Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘immigration’

Mitch McConnell Gets Bad News… Asked To Step Down


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/conservatives-demand-mcconnel-step-down-as-senate-leader/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been hit with a heavy vote of no confidence from conservative groups around the country. On Wednesday, leaders from several conservative organizations called on McConnell to abdicate his position, citing a list of broken promises he made to Republican voters.

They are calling on not only McConnell, but also members of his leadership team, to step down.

“You and the rest of your leadership team were given the majority because you pledged to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration,” states their letter to McConnell, according to Fox News. “You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce the size of this oppressive federal government. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce, and ultimately eliminate the out-of-control deficit spending that is bankrupting America. You have done nothing. You promised to repeal Obamacare, ‘root and branch.’ You have done nothing. You promised tax reform. You have done nothing.”

Disgruntled conservatives held a news conference in Washington, D.C. to address their concerns and desire to see the leadership team dissolved.

“We call on all five members of the GOP Senate leadership to step down, or for their caucus to remove them as soon as possible,” Ken Cuccinelli, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said at the conference.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Senate Conservatives Fund, founded in 2008 by former Senator Jim DeMint, has worked for years to elect more conservative GOP candidates to the upper chamber in Congress. The group has regularly clashed with the more moderate wing of GOP leadership. The SCF wasn’t the only group calling for McConnell to vacate his position.

Members from FreedomWorks, For America and the Tea Party Patriots also joined the chorus in demanding GOP Senate leaders step aside after failing to enact conservative legislation, despite voters giving the Republican Party full control of Washington, D.C. on Election Day.

This is not the first time conservatives have called on McConnell to step down as majority leader, but the ferocity of Wednesday’s press conference certainly puts an added weight on Republican lawmakers to get things done this legislative session.

The letter and press conference come as congressional Republicans are currently working to enact tax reform. GOP leaders so far have not succeeded in repealing Obamacare, failing several times to push through their own GOP health care bills. Republicans are hoping tax reform will be an issue the entire party can rally behind.

“If this was a football team, and you’d lost this many times, you’d start seriously considering firing the coaches,” said For America President David Bozell.

Despite all agreeing that they’d wish to see McConnell go, many conservative leaders are not certain who they would like to see as a replacement.

“If I had to pick someone, I’d love to draft like Pat Toomey maybe,” FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said, referring to the GOP Pennsylvania senator. “There’s a lot of different people out there who I think could unite this caucus and actually lead on some issues.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots group, said she could see herself supporting Georgia GOP Senator David Perdue. “I’m from Georgia, so I’m not opposed to him,” Martin explained, touting the junior senator’s extensive business background as a former CEO.

Conservative candidates are taking notice as well. As the 2018 election cycle begins to heat up, many pro-Trump candidates are hoping to gain traction by displaying stronger support for the president.

“With rare exception, GOP senators blocking Trump’s agenda are impediments we can not afford. Double that for Senate leaders,” Ron Wallace, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, said in a statement to Western Journalism.

Wallace is an insurgent candidate hoping to win the GOP primary and take on incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Kaine. Wallace is running on a pro-Trump platform and believes it’s imperative the GOP majority pass what they promised to do.

“The American People voted for Tax Cuts, Border Walls, Rapid Growth, Excellent Law Enforcement, and Better Education. I expect strong proactive policies to make those outcomes possible and deliver cost-effective solutions, by whatever means may be necessary,” he said.

Ghanaian Migrant Who Raped Camping German in Front of Her Boyfriend Calls Victim a ‘Prostitute’


Reported by Virginia Hale | 28 Sep 2017

victim

WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/Frank Brehm/Bonn Police

The Ghanaian migrant accused of raping a German student whilst threatening to kill her boyfriend if he intervened has branded his victim a “prostitute” in court.

Identified only as Eric X. in local media, the failed asylum seeker is accused of raping the 23-year-old victim in a meadow near Bonn, after slashing the camping couple’s tent with a machete and demanding their valuables.

The pair handed over six euros and a portable set of speakers, before hearing their assailant tell the woman, “Come out, bitch. I wanna f*** you,” in English  — threatening to kill her 26-year-old boyfriend if he tried to prevent the assault.

Defying the advice of his lawyers to stay silent, the Ghanaian railed against his victims — who local media report to be heavily traumatised by the attack  — during his appearance at a district court in Bonn.

“I do not understand why I should be silent about a case I don’t know anything about,” he said, before lashing out at Judge Eumann for noting that the defendant’s DNA was an exact match to that found on the victim.

“If the court says that this is my DNA, then I must call the girl a prostitute,” Eric X. cried out, shackles rattling as he gesticulated wildly, according to Die Welt. 

“Anyone who supports this girl who claims she was raped is the dirtiest man on earth,” he added.

The court also heard Eric X. embark on a “long-winded narrative” about his life in Ghana, during which he was repeatedly told by the judge to “get to the point”.

According to the accused, his father owned several cocoa plants and “was like a king” in the African country.

“He had a lot of money and was very well known. In Ghana, a king can have as many women as he wants, if he can take care of them,” he told the court.

The suspect was arrested soon after the attack in nearby Siegburg after a man recognised him from a composite picture of the rapist that was released by German police.

It later emerged that Eric X. could have been deported since March 17th, when his application for asylum was rejected. Just 10 days before the attack, he was informed by authorities that he faced deportation to Italy, where he first filed an asylum claim.

Report: Trump to End Obama-Era DACA Program


Reported by John Binder | 31 Aug 2017 | Washington, D.C.

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/08/31/report-trump-end-obama-era-daca-program/

According to Fox News reports, the Trump Administration is set to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) this week, days before a coalition of state attorneys general said they would sue if the program was not ended by September 5:

President Trump, as early as Friday, is expected to announce plans to end the Obama administration program that gave a deportation reprieve to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants, a senior administration official told Fox News.

Trump promised to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, during the presidential campaign — but since taking office had left the door open to preserving parts of it.

According to the official, Trump is expected to announce the program’s end but will allow so-called “dreamers” currently in the program to stay in the U.S. until their work permits expire – which, for some, could be as long as two years.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to confirm the Fox News report on Thursday afternoon. A “final decision on this has not been made … it has not been finalized, and when it is, we will let you know,” she told the White House press conference.

As Breitbart Texas reported, a study done by Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-immigration organization found that if DACA ends, American workers can expect nearly 700,000 job openings in the U.S. workforce.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday August 29, 2017


Voters are backing POTUS’ travel moratorium, big league


Posted July 05, 2017 10:50 AM by Nate Madden

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/voters-are-backing-potus-travel-moratorium-big-league

president thumbs up outside on south lawn of white house

President Donald Trump gives a ‘thumbs up’ as he walks across the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Pablo Martinez Monsivais | AP Images

After months of wrangling against the mainstream media and liberal federal judges, President Trump’s moratorium on immigration from six Middle Eastern countries has not only won at the Supreme Court, but is winning in the court of public opinion, according to a new Politico/Morning Consult poll.

Per the story at Politico Wednesday, when asked about the administration’s “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominantly Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to ender the country,” 60 percent of those surveyed supported the measure, while a mere 28 percent were against it.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters also found that the policy was a big hit with independents in addition to Republicans. While 84 percent of GOP voters support the revised measure, 56 percent of independent voters got behind it as well, with just 30 percent opposed.

Finally, registered Democrats signaled more of a split on the policy than a decided opposition to it, showing only a five-point discrepancy with no majority either way. A mere 46 percent of Democrat voters opposed the moratorium, with 41 percent in favor.

The moratorium popularity boost comes at a moment when both the president and his primary policy focus – health care reformare facing rough numbers themselves.

