July 14, 2019
Jul 14 00:17 Open border Democrats Jul 14 03:26 Brandmire's common sense Jul 14 04:15 Trump wins Democrat civil war Jul 14 05:06 Democrats' immigration issues Jul 14 08:51 Schumer's immigration plan
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Open border Democrats
Contrary to the Democrats' paid spinmeisters statements, Democrats favor open borders as their immigration policy . Right after Democrats took control of the House, Democrat spinmeisters told the American people that everyone was for securing the US border with Mexico.
That spin was a total lie. There's no way to hide the fact that Democrats aren't interested in securing the border. There's an old economic principle that's applicable to this. The principle says that if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you incentivize it. Apply that principle to immigration, if you want lots of illegal immigration, change the risk/reward ratio to make the risk of getting caught minimal. Similarly, if you want to reduce illegal immigration, make it so that the cost of illegally crossing the border is extraordinarily high. Also, make the task extraordinarily difficult.
Put in practical terms, build a wall that's difficult to climb to make the traffickers' jobs difficult. (Also, it's worth highlighting that building barriers forces those traffickers and cartels into chokepoints. That helps fewer agents protect more miles of border. That means the border patrol's activities are significantly more efficient. I'd think increasing the CBP's efficiency would be DHS's highest priority.
At this point, it's clear that this isn't the Democrats' highest priority. I'd argue that it isn't a priority whatsoever. Katie Pavlich's article offers proof that substantiates my hypothesis:
'Immigrants seeking refuge in our country aren't a threat to national security. Migration shouldn't be a criminal justice issue. It's time to end this draconian policy and return to treating immigration as a civil, not a criminal, issue,' Democratic presidential candidate and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro wrote in an April op-ed on Medium.
Right. If you want fewer migrants to cross the US-Mexico border, tell the traffickers that the people will have to pay a tiny fine instead of getting deported. That should put the fear of God in those traffickers. Not .
'I agree with Secretary Castro. We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants including our Dreamers, and protects our borders,' Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) told HuffPost.
Notice Pocahontas' wording:
We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home...
Sen. Warren, should we criminalize traffickers using purchased babies to get into the US? That's happening with increasing frequency. Read this website if you want your stomach turning in a split-second. When Democrats vote against legitimate border security measures, they're voting for continuing the status quo. What type of sick person would vote to continue such a disgusting industry? That's what happens when Democrats vote against the Republicans' border security proposals.
[Video no longer available]
Right. Let's make it easier for illegal aliens to reach the United States. Let's make it inexpensive for cartels to put these children's lives at risk during the trip. That's what Castro's plan would do.
The next time a Democrat tells you that they're for securing the border, ask them what they're doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they're doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don't include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2019 12:17 AM
No comments.
Brandmire's common sense
When it comes to the Constitution, lawyers should be relatively well-informed. John Ellenbecker is a long-time attorney in the St. Cloud area. In the interest of full disclosure, Ellenbecker and I were part of the same graduating class at Cathedral High School.
Ellenbecker's constitutional ignorance was once again on display in this LTE's comments when he said of Councilman Brandmire "In his Dec. 1, 2018 column in the Times Brandmire stated that he favors prohibiting additional Muslim settlement in St. Cloud (he described it as "I support the idea of closing the seemingly wide-open spigot of refugees coming here until we can assimilate those who are already here") - which is contrary to his comment here. Closing the spigot is not a statement that you support a welcoming community. Closing the spigot is a violation of the constitutional rights of those he seeks to exclude from St. Cloud. Brandmire needs to clearly and unequivocally reverse his course and denounce efforts aimed at 'closing the seemingly wide-open spigot of refugees coming here.'"
Having talked with Councilman Brandmire, I know that he understands that the City Council has an advisory role in the process, thanks to the Refugee Act of 1980. Saying that you support something isn't the same as saying you'd overstep your authority. It simply means that he'd agree with that policy if that's what the Trump administration settled on.
If Ellenbecker can't figure out the difference between supporting something and writing an ordinance prohibiting refugees from getting settled here, then he went to the wrong law school. How is supporting a policy a violation of a refugee's constitutional rights?
As for the statement that Councilman Brandmire's statement isn't "a statement that you support a welcoming community", my questioning is 'So what'? According to this website , the term welcoming community is kinda loaded:
The Standard will outline the policies, programs, and practices that local governments need to have in place - such as supporting new American civic participation; making services accessible; and engaging all residents, including both receiving communities and new Americans.
Apparently, conformity is required. If cities don't conform, they don't get certified. It's impossible to hide the fact that WelcomingAmerica.com is about top-down, cookie-cutter government.
What part of that sounds anything like wisdom? The whole idea behind local government is to individualize policies to the greatest extent possible. WelcomingAmerica.com sounds like they operate from a federal government standpoint.
I strongly suggest that everyone read Councilman Brandmire's op-ed. He doesn't mince words nor does he sound unreasonable. It's possible for people to disagree with him but it's impossible to call him unreasonable.
As for Ellenbecker, he sounds like a Democrat who's reading from DFL talking points. Whenever a Democrat talks about the Constitution, bet that it's because it's focus-group approved.
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2019 3:26 AM
No comments.
Trump wins Democrat civil war
Donald Trump Jr.'s op-ed insists that President Trump, his father, will be the biggest beneficiary of the Democrats' escalating civil war. The Democrats' escalating civil war is also known as the Democrats' circular firing squad.
While the media pontificates over the moderates vs. the Squad, Americans have noticed that the House Democrats' list of accomplishments isn't lengthy or impressive. As Donald Jr. highlights, the Squad, aka AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, isn't that interested in legislative accomplishments. At this point, they're mostly interested in getting lots of air time on CNN and MSNBC or increasing their followers on social media.
That's a stupid decision. People want Congress to do things that improve their lives. In his op-ed, Trump Jr. made an astute observation when he said "Democrats are more beholden to their activist class than to the majority of the American people. Whether voters like it or not, extremists such as Ocasio-Cortez, not Pelosi, are in charge of setting the party agenda."
The pundits won't admit this but the AstroTurf activists have run the Democrats' agenda since, at minimum, 2011. Currently, the Democrats' agenda is mostly driven by hate. It isn't a secret that the Resist Movement is calling the shots. Their hatred of President Trump has driven them crazy. That's what's known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Although Democratic leaders may take issue with the left wing of the party, the mainstream media and the 2020 presidential candidates have fully embraced the liberal agenda. In the most recent primary debate, all the Democratic candidates on stage supported providing 'free' health care for undocumented immigrants. Several candidates also support decriminalizing illegally crossing the border. Reparations for slavery and late term abortion are now considered the litmus test thresholds by the Democratic base as well. When far left Democrats are not calling their centrist members racist, they show off their ability to pander in Spanish.
Meanwhile, President Trump has a lengthy list of accomplishments to run. That's in addition to his America First agenda items still to accomplish. When people watch the Squad say no to virtually everything on President Trump's America First agenda, especially on immigration, they'll notice that Democrats haven't shown an interest in fixing problems.
Something that Donald Trump Jr. didn't mention that's worth mentioning is how little the Democrats on the Problem Solvers Caucus have done. Supposedly moderate, these Democrats have been virtually worthless. When a person hasn't been productive, it's often said that 'I could count on one hand his accomplishments.' In the Problem Solvers Caucus case, their accomplishments could be counted without hands . They don't have any accomplishments. Like the other Democrat, they're owned by the Resist Movement. They talk a moderate game but they don't do a thing. This video provides proof of that accusation:
[Video no longer available]
I don't doubt that they've written health care legislation. Has it gotten a committee hearing? The answer is 'it hasn't'. Democrats will lose the House because the American people have seen that Democrats are all-investigations-all-the-time. Why would independents vote for people whose only goal is to harass the most productive president in our lifetime? He's gotten a tremendous amount of things done despite the Democrats' obstructionism.
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2019 4:15 AM
No comments.
Democrats' immigration issues
This article highlights the predicament that Democrats are in on immigration. Recently, Kamala Harris appeared on The View to be interviewed by the ladies there. It didn't go well for her, though you wouldn't know that from the silence of the MSM, aka Agenda Media.
When it was her turn, Meghan McCain "pressed Harris on her hand-raising at the first Democrat debate, which appeared to indicate that she was in favor of 'decriminalizing border crossings.' McCain also asked if the candidate stood in solidarity with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's idea of abolishing the Department of Homeland Security." Those are a pair of fairly straightforward questions that a polished presidential candidate should be able to handle in her sleep.
Apparently, Sen. Harris isn't coherent when she's asleep. According to the article, there were more questions at the end of her explanation than there were at the start of Sen. Harris's explanation:
[Video no longer available]
What the hell is she babbling about? Here's the transcript from that little exchange:
"We have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying that we're not going to treat people who are undocumented across the border as criminals. That's correct. That is correct. And what we have got to do is we cannot have anymore policy like we have under this current President that is about inhumane conduct, that is about putting babies in cages, that is about separating children from their parents, and we have got to have policy that is about passing comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway towards citizenship, shutting down these private detention facilities-"
Please tell me if you know what she's talking about. I got whiplash half a dozen times listening to that short piece of the interview. That's worse than word salad. That's like word salad that's sat on the counter the entire week and is now rotten. I wouldn't want it.
Democrats apparently want new immigration laws. They just don't want those laws enforced. Today is the start of ICE's sweep through 10 major cities while rounding up illegal aliens who applied for asylum, had their day in court, got rejected, then exhausted their appeals. Last week, Nancy Pelosi explained to illegal aliens how to avoid deportation:
[Video no longer available]
There's only one thing to do with lawmakers who don't want the laws they passed enforced. That solution is to throw them out of office so that law-abiding lawmakers can take their place. Democrats are famous for talking about cherry-picking through evidence and taking things out of context. This is simple. Families broke the law in coming here or overstaying their visas. After they applied for asylum, a judge ruled against them. They then appealed their ruling, only to be rejected again.
There's only one legitimate option left. That option is to enforce the law. That's what ICE took an oath to do. If Speaker Pelosi thinks that illegal aliens should be allowed to stay as long as they'd like, let her write that legislation, then get it a committee hearing. Here's my prediction on that -- Good luck selling that one.
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2019 5:06 AM
No comments.
Schumer's immigration plan
With ICE planning on arresting illegal aliens who've tried gaming US asylum laws starting today, the Democrats 'solution' is laughable. If Greg Sargent's article is accurate, which I think it is since the DNC and Senate Democrats spoonfeed him lots of his articles, Democrats will give President Trump more ammunition proving that Democrats aren't for securing the border.
According to the article, "Senate Democrats are now set to introduce a major new proposal that will offer another way: It would make family separations illegal; invest much more in legal support for asylum seekers; and beef up humanitarian standards for the treatment of families and children." In other words, the Democrats' 'solution' is to provide legal aid to help asylum seekers game the system? Seriously? Here at LFR, I've spoken about the role incentives play in increasing illegal aliens crossing into the US in this post :
The next time a Democrat tells you that they're for securing the border, ask them what they're doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they're doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don't include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.
The Senate Democrats' plan doesn't include anything to shrink the illegal aliens' incentives to try and game the system. That alone makes this proposal unserious. Further, making "family separations illegal" is another way for traffickers to continue buying children to game the system. Will Democrats beef up asylum fraud detection systems? Will Democrats close the loopholes that traffickers are currently using?
If those things aren't part of their legislation, Republicans should reject the Democrats' plan as being a PR stunt. Republicans should also highlight the fact that this legislation isn't serious. I'd also use the Democrats' words against them:
'The strategy of treating refugees deliberately in a fashion that injures them to discourage additional immigration is unacceptable under any moral code or religious tradition,' Merkley told me .
'This legislation is a necessary step to restore America's moral credibility, and an example of how we can deal with our immigration issues with dignity and common sense," Schumer said in a statement sent my way .
Then there's this incentive for increasing illegal immigration:
The Merkley-Schumer bill would make all such separations illegal, and reaffirm the court settlement limiting child detention. Functionally, this would mean the administration must release families after 20 days.
If Democrats were serious about enforcing the border, they'd increase child detention to 150 days rather than keeping it at 20 days. There's an important question that hasn't gotten asked. Why do Democrats want illegal aliens to go free after 3 weeks?
This is proof that Democrats are the 'Open Borders Party'. They can't be seen as the party of enforcing laws. This legislation is proof that Democrats are the party of leniency. They should be punished at the polls for that in 2020. This information needs to be part of this discussion:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2019 8:51 AM
No comments.
