Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘illegal Immigration’

ICE Report Rips Apart Liberal Narrative about “Law-Abiding” Illegal Aliens


Authored By Ben Marquis | February 19, 2018 at 3:16pm

URL of the original posting Site: https://conservativetribune.com/ice-report-narrative-illegal-aliens/

President Donald Trump ran for office on a promise to crack down on illegal immigration, and repeatedly noted that he would focus on the arrest and removal from the country of “bad hombres” that had criminal convictions or pending charges.

Of course, liberals countered with the tired narrative that hardly any illegal immigrants are criminals, and that Trump would in essence be targeting “law-abiding” illegals — the narrative they lean on to support their sanctuary city policies that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials in turning over locally detained illegals for federal adjudication, processing and removal.

But according to The Daily Wire, a recent report released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement totally undercut that narrative as it made clear that an overwhelming percentage of illegal immigrants arrested by ICE in the 2017 fiscal year — roughly 90 percent — either had a criminal record or had criminal charges pending against them, with very few qualifying as “law-abiding” with no known convictions or pending charges.

That 18-page summary report detailed how ICE activity increased significantly following a Jan. 25, 2017, executive order from President Trump, and compared the resulting numbers of arrests with previous years.

Pew Research took a deep dive into the numbers of the report and found that of all those arrested by ICE in FY 2017;

  • Some 74 percent had past criminal convictions.

  • An additional 16 percent of those arrested faced pending criminal charges,

  • A mere 11 percent had no criminal record or pending charges to speak of.

Interestingly, the report showed that ICE arrests in 2017 were nearly half of the number of arrests made in FY 2009, former President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and that roughly 61 percent of those arrested in 2009 by Obama’s ICE were of the “non-criminal” variety. That’s exactly the opposite of what liberals would have you believe.

Of course, the total number of arrests dropped significantly over Obama’s tenure in office, with a decisive closing of that gap between criminal and non-criminal over the latter years, though the number of arrests picked up sharply following Trump’s inauguration into office — some 30 percent higher over the previous year.

Of those arrested in 2017 with past criminal convictions, the top criminal category was driving under the influence, followed closely by possession or distribution of “dangerous drugs.” Other traffic offenses, immigration law violations and assault rounded out the top five criminal categories.

Pew noted that there was a bit of regional variance in the numbers of criminal versus non-criminal ICE arrests. For example, some 88 percent of those arrested in the southern California area had a criminal record, while only about 60 percent of those arrested in New Jersey were known criminals.

The ICE report didn’t come right out and explicitly condemn sanctuary city policies, but it wasn’t difficult to catch the numerous allusions to such policies at several points throughout the report.

Most notably, a section of the report titled “At-Large Arrests” pointed out that in some jurisdictions, ICE was compelled to make at-large arrests within the community of illegal immigrants, which inevitably brings them into contact with non-criminal illegals.

Comparatively, when ICE is permitted to make arrests in a “custodial setting” such as a jail or prison, it is virtually guaranteed that the arrestee will either have a criminal record or pending criminal charges, and is far less likely to be a non-criminal swept up in the at-large arrests or sweeping raids.

Because of the lack of cooperation from sanctuary city jurisdictions, ICE had to make significantly more at-large arrests in the community than in prior years. The non-criminal illegals caught in those arrests have nobody to blame but themselves (for being here illegally in the first place) and the liberal politicians who refused to cooperate with federal officials for their detainment.

The ICE report noted that it would be far better for everyone involved — both law enforcement officials and non-criminal illegal immigrants — if such jurisdictions cooperated and handed over criminal illegals to ICE within a custodial setting, which would negate the need for at-large arrests and raids to track down known criminal illegals.

The liberal media would have us all believe that Trump and ICE are rounding up and deporting millions of “law-abiding,” non-criminal illegal immigrants, but the numbers released by ICE paint a far different picture, and reveal that Trump has thus far kept his word; that he is focused on rooting out and deporting criminals who shouldn’t be here.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Schumer’s Priorities

Schumer and the Democrats are so desperate for an issue to run in the midterm elections they are uninterested in any compromise.

Schumer Shutdown Part 2Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Democrats, Business-first GOP Senators Block Trump’s Immigration Reforms


Authored by Neil Munro | 15 Feb 2018

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/2018-elections/2018/02/15/democrats-business-first-gop-senators-block-trumps-immigration-reforms/

60 Democrats and business-first establishment Republican Senators blocked President Donald Trump’s populist immigration reform agenda, pushing the hot-button topic towards the November election.

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer used his brief speech before the vote to blame President Donald Trump for the Democrats’ refusal to accept a reform-for-amnesty deal, saying:

President Trump created this problem by terminating the DACA program last August. Since then, President Trump has stood in the way over every single proposal that could become law …  President Trump has failed his test of leadership spectacularly.

The Trump-backed bill, led by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, lost by 39 to 60, showcasing the political clout of the tacit alliance between pro-immigration progressive Democrats and roughly 12 business-first Republicans, plus at least one anti-amnesty Republican. Many business groups had pressured the GOP Senators to vote against the reforms, largely because Trump promised to cut future legal immigration levels.

The defeat may block pending Senate negotiations over the appropriation of $1.6 billion for the border-wall spending in 2018. The funding decision is slated for completion in late March.

The defeat also invites Trump to make immigration reform a central issue in the November election. White House officials have pushed that strategy in the last few days, noting that polls show that most Americans want immigration rules to favor Americans and their paychecks — instead of cheap-labor companies or immigrants.

The vote showed that several red-state Democrats facing the voters this November joined with the business-first Republicans to maintain wage-cutting immigration, and to preserve the unpopular visa-lottery and chain-migration programs.

Throughout the four-vote series of amendments, few Democrats crossed the line to vote for Trump’s pro-American proposals, while several Republicans backed the cheap-labor amnesty bills.

For example, only three Democrats voted against the Democrats’ main proposal — which would have suspended enforcement of immigration law for migrants who arrived before January 1 (a morning draft of the legislation said the deadline was June 30).

At least two of those Senators only voted no after the 41 GOP Senators had already successfully voted to block the proposal. They were New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall and California Sen. Kamala Harris. The final result was 47 to 54.

Three red-state Democratic Senators voted for the Grassley/Trump measure. They were North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. Roughly 14 GOP Senators voted against the reform. 

Also, eight Republicans voted for the Democrats’ main amnesty bill, which was credited to the Democrat-dominated “Common Sense Coalition.” The amnesty GOP Senators were led by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Jeff Flake, but also included Maine Sen. Susan Collins, South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds,  Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Tennesee Sen. Lamar Alexander, and Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson. The Democrats’ anti-enforcement measure was also supported by GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, who is actually the chairman of the GOP Senators’ 2018 election campaign.

Media outlets portrayed the GOP’s business-first Senators as “moderates” or “conservatives.”

The 14 GOP Senators who voted against the Grassley-Trump measure included South Dakota’s Sen. John Thune, who is a member of the leadership team with Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell. The no votes included Sen. Ted Cruz, who said earlier he would oppose it because it endorsed an amnesty along with immigration reforms.

The list of 14 Senators also included several pro-amnesty Senators — Collins, Flake, and Murkowski — plus a series of business-leaning Senators, including Sens. Ben Sasse, John Thune, John Barrasso and Mike Enzi from Wyoming, Mike Lee from Utah, Jerry Moran from Kansas, Steve Daines from Montana, and John Kennedy from Lousiana.

Four GOP Senators — Flake, Gardner, Graham, Murkowski — also voted yes for another amnesty bill drafted by Democratic Sen. Chris Coons and GOP Sen. John McCain. That bill was defeated 47 to 52. Sen. Joe Manchin, a red-state Democrat who faces the voters in November, vote against the Coons-McCain giveaway.

Several of the Schumer-allied, pro-amnesty GOP Senators covered their pro-amnesty votes by also voting for the Grassley measure once it was clear that it would fail. They included Alexander, Gardner, Graham, Isakson, and Rounds.

Nearly all Democratic Senators voted against a proposal by GOP Sen. Toomey to financially penalize sanctuary cities. The amendment got 54 votes, which kept it six votes below the 60-vote threshold. Forty-seven Democrats voted against sanctuary-city penalties.