And with the GOP’s efforts to repeal/address/bail out Obamacare stuck in political limbo and tax reform far away on the horizon, it would appear that the kind of tough anti-terror and immigration policy that got him elected might just be the clearest winner in the president’s political arsenal.

When news of the unanimous Supreme Court decision holding up the substantive portions of the moratorium came out, Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz pointed out that the win provided the administration an opportunity to seize and expand upon. The new polling numbers this week appear to have proven him correct, on some level.

“With Obamacare repeal going down in flames and Republicans accomplishing nothing else, Trump needs to notch up some transformational victories on immigration,” Horowitz wrote. “Ensuring that America doesn’t self-immolate as a civilization, as Europe is doing before our very eyes, should be at the top of that list.”

He goes on to suggest that Trump should continue charging forward on his national security agenda by imposing a full-year moratorium on refugee resettlement until the full impact of the program can be evaluated, especially since the highest court in the land has issued the no-brainer ruling that he has the authority to do so.

“There is something seriously wrong when, even according to former FBI Director James Comey, 300 of the roughly 2,000 terrorism investigations relate to refugees, well beyond their composition of the population,” Horowitz concluded.

He goes on to argue that the current Obama-designated cap of 50,000 resettlements per year is too high and that lowering it would “send a clear message that security is paramount and that such a move is well within his authority.”

As of the time of this writing, the current number of refugee resettlements for this fiscal year is at 49,255.

Sanctuary cities? That’s a constitutional ‘hell no’


Immigration writing on a chalkboard / sebastianosecondi | Shutterstock

You may not have heard of the “Nullification Crisis” that President Andrew Jackson faced in 1832. But there are many unfortunate similarities between it and what is happening today on immigration. From the unjustified obstruction of immigration law by some activist federal judges to the defiance of the federal government on sanctuary policies by governors and city mayors such as Ed Murray of Seattle, there are some interesting parallels — and lessons.

I was reminded of the Nullification Crisis recently on a tour of James Madison’s home, Montpelier, which is close to the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. One of the docents related how President Jackson had visited Madison in the midst of his reelection campaign to get his advice. This crisis was about high tariffs which, before the implementation of the income tax in 1913 through the Sixteenth Amendment, was one of the main sources of income for the federal government.High tariff rates were resented throughout the South, particularly in South Carolina. While they benefited manufacturers in the northern states, they hurt the mostly agricultural southern states. Led by John Calhoun, South Carolina and other states asserted that they had the final authority to declare federal laws unconstitutional and thus null and void within their states. While Jackson was a moderate on tariffs and respectful of the rights states retained in our federal system, he was scornful of the nullification theory. He considered it an unconstitutional, “abominable doctrine” that “will dissolve the Union.”

In 1832, the nullifiers took control of the South Carolina government and passed the infamous “Ordinance of Nullification.” They expressed the same type of virulent hostility and contempt for (and defiance of) the Jackson administration and the tariff system that we are seeing today towards the Trump administration over enforcement of federal immigration law, including provisions against certain sanctuary policies. Those states and cities are pushing the same concept of nullification of federal law, although they are doing it in federal court.

As one would expect of Andrew Jackson, he reacted strongly to this threat from South Carolina, including issuing a Nullification Proclamation on Dec. 10, 1832. Nullification was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed,” He wrote. The crisis was resolved by a compromise bill on tariffs that Congress passed in 1833 after passing the Force Bill, which gave the president the power to use state militias and federal forces against the nullifiers.

The similarity between these events and what is happening today are eerie. While there are many areas over which the states and the federal government share responsibility — or where the Tenth Amendment gives responsibility to the states — immigration is not one of them. Section 8 of Article I gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” just as Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive authority to establish and collect all “Imposts and Excises” or tariffs. The states have no authority in these areas at all. They can no more dispute the immigration rules established by Congress than they could dispute the tariffs imposed by Congress back in 1832.

This makes perfect sense. Any other rule would produce chaos. Think of the enormous problems that would be caused by border states such as Texas or California deciding that they would ignore federal law and apply their own immigration rules to individuals coming across the Mexican border into the United States — or if states decided that they would impose their own tariffs on foreign goods coming into their states in addition to those imposed by the federal government. In fact, it was that kind of behavior that was restricting trade under the Articles of Confederation between states such as Virginia and Maryland that helped lead to the call for a constitutional convention.

When it comes to immigration and the entry of aliens into the U.S., Congress delegated to the president the extremely broad authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182 (f) to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” As five dissenting judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out, there are a long series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the authority of prior presidents under this provision and severely limiting the ability of the courts to review the president’s decision.

Unfortunately, at the urging of certain states, the courts have in large part ignored the Constitution, federal law, and prior precedents. They are instead substituting their judgment for that of the president, and enjoining the president’s executive order by implementing a temporary halt to entry from certain terrorist safe havens. In essence, states such as Hawaii and Washington are turning to activist federal judges to nullify the exclusive authority of the federal government over immigration and the security of our national border — and those judges are complying.

The sanctuary policies implemented by cities such as San Francisco and Seattle also seek to nullify federal immigration law and obstruct its enforcement. 8 U.S.C. §1373 prohibits states and local jurisdictions from preventing their law enforcement officials from exchanging information with federal officials on the citizenship status of individuals they have arrested or detained. The Supreme Court upheld this provision in 2012 in Arizona v. United States.

Quite appropriately, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced that he will not award any discretionary federal grants from the Justice Department to cities that violate §1373. Seattle has filed suit, claiming that the federal government has no right to cut off its access to discretionary funding. The city also makes the meritless claims that its policy does not violate federal immigration law.

Sanctuary cities are claiming that Sessions is trying to force them to enforce federal immigration law and that the loss of federal funds would violate the holding in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). This is the Supreme Court decision that upheld Obamacare but found that the Medicaid portion of Obamacare, which required states to significantly expand their Medicaid coverage or risk losing all Medicaid funding, violated the Spending Clause of the Constitution. The federal government was “commandeering” the states by compelling them to “enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

But Sessions is simply trying to get states to not obstruct federal enforcement. That includes abiding by the ban contained in Section 1373. Sanctuary cities are trying to prevent federal officials from finding out about criminal alien murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals that these cities would apparently rather release than have picked up and deported so they cannot further victimize Americans. Section 1373 doesn’t force local law enforcement officials to notify federal officials when they detain an illegal alien; It simply says that local governments can’t ban law enforcement officials from doing so.

The spurious legal argument that §1373 violates the anti-commandeering principle was raised by the City of New York in a lawsuit against the federal government only 11 days after the provision became federal law. New York also had a policy in place that forbade city officials from transmitting information on the immigration status of any individual to federal immigration authorities. In City of New York v. U.S. (1999), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the city’s case because the federal law was constitutional and well within congressional authority on immigration.

As the court pointed out, §1373 does not compel “state and local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program. Nor has it affirmatively conscripted states, localities, or their employees into the federal government’s service.” The only thing the provision does is prohibit state and local governmental entities or officials from “directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS.” A contrary holding would cause chaos: “If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and local officials, states will at times have the power to frustrate effectuation of some programs.”

We can only hope that the current nullification crisis will also be resolved once and for all when all of the lawsuits being filed by the states to prevent the enforcement of federal immigration law reach the Supreme Court.

That is clearly what is happening here: sanctuary states and cities want to “frustrate effectuation” of federal enforcement of our immigration laws. The absence of such cooperation, as the Second Circuit said, would force federal officials to “resort to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility.” This was the same type of resistance exhibited by local governments to Brown v. Board of Education: “a refusal by local government to cooperate until under a court order to do so.”

Furthermore, refusing to award sanctuary cities funds that have to be applied for and that are entirely discretionary within the judgement of the attorney general does not come anywhere close to “commandeering” a “State’s legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes,” which was the key factor in the NFIB decision. The Supreme Court said that there is no violation of the Spending Clause “when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds.”

States can make their own decisions on whether to apply for a portion of the $4.1 billion the Justice Department has available to local jurisdictions for improving their law enforcement programs. In fact, this situation raises even fewer concerns than a federal law that the Supreme Court upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). That law provided that states would lose five percent of their federal highway funds if they did not raise the drinking age to 21. This was “relatively mild encouragement” compared to the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, where the Court described the potential loss of all Medicaid funding as a “gun to the head.”

Similarly, when it comes to sanctuary cities, the Justice Department isn’t threatening the cutoff of any major entitlement funds such as Medicaid or even state highway funds. What’s at stake are discretionary grants that the states may or may not decide to apply for, and which the Justice Department may or may not choose to grant.

The Nullification Crisis was resolved when South Carolina rescinded its nullification ordinance after President Jackson issued his Nullification Proclamation. We can only hope that the current nullification crisis will also be resolved once and for all when all of the lawsuits being filed by the states to prevent the enforcement of federal immigration law reach the Supreme Court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). Along with John Fund, he is the co-author of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

 

Justice for Brian Terry: Cartel member suspected of murdering border agent with Fast & Furious gun finally arrested


URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/justice-for-brian-terry-cartel-member-suspected-of-murdering-border-agent-with-fast-furious

Nearly seven years after the untimely and tragic death of fallen Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, his suspected murderer — a member of a Mexican cartel — has finally been apprehended in Mexico, bringing a bit more closure to the deadly result of Obama’s “Fast and Furious Scandal.”

Terry lost his life in a shootout along the Mexico border with cartel thugs just 10 days before Christmas in 2010. The guns used be the thugs in the firefight, it was later revealed, had been obtained via an undercover United States government operation.

Here’s the story as reported by Fox News:

The suspect, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, was apprehended by a joint U.S.-Mexico law enforcement task force that included the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals and the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC).

A $250,000 reward had been sought for information leading to the arrest of Osorio-Arellanes, who was captured at a ranch on the border of the Mexican states of Sinaloa and Chihuahua. U.S. authorities have said they will seek his extradition.

Four other cartel members present at the 2010 gunfight have already been sentenced to jail in the United States, with one pleading guilty to first-degree murder in 2014. However, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga — the last remaining member of the crew — is still believed to be at large.

living nextdoor to youTerry’s death ended up setting off a chain of events that would expose the Obama administration’s now-infamous Operation Fast and Furious. The scandal started in 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms hatched a plan to release firearms into the hands of international criminals, and let them walk across the border with the intent of tracking them once they went to Mexico.

But once the guns got to Mexico, it was like they had vanished into the wind. Reports would later reveal the ATF made no real effort to trace the guns once they were out of the United States.

Why

Documents uncovered by investigators showed the operation was a Machiavellian effort by Obama officials to make the case for stricter gun control. A CBS report from 2012 demonstrated that part of the plan was to let guns fall into the hands of people who would use them to commit crimes, and then ride the political blowback to increase regulations on firearms sales here in the United States.partyof-deceit-spin-and-lies

Two of “walked” guns were found at the scene of Brian Terry’s murder.

While Terry is the only known American to have died as a result of the ATF operation, it may never be known just how many innocent Mexican lives have been taken by cartel violence with weapons supplied by Obama’s first presidential scandal.

Following a media firestorm and congressional investigation, the operation was shuttered. But none the shame Obama and then-Attorney General Eric Holder endured during the fallout brought Agent Terry back, nor did it bring back the hundreds of firearms still in the hands of Mexican gang members.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religious freedom, immigration, and the judiciary. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A Publius Fellow, John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate’s writing has previously appeared in several religious and news publications. Follow him @NateMaddenCR and on Facebook.

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: