judiciary may also interpret that phrase, but it can only do so in a case or controversy with standing where the actual question of the meaning of the phrase is at play. Additionally, even if the judiciary interprets the meaning of the statutory language, a definition put forth by the executive or Congress will supersede the judiciary’s definition.  

However, if the judiciary were to interpret the meaning of the phrase as it is used in the Constitution then only a constitutional amendment could overturn the decision, which represents yet another example of why our nation is well served by the passage of a legislative override provision to a Supreme Court decision.

 

The merits of ending birthright citizenship

Having established that the President has the authority to end birthright citizenship by simply defining the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” should he?

There are a number of arguments in favor of ending birthright citizenship. Perhaps the most compelling of these is that birthright citizenship serves as an incentive for illegal immigration. Unquestionably, many women would risk life or limb to have their children born in the United States just so that the baby would be a citizen of the United States.

The practice has many deleterious effects, not the least of which is increasing the number of American citizens with dual citizenship. Additionally, once the child is a citizen, it becomes much more difficult for authorities to deport the parents. And finally, of course, the child born under these circumstances becomes the first link in the chain of migration that will naturally include his or her parents, siblings and other family member — chain migration.

There are also real costs to illegal immigration. Jon Feere, a policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies pointed out during his congressional hearing in 2015 that about 375,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States each year, or one in 10 births.  Additionally, 71% of illegal alien households with children make use of welfare benefits. The aggregate costs of these programs run into the billions of dollars each year. And bear in mind that in the developed world, only the United States and Canada honor birthright citizenships.  

Who has the authority under the Constitution to end birthright citizenship? Clearly, from our analysis, both Congress and the President have the authority to end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution.

So who should do it?

Congress, of course! Congress is where such a robust discussion should rightfully take place.  But if Congress does not or cannot, then the responsibility falls upon the President.

If President Trump were to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, there is a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will overrule him regardless of how the executive order is fashioned. But if it does so based on a claim that the President lacks the authority to define a vague and previously undefined statutory clause, the Court will be glaringly guilty of two things.  

First, it would be guilty of randomly and capriciously denying the President the authority to do something that is fundamental to his duties of faithfully executing the laws of the United States.  And second, the Supreme Court would be making a decision not on the inherent authorities granted to each branch of government as it should, but merely on its disdain towards the policy enacted, clearly a policy consideration outside of its own purview.

The President is correct in asserting his authority to interpret a nebulous congressional statute, even if the result is the end of birthright citizenship. At the very least, doing so will force Congress to have the debate it should have had decades ago.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Democrats Guns Immigration Socialism Trump Truth

The Democrats’ 5-Point Pitch For Voters Summed Up

Rod Thomson

Remove all of the nonsense spun up daily by the media, peel back the coverage spin, and what is revealed is a series of five Democratic positions that are, not to put too fine a point on it: Absurd and unpopular.

And most Americans find them to be absurd, damaging, crazy, annoying or all of these.

Of course, the shifting polls are showing this. As Americans are paying more attention to political positions and actions, particularly those swing voters who are not too involved with politics generally but who will vote in November, we’re seeing a swing toward more Republican support.

The GOP is now broadly thought to be able to pick up two to three Senate seats, after the Democrat-Media Establishment made a real push to retake the Senate. And the House, which was at one point a foregone conclusion to flip Democratic because of normal midterm responses to the party in power, the (former) unpopularity of the President, and the polls, now appears to be in play with the actual possibility that Republicans could maintain control.

The violence done by Democrats against the bedrock American principle of a presumption of innocence and concept of fairness during the Kavanaugh hearings certainly pushed some swing voters away from Democrats. And the roaring economy surely is moving politically middle Americans toward Republicans.

But the actual issues Democrats are running on are also driving away those in the middle as they actually become aware of them.

More Pro-American Ideals On Patreon

Here’s a quick look at those:

  • TRUMP: The primary animating issue Democrats have led with in their agenda is fueled by Trump hatred, and it means stopping, investigating, crippling and if possible removing Trump. But most Americans don’t really want that. And this shows. Despite the ongoing onslaught of negative reporting on President Trump by the media and the daily drumbeat of criticism, Americans feel pretty good about the country and the direction of the country. Astonishingly, given the comparative media coverage, Trump’s approval rating is now at an all-time high of 47 percent — two points above President Obama’s at this exact same point coming up on the midterms.
  • IMMIGRATION: In a nation with more than 20 million illegal aliens, and a massive caravan of now 14,000 Guatemalans and other foreigners marching toward the U.S. southern border (“coincidentally” right at election time,) the Democrats want to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. This is deeply unpopular because it is rightly seen as deeply stupid and counterproductive. Democrats fight every effort to secure the border and to control immigration. In practice, they are pushing for de facto open borders. Again, a disastrous policy in a country with generous welfare provisions. This general open-border stance, along with the abolishment of ICE, is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people.
  • MEDICARE: Democrats are in the starting gates and ready to bust out to spin up a quick $20 trillion entitlement called “Medicare for All,” which will not only be more than $20 trillion, but which would rob those who worked a lifetime and contributed to Medicare — while buying their own health care insurance — of true Medicare coverage when their turn comes. It would throw everyone into government healthcare, grind to a halt medical innovation in this country (which means medical innovation in the world,) require crippling tax increases and end with rationed care. This last part is why older people, who had paid in through their lifetimes, would not receive the level of care they paid for others to receive. Basically, it destroys Medicare. When American voters understand this, the polls turn sharply.
  • SOCIALISM: The Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party is promoting the idea of Democratic Socialism, a colossal expansion of the welfare state in which Medicare for All is only a portion, and would require the nationalization of the healthcare industry and much more, and of course massive tax increases. Millennials may not fully grasp the destruction this would wreak on the American economy and American way of life, but most voters do.
  • GUNS: Democrats not running in red districts or states have given up on the 2nd Amendment. Their efforts at banning undefinable “assault weapons” and attempts to whittle away at Americans’ gun rights have now turned into an increasingly full-throated call to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Yes, repeal it. Americans are very divided on assault weapons, particularly after an egregious mass shooting. But there is little support for ridding the U.S. Constitution of the 2nd Amendment.

More American Truths On Facebook

When the unpopularity of these five points are combined with the #walkaway movement and the shift in black voters’ support for President Trump, it suggests that the vaunted blue wave may never materialize — media hyperventilating aside. And part of it will actually be policy-based.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Border Immigration Trump Truth

It’s Time For America To Go On The Offensive On Immigration

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
  
Mine is a love-hate relationship with Geraldo Rivera. I find him comical and light-hearted most of the time. But then he goes off and says the stupidest things; so dumb it makes Juan Williams look professorial. 
 
In particular, Geraldo Rivera tends to fall off the deep end when he speaks of immigration, and yesterday was no exception. In an article expressing his proposal at resolving the immigration crisis, Geraldo wrote, “In exchange for leniency and a path to citizenship for long-time undocumented residents already in this country — who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents — pro-immigration advocates, like me, should announce our support for President Trump’s border wall. It will help restore order along the southern border, and mitigate the hysteria currently gripping the national immigration debate and tainting the mid-term elections.”
 
Never mind that the position of immigration advocates regarding the President of the United States has no bearing on the state of affairs in Central America; the notion that continued opposition to President Trump’s border wall will have any effect on his resolve to pursue it is also ill-conceived. Moreover, it is increasingly clear to most Americans that advocating for an open border is an absurd position that only serves to work against the interests of the United States and its citizens.
 
But included in Geraldo’s article is a statement that crosses the border between political discourse and unsubstantiated, discriminatory speech. Specifically, Geraldo wrote, “It is, in my opinion, fear of our nation being over-run by poor, hungry, brown people in sufficient numbers to change our basic national character, which motivates most critics of this caravan and, more broadly, illegal immigration.”
 
I can confidently speak not only for my position, but also for that of anyone I have spoken to regarding border protection, and I have been discussing this issue a heck of a lot, that in absolutely no case has anyone factored the color of one’s skin or the nationality of those crossing illegally in the analysis of immigration. Quite the opposite; the only topics that keep coming up are our national sovereignty, our economy, and our national security. And for me, the most important of these is our national sovereignty.  
 
So, in response, let me tell share with you my proposal on how to address this issue.  
 

More Original Americanism On Patreon
 

First, the necessity of building the wall, at this point, is a foregone conclusion. With the chaos we are witnessing to the south of us, there is no valid argument against it to be made. Build the wall, and build it now!

Second, the more immediate question is what to do about the thousands of individuals who are heading to our southern border at this moment. Here, I think the United States is making a big mistake in playing defense. Like prevent defense in football, the United States is sitting at the end zone waiting for its opponent to arrive in the hope that once it gets there it will be able to stop it, or the clock will run out. But there is not clock on the massive caravan coming our way, nor the one forming behind it.

I say, the United States needs to go on offense. 

The United States needs to coordinate an affirmative effort with Mexico to dissuade the “dissidents” from proceeding. The effort should begin with the airdropping of leaflets, in Spanish, letting the migrants know that they are continuing their journey at their own peril and that if they should choose to continue, they will be stopped, by force if necessary, at the border. Helicopters would deliver the same message using megaphones, urging them to turn back. Included in this message is the offer to have those wishing to turn back transported to their home country, free of charge.
 
Next, in a coordinated exercise with Mexico, the United States should begin crowd disbursement activities. This will help to further diminish the size of the crowd eventually confronting our officers at the border. The topic of forcibly repatriating those who remain while still in Mexico should also be discussed with Mexican officials. If amenable, the United States should engage with Mexico in joint exercises accomplishing this end.
 
Those arriving at the border despite all these civil obstacles are more likely than not eager to engage in nefarious activities. These will be engaged, forcefully if necessary, at the border, and repelled.  
 
Having regained control in the short run, and while building the wall, the United States would then have to evaluate the issues that are allowing for an appetite for emigration in the first place. We already know these include the many economic and governmental challenges plaguing Central American countries. The United States should immediately begin a mutually beneficial, long-term strategy aimed at reforming Central America with the goal of improving living conditions while benefiting the American economy and trade. Unquestionably, if these nations partner up, the results can be lucrative for each; and for their citizens.
 
As opposed to empty promises of support for the President, this plan will offer short-term control and long-term stability, making it much more worthy of pursuit.  

And that, Geraldo, is an actual proposal.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

 


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
California Immigration Progressives Socialism Truth

California’s Slow Decline Into The Abyss of Venezuela

Rod Thomson

The slow, steady erasure of California’s middle class holds the very real potential to descend that state into a version of the chaos and anarchy in Venezuela.

Yes, yes, that sounds like the crazy hyperbole we hear from the Left. But it’s not. If not for the fact that we still have a functioning democratic republic with both an undergirding constitution and long heritage tethering that careening state to the more stable Union, it actually would be almost assured. The burgeoning lower end of the state and the walled off high end of the state are squeezing the middle, resulting in an eye-popping number of productive Californians fleeing the state.

We think that because California is so large and prosperous that it always will be. It has Silicon Valley and Hollywood and a pretty solid creative class, along with outstanding weather and a beautiful natural geography from oceans to mountains. The problem is, that is only part of the picture. Venezuela also had a top tier of wealth and entrepreneurship, plus a bustling, growing middle class and massive natural resources, such as oil — along with the ocean and mountains.

But through overbearing government control of private businesses, ever increasing taxes, transfers from the working classes to the not-working class, and ultimately nationalization of industry, the socialist leaders of that South American country managed to crush and eliminate its thriving middle class. And that was the final straw that began the chaotic and rapid spiral into the horrific desperation the country is experiencing now. Want to know what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s vision for America would look like? There it is.

A middle class is required to sustain an economy and ultimately a stable society. A middle class provides stability in the culture, political stability, entrepreneurs and plentiful responsible workers that hope for a good life. It is fuel for a thriving capitalist country. Any society that does not have a middle class — just a thin upper and vast lower class, a la feudal societies — is doomed to strife, a crashing economy, anger, resentment and ultimately revolution.

This has been Venezuela’s path. Starting with the Socialist/Communist President Hugo Chavez — whom Obama praised and literally embraced — and continued by his fellow socialist, Nicolás Maduro, policies squeezed out the middle class and bled them until none were left — leaving the country with only some rich people and a whole lot of poor people.

California is in the early stages of the exact same dynamic.

Join Our Fight Pro-American Values

That state is experiencing overbearing government control of private lives, religious freedoms, private businesses, draconian environmental regulations, very strict land-use laws and eroded property rights. What the state does not regulate and control, major cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego and Sacramento do.

Hardest to miss is that the California Assembly in Sacramento adds ever more taxes, as do most of the major cities in the state. California has one of the highest income tax rates in the country, with 10 rates up to 13.3 percent as of 2018. (Of course, it is all on top of federal taxes.) Property tax rates aren’t bad, but they are on the most inflated property values in the nation, and they are levied on full market value, which means in real dollars they are sky high. Sales tax is high at 7.25 percent. Gas tax is 54 cents per gallon, second highest, on gas prices that are among the highest because of regulations — making gas 25-30 percent higher per gallon than the rest of the nation. But California also kills with a thousand cuts by taxing an incredible number of oddball items for political purposes, i.e. fruit out of a vending machine has a 33 percent tax.

Regulation is always harder to assess specifically, but the results are not hard to see. California has earned the reputation for having the most onerous regulations for companies and land-use in the country, which makes everything more expensive — on which the high tax rates are then levied, added to the smothering cost-of-living burden.

Socialist-minded Democrats then take the enormous tax largesse they have extracted from struggling middle class Californians — and the wealthy elites in secluded conclaves that can afford it — and transfers it to the burgeoning non-working classes.

The state spends $106 billion annually on welfare at the state level, nearly twice as much as the next largest state, New York, and three times as much as the third highest state, Texas. California’s $103 billion is the lion’s share of it’s entire budget of $183 billion, dwarfing the next largest item of education — on which it spends more than the national average.

Follow Us On Facebook

The largest welfare cost is Medi-Cal, the healthcare program for low-income Californians, which now has 14.2 million people enrolled — meaning more than one in three state residents are on government healthcare. California also provides cash payments to people who work but do not earn enough to pay taxes, another transfer payment from the middle and upper income to the low income. Relatively paltry amounts for such a large state and budget are spent on infrastructure — things the middle class relies on — such as $2.8 billion on roads, about 1 percent of the budget.

Remember, while more than one million people exited California for other states — that’s a net number, one million more left than arrived — the state’s population still soared. There is obviously only one place all of these new residents are coming from; immigration. Some of those are legal immigrants, a portion of whom bring talents to the state. But millions are illegal immigrants. California is estimated to have close to three million illegal aliens inside its borders, and about one in ten workers are illegal aliens, although these numbers are really unknown. Virtually all of these people are receiving some form of transfer payment from California’s middle and upper income residents.

The exorbitant costs cannot be sustained by increasing portions of the middle class. This is maybe most clearly demonstrated in the exodus from California. San Francisco represents the problem precisely.

Perhaps the most liberal major city in America, San Francisco residents pay some of the highest taxes and deal with the most overburdening regulations — particularly on private property use — in the country. This has resulted in a median home price of $1.6 million dollars. The average rent for a one-bedroom, unfurnished apartment in the city is about $3,258 per month. These astronomical prices stun most of the country, but this is a clear result of the first stages of Socialistic tendencies in government control, regulation and taxation for redistribution.

This dynamic is in operation throughout the Bay Area, and in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento. California families on average paid three times their income for a home in 1970. Now that figure has jumped to nearly 10 times their income. The nation as a whole has seen nothing comparable, which of course becomes almost impossible for the lower part of the working middle class.

And it comes with a staggering price tag. According to the San Francisco Business Times:

“Nearly half of San Francisco Bay Area voters plan to leave the region in the next few years, fed up with exorbitant housing costs and the long commutes caused by the lack of available homes near their workplaces…Most troubling for the future of the regional economy, is that millennials plan to flee; 52 percent said they will depart vs. 46 percent last year, the Council poll says.”

The major metro areas technically have very low unemployment. But in reality, they have a massive homeless population, a street defecation epidemic, a diminishing working class and a mushrooming illegal alien population.

Subscribe To Us On Youtube

And its emblematic of the red warning flag waving over the state. According to the Orange County Register:

Between 2007 and 2016, California lost 1 million more domestic residents than have come into the state, according to the IRS. Many are moving to Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.

This is ongoing. Major, well-paying companies such as Toyota, Occidental Petroleum, Nissan and others who paid between $80,000 and $120,000 — solid middle class pay — have shuttered factories and left the state due to the overly burdensome regulations, taxes and cost of living for workers. Those people have fled to Texas, first, and then other states where they found it affordable to live and raise families.

Joel Kotkin, a presidential fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, told the Register:

“Today, we have a society which over time is becoming more and more feudal with the very rich, very successful — some of the richest people in the history of the world — at the very top, and then a diminishing middle class…And what’s more frightening is you have young people, some of them with college educations working at Uber, working at Starbucks, essentially barely making it.”

The picture painted here is one of the middle class being squeezed out in a way that even the naturally beautiful weather and geography cannot overcome.

The reality is that California is slowly driving a stake through the heart of its once thriving middle class. And that is where the parallel with Venezuela is so strong — and dangerous.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Border Immigration Truth

Trump’s Immigration Goals Mirror Eisenhower’s: Jobs And Security

By Peter B. Gemma

President Trump has invoked President Dwight Eisenhower when explaining his administration’s programs that take on the crises of illegal immigration: “Dwight Eisenhower, was a great president – people liked him. He moved a 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country – moved them just beyond the border. They came back. He moved them again beyond the border, they came back. He didn’t like it. He moved them way south and they never came back.”

The economy of 60 years ago is not what it is today. The country was downshifting from World War II arms spending and faced a huge influx of returning veterans seeking jobs. To keep the nation’s fiscal house in order, President Eisenhower focused on creating a balanced federal budget.

As part of Ike’s economic equations, he knew that illegal immigration was an important factor.

On March 28, 1951, the New York Times observed (using what is now politically incorrect lingo): “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks,’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”

Two months later, the Los Angeles Times reported that 21,000 Mexican nationals had “flooded across Mexican border into California during April” and complained about the overworked, understaffed border patrolmen and “the endless wave of line jumpers, unprecedented in the nation’s history.”

During World War II, with so many Americans in the armed services, Mexicans illegally (and legally) entered the U.S. to take advantage of employment opportunities, especially as agricultural laborers. The federal government had created the Bracero program (Spanish for “manual laborer”), which brought Mexicans into the United States to fill jobs that soldiers had left behind. Those foreign workers were in the U.S. legally, but the government often looked the other way when companies illegally brought more cheap labor over the border.

By 1945, there were some two million illegal aliens living in California, Arizona, and Texas. This massive underground workforce had a devastating impact on the wages of American workers and returning war veterans looking for jobs.

Herbert Brownell, Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office. John Dillin, writing for the Christian Science Monitor, told Brownell’s story:

Join Our Fight Pro-American Values

‘America was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,’ Mr. Brownell said. ‘Hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint. Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to three million mostly Mexican, laborers.’

Eisenhower, concerned about all the tangential issues due to the influx of illegal aliens, including corruption that resulted from the profits of the underground labor market, took decisive action. First, he cancelled the Bracero agreement and then appointed General Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, who commanded the 11th Airborne Division during the campaign to liberate the Philippines, to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

However, like today, there was an open borders lobby at work: agribusiness and other employers of unskilled labor gained the favor of influential politicians, including Senators Lyndon Johnson of Texas and Pat McCarran Nevada, who led the fight against strong border enforcement on Capitol Hill.

Today, the open borders lobby is more pervasive: for example, the National Immigration Forum’s chairman is John Gay of the National Restaurant Association, and that group’s board members include Craig Regelbrugge, representing the American Nursery and Landscape Association, and Randal K. Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — all special interests in search of cheap labor. Amnesty advocates also include Sen. Lindsey Graham, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

General Swing’s close connections to President Eisenhower protected him and the Border Patrol from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests. With the close cooperation of the Eisenhower Justice Department, Swing launched what was popularly known as “Operation Wetback.”

Like Us On Facebook

With only 1,075 Border Patrol agents, supported by municipal, county, state, and the military, a comprehensive operation to identify and apprehend all illegal immigrants was undertaken.

According to the Texas Historical Association, on the first day of the operation 4,800 illegal aliens were apprehended. The roundup began in California and Arizona because there was less political resistance. Some 750 agents set a goal of 1,000 arrests a day, but in less than two weeks more than 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000 had fled the country.

Unlike the Eisenhower era, protecting the 1,954-mile Mexico-U.S. border, has now become more than an economic issue — it is key to the war on terrorism. Retired Admiral James Lyons, who was senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, has observed: “Fixing our porous borders is one of combating the threat of terrorism that America faces. In the various efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system, often overlooked in the debate is its impact on national security.”

President Eisenhower’s initiatives were designed to ensure Mexicans caught here illegally were not released at the border, where they could easily re-enter the U.S. The policy was to hire buses and trains to take illegal aliens deep within Mexico before being set free. Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships which ferried the aliens to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

Pundit Pat Buchanan summed up the Eisenhower immigration policy this way:

“During President Eisenhower’s first term, 60 years ago, the U.S. faced an invasion across its southern border. Illegal aliens had been coming since World War II. But, suddenly, the number was over one million. Crime was rising in Texas. The illegals were taking the jobs of U.S. farm workers…Eisenhower was a no-nonsense president…as for the deportation of the Mexicans, they had broken in, they did not belong here, and they were going back. End of discussion.”

Trump faces more severe challenges than Eisenhower, but his goals are the same: protecting the American worker and American national security.

Peter B. Gemma is an award-winning freelance writer whose articles have appeared in TheDailyCaller.com, the Washington Examiner, AmericanThinker.com and USA Today.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.