Even without the new laws from Congress, Trump can continue to enforce immigration laws, punish employers for hiring illegals and update visa and security rules to exclude dangerous migrants.

Many polls show that Trump’s 2016 immigration policies are very popular in the polling booth. His proposed amnesty for 1.8 million illegals gets high scores in business-funded polls but is unlikely to shift any votes into the GOP column in November.

Immigration polls which ask people to pick a priority, or to decide which options are fair, show that voters in the polling booth put a high priority on helping their families and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigrationlow-wage economy. Those results are very different from the “Nation of Immigrants” polls which are funded by CEOs and progressives, and which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants.

Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.

But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting roughly 1.1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.

The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Pelosi Talking Points

Pelosi does an 8-hour speech on the house floor in favor of Amnesty but who will feel the pain.

Pelosi 8 Hour SpeechPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


If Illegals Voted Republican

What would the Democrat’s wall look like if illegal Immigrants voted for Republicans?

The Democrats WallPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

Chuck Schumer’s three decades of immigration lies


Posted January 22, 2018 by Daniel Horowitz

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/chuck-schumers-three-decades-immigration-lies/

Chuck Schumer | Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call | AP Images

How far we have fallen as a political system: An entire political party is now willing to shut the government down over a policy exclusively for illegal aliens, not Americans. Even more appalling is that the very leader of the shutdown is a man who has lied to us numerous times on immigration and has created the very immigration crisis we face today by pushing similar amnesty policies before. Most ironic, Schumer himself once expressed support for the very policies he is now calling racist and over which he has triggered the Schumer Shutdown. 

On Thursday, Politico reported that Chuck Schumer told President Trump there will be no deal unless Sen. Tom Cotton is removed from the negotiating table. After all, the American taxpayer is not allowed to have a voice in the room who actually cares about the citizenry at least as much as illegal aliens. The problem is that Schumer and most other Democrats once upon a time supported what Cotton is trying to accomplish, at least in rhetoric. The reason Schumer is so disgruntled over the presence of people like Tom Cotton and Stephen Miller is because they have matched his knowledge of the immigration issue and deftly expose his double talk on the issue — double talk that has allowed him to get away with immigration fakery for 32 years as a member of both the House and the Senate.

The endless lies: “Immigration works for Americans”

Every bad outcome on immigration has emanated either from the unelected branches of government (administrative and judicial) or legislation that was sold to the American people as doing the opposite of its actual intent. This is true of the 1965 and 1990 immigration bills, the 1980 refugee bill, and the 1986 amnesty bill. It is widely known how Kennedy and other Democrats promised in 1965 that the new immigration system would not flood the country with poor chain migrants, undermine assimilation, and become a burden on Americans. What is less known is that the 1990 expansion of the ’65 Hart-Celler Act was actually designed to fix the flaws of the original bill (the flaws that were never supposed to exist), but once again did the exact opposite.

In 1989, there was a bipartisan consensus that there was too much chain migration, that there were too few immigrants of particular merit, and that the orientation of the immigrants wasn’t diverse enough. What they meant by diversity was that the Hart-Celler Act spawned a monopoly of immigration from Latin America and Asia, while locking out European immigrants. Schumer was lobbied heavily by the New York Irish community to increase immigration opportunities from Ireland, which eventually evolved into the diversity visa lottery. Contrary to popular thought, the diversity lottery was not designed to bring in more immigrants from the third world. Rather, it was designed to rectify the chain migration from the third world that locked out European immigration. And indeed, for the first three years of the diversity lottery, 40 percent of the visas were allocated to Ireland.

When the comprehensive bill was first introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Sens. Alan Simpson and Ted Kennedy, it actually had a points system that prioritized English language proficiency and limited chain migration. But even as the bill was quietly being made into yet another expansionist bill, contrary to its initial pitch, Chuck Schumer was still promoting the bill as a way of moving from chain migration to a skills-based system and fostering more, not less, immigration from Europe. On October 3, 1990, Schumer lamented on the House floor how “only 4 percent of all immigration is employer-sponsored,” which “hurts our economy” and “hurts every American.” He said that this bill would correct that problem by making immigration based on skills because “immigration should be job related … it should help America grow economically.” He also said “immigration should be as diverse as it once was,” because “countries like Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Nigeria … cannot get people into this country, even though there are many people of that ancestry here.”

Not only did Schumer lament family-based migration shutting out merit-based migration, he actually touched on America’s ancestry and lamented the monopoly of Latin America over Europe. And he did so almost 30 years ago, when we were at the foot of the mountain of chain migration from those countries. That was 30 million immigrants ago, almost all brought here though chain migration, many of whom came in as a result of immigrants who came here after enactment of the bill Schumer supported, which was supposed to rectify what he admitted harmed America’s economy.

Yet he lied to us in 1990 about fixing legal immigration, just as he lied to us in 1986 about amnesty.

During debate over the ’86 amnesty, Schumer said the following:

“What is it not? It is not millions of people cascading across the border. … It is not welfare benefits for those folks immediately. In fact, it’s in the bill right now that they cannot get AFDC benefits. … It is not immediately wives, husbands, and children will come across. Not the case.”

Guess what? The highest rates of welfare usage are now from the countries of origin most associated with illegal migration; namely, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

But it goes a step further.

Now those lies are home to roost

Schumer admitted amnesty was a gamble. Now he’s shamelessly asking us to gamble our future on the failed results of his first gamble. As reported by the New York Times, following passage of the amnesty, Schumer said something amazingly prescient:

”The bill is a gamble, a riverboat gamble. There is no guarantee that employer sanctions will work or that amnesty will work. We are headed into uncharted waters.”

To this day, we are paying for Schumer’s self-admitted gamble on amnesty and lies about enforcement with an entire new generation of illegal immigrants that he promised wouldn’t exist. We are paying for his lies about the 1990 bill that it would fix chain migration, as we are witnessing a wave of chain migration even the skeptics could never have imagined back then. We are paying for his lies about the diversity lottery, which was supposed to reorient immigration towards Europe and has instead opened the floodgates from the Middle East and has brought in some terrorists.

And here we are three decades later with this same man now leading the Democrat Party and shutting down the government in order to promote amnesty for the very people that came from his original amnesty. Are we to continue taking this man seriously?

Either way, it’s important to observe that once upon a time, Schumer at least felt the need to lie to the American people and actually speak like Tom Cotton and Stephen Miller. Even as late as 2009, Schumer had to speak with clarity on illegal immigration:

Except back then, very few called him out. Now he feels uncomfortable because Cotton has matched his institutional knowledge about the issue and is able to call BS on his duplicitous talk of enforcement.

Now Cotton has a bill that finally fulfills the bipartisan promise on chain migration. And Goodlatte has a bill incorporating both the Cotton bill and some sort of amnesty for 700,000 illegals. And Yet Schumer is rejecting something that he has expressed support for, on an issue for which he is personally responsible.

We’ve been doing amnesty since 1986, and we’ve been lied to about immigration in general since 1965. We haven’t been fixing legal immigration to end chain migration, which was a bipartisan promise that Schumer agreed to in 1990. Isn’t it time to first fulfill the promise to Americans before pursuing another amnesty?

There’s an important lesson from Schumer and Kennedy in the 1990 bill. Aristide Zolberg, one of the leading immigration historians of recent memory, asked the question in his scholarly book, “A Nation by Design,” how a bill that was introduced amidst anti-mass migration sentiment in the country wound up “moving in the opposite direction?” Citing other commentators, he noted that “while public support for a reduction in legal immigration was broad, it was not well-organized. … In contrast, a liberal coalition of well-organized organized groups, including ethnic organizations, churches, and employer associations, articulated strong opposition to proposals for restricting legal immigration.”

Schumer has moved full speed ahead on lies and subterfuge on immigration for decades because there was no organized and precise voice to give power to the silent majority on this issue. Nobody has stood for the forgotten American taxpayer, who must bear the burden of terrible immigration policy. That is changing with voices like Cotton and Stephen Miller. Which is why Chuck Schumer is no longer speaking the language of the American citizen — because there is now somebody on the playing field to hold him to account.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday January 23, 2018


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: