One of the main time and space fillers for the liberal media is the seemingly constant release and prejudicial analysis of polling numbers on President Trump. I suddenly realized that those updates have recently become conspicuous by their absence in the leading anti-Trump news(?) programs. It got me to thinking … and doing a little research.
Just as I suspected. Trump’s numbers have had a bit of an upswing in recent days.
According to the most recent Harvard-Harris Poll, Trump’s approval rating among registered voters has hit 48 percent – a two-year high. The recent Rasmussen Poll showed similar results. Contrary to what one might believe from news reporting, Trump gets a 50 percent approval rating among Hispanics in some of the polls. In terms of favorable versus unfavorable, Trump is on top. While there is a long way to November of 2020, these are the kinds of numbers that get incumbent presidents re-elected.
The fact that Trump’s numbers improve even as the Democrats and the anti-Trump news media are mounting increasing and unprecedented hostile attacks on a daily basis must be very disturbing to the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. It is reminiscent of the 2016 election, when the media allowed their biases and hatred to completely misreport the potential outcome of the election. Remember how they confidently stated and re-stated that Trump had “no path to the presidency?” And remember how they spent two-years reporting with certainty that Trump was guilty of criminally colluding with Russia? Well, they are doing it again.
The east coast bubble-encased news media has been proffering narratives of all sorts of criminality associated with Trump. It is the New York Southern District federal courts that are going to get him. Virtually every paid pundit on MSNBC has opined that Trump has committed all sorts of crime – and their proof is highly spun bits of information, outright disinformation and wishful thinking.
Even as the Democrats move closer and closer to impeachment and those panels of parroting pundits are clamoring for impeachment like political vigilantes, Trump’s numbers go up. There is a message in all that, but the Democrats and the press do not seem to be listening. Despite the failures in the past, they cling to the belief that their mendacious reporting will fool the American people.
It may just be that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the last Democrat with a grip on reality – and isn’t that a scary thought? She is talking tough to assuage her increasingly radical base, but she is not buying into impeachment. Maybe she read the polls and understand what they mean. It seems the more the radical left calls for impeachment, the more popular the President gets. We have seen this movie before.
In addition to the popularity polls, other recent polls show that more than half of Americans oppose impeachment or have no opinion. Only about one-third support impeaching Trump. Furthermore, 57 percent believe that all the investigations interfere with government business. That was the sentiment of half the Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans.
It is almost humorous to watch Democrat after Democrat appear on television saying that focusing on issues important to the voters is more important that obsessing on Trump – and then they proceed to obsess on Trump.
The media and the impeachment-istas are recreating 2016. They are offering the American people every certainty and every assurance that President Trump will be removed from office – either by impeachment or defeat in 2020. They claim that Trump will be indicted, convicted and imprisoned once he no longer is protected by the Justice Department rule preventing sitting presidents from being indicted.
They spin the Mueller Reports’ failure to reach a conclusion on Obstruction of Justice as hardcore evidence that Trump is guilty of obstructions. They even claim that despite Mueller’s vindication of Trump and his campaign of criminal collusion with Russia, Trump and his people are guilty of criminal collusion.
And still Trump’s favorable rating improves.
President Lincoln wisely noted, you cannot fool all the people all the time. It just may be that the radical extremist Democrats and their allies in the newsrooms have run out of “fooling time.”
So, there ‘tis.
While defending recently adopted measures aimed at making deportations simpler and easier,
Danish Justice Minister Søren Pape Poulsen of the Conservative People’s Party admitted that country faces a “big problem” with criminal migrants.
Minister Poulsen’s statements follow newly released results from a study which found that Somali migrants were the largest single foreign community in Denmark to be convicted for violent offenses, with 916 convictions between 2014 and 2018 – making them 3.6 times more likely to commit violent crimes than Danish men of the same age and income, according to a report from the Danish newspaper B.T.
Following Somalis with the most violent criminal convictions were Iraqis and Turks.
Unlike many of their Western European counterparts, Danish politicians haven’t attempted to sugar-coat the problem
“Your data clearly shows that there is a big problem with criminal foreigners that we should not have in our society,” the Justice Minister said while he defended the Danish government’s migration policies.
Poulsen also mentioned that he had recently proposed a bill in the Danish parliament which would allow judges to serve migrants who fail to show up for their court dates deportation orders.
“We have tightened the expulsion rules so that we can more easily expel foreigners,” he said.
The newly elected MEP Peter Kofold of the populist Danish People’s Party also commented on the statistics which showed Somali migrants had been convicted of 1,111 crimes in the previous five years.
“These are pretty wild numbers, those that BT has uncovered. They support what we, the Danish People’s Party, have been pointing out for years, that we in Denmark have a challenge with immigration from a number of countries in Africa and the Middle East,” Kofod said.
“It’s tragic, and we have to respond to that. We must do this by sending people back home and not taking new ones in. It must be the lesson after too many years when Denmark and the rest of Western Europe have had too much of immigration from certain areas,” Kofod added.
In 2018, Danish Migration Minister Inger Støjberg directly addressed Somali migrants in Denmark, encouraging them to return to their homelands and rebuild saying, “if you no longer need our protection and your life and health are no longer at risk in your home country, and specifically in Somalia, you must, of course, return home and rebuild the country from which you came from.”
Individuals from the Danish Social Liberal Party hold similar views and have asserted that foreign felons need to leave Denmark. Lotte Rod, the party’s legal rapporteur, stated that it’s ‘terrible’ that these kinds of crimes are being committed in Denmark.
“The problem, however, is that there are countries, to which we cannot deport people. This applies, for instance, to Somalia and Syria,” Rod mentioned.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has also weighed in on the issue, saying that although he would prefer that Somali migrants left the country on their own, but that he certainly wouldn’t rule out the option of forced deportations.
According to Statistics Denmark, as of 2019, nearly 800,000 – over 13 percent – of Denmark’s total population of 5.8 million was comprised of immigrants and their descendants. Of that 800,000 people, 500,000 were non-Western immigrants.
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán and Britain’s Nigel Farage have both distanced themselves and their parties – Fidesz and the Brexit Party, respectively – from potentially joining the national populist supergroup in the European Parliament led by Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini.
During a press conference earlier this week, Prime Minister Orbán’s chief of staff Gergely Gulyás expressed that – despite having been suspended from the group in March – Fidesz’s party leadership wished to remain a member of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), the European Union’s largest voting block which includes German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
“We respect the Italian deputy prime minister and the Italian government and the result, which made the Northern League Italy’s strongest party after the European Parliament election,” Gulyas asserted, but added: “Nonetheless, I see not much chance for a co-operation on a party level or in a joint parliamentary group.”
A day after, in an interview with Hungary’s state-owned Kossuth Radio, Orbán had this to say:
For Fidesz, the starting point “is that we are now [EPP] members, we see what direction the [EPP] takes in the coming time period, can we influence it, does it correspond to Hungary and the Hungarian people’s interest,” “If yes we stay. If not, then we take part in a new formation.”
In the same interview, Orbán referred to the Italian leader as “our friend Salvini”.
The announcements come as somewhat of a shock after months of speculation on a possible alliance between Salvini and Orbán. In the past, the two ardently right-wing leaders have repeatedly praised one another, and have previously signaled that there would be some form of cooperation between them following European elections.
In August of last year, the Hungarian leader deemed Mr. Salvini as his “hero” for virtually stopping illegal immigration into Italy via the Mediterranean Sea.
In May of this year, the two leaders met in Budapest, with Orbán once again lauding Salvini in an interview with Italian media – this time deeming him as “the most important person in Europe today”.
After Fidesz was suspended from the EPP in March over a poster campaign which negatively portrayed George Soros and the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, Orbán had expressed that his party would be looking for other parties in Europe to form new alliances with.
“Hungary is too small to enforce its opinion in Europe. Media, NGOs, universities in Europe are all against us and can destroy us. That’s why we need strong allies,” Orbán explained.
Unfortunately, Orbán’s signaling against an official alliance with Salvini isn’t the only setback for Salvini’s proposed nationalist-populist supergroup. Last week, a source told The Sun newspaper that talks on signing up Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party – set to be the largest national party in the European Parliament with 29 MEPs – fell apart after Farage supposedly said he would only join the group if he were to become the leader.
As is my plight in life, I find it necessary to monitor ALL the news networks. It was my sad task to watch “Deadline: White House” anchored by Nicole Wallace on the day of the 75th D-Day anniversary celebration.
In all fairness I must confess that I respond to Wallace, as a person, much like I respond to the annoying sounds they use to interrupt television shows with severe weather warnings. She has an annoying habit of laughing whenever anyone says something ugly about Trump, Republicans or conservatives – even when she is the one saying it. I never met the woman – and hope to continue such avoidance – but I still take her mocking guffaws personally.
Oh yeah! The show.
Among Wallace’s panel of parroting pundits for this particular program were Princeton Professor and “Morning Joe” regular Eddie Glaude, former federal prosecutor Paul Butler, both Eugene Robinson (another “Morning Joe” regular) and Robert Costa of the Washington Post, Heide Przybyla, National Reporter for NBC and Nick Confessore of the New York Times. The one thing they have in common is that they are among the most strident Trump antagonists on the telly. If the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement were an army, these folks would be generals. Wallace does not let considerations of fairness, balance or even honesty interfere with her propaganda-based program.
As a sidebar, I was particularly interested in the appearance of Confessore since the New York Times recently let it be known that they did not intend to have their reporters appear on biased opinion shows because it would cast doubt on the newspaper’s objectivity. If the editors at the Times had been serious, the Wallace program would have been one of the first to be boycotted. I guess you just cannot believe what comes out of the Times.
Rather than praising Trump’s excellent D-Day speech – as even much of the liberal press did – the Wallace crew dismissed it out of hand as just a well-written speech that Trump delivered without any major blunders.
Rather, they focused on Trump’s earlier interview with Laura Ingraham of FOX News in which he said that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was “foolish” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was “Nervous Nancy.” In terms of Trump’s ability to insult, those are just short of compliments. But boy, did the Wallace gang pounce.
Wallace unfavorably compared Trump’s comments to those of Pelosi, who talked about bipartisanship when it comes to military and veteran matters. Wallace complimented Pelosi for not picking up on Trump’s remark. However, I had seen the Pelosi interview and the Wallace production team took one quote out of context and intentionally did not air Pelosi’s other comments about Trump. And as far as not picking up on Trump’s comments, the Pelosi interview preceded the Trump interviews. Nice going, Wallace.
Robert Costa analyzed Trump’s speech as undermining the NATO alliance. He said the President’s allusions to “nationalism” were not overt. Not only not overt, there were none. Trump was accused of “talking more about the nation” rather then Europe of “international institutions.”
I had two reactions. When is it wrong for a President to talk about what America did in World War II and why so many Americans are interred in France? And Costa is just wrong (lying?) because Trump gave a strong endorsement to the American alliance – calling it “stronger than ever.” Earlier in the day, Joe Scarborough of “Morning Joe” made that very point – saying that our allies should feel very reassured by Trump’s comments about the greater European alliance.
After bashing Trump from every conceivable angle, Robinson summed things up by saying that Trump only thinks about himself, not the men who suffered and died saving the civilized world from Adolph Hitler. Everything is always about Trump, opined Robinson.
Ironically, throughout the entire show, none of these panelists said much about D-Day, and the more than 100,000 brave men who stormed the beaches of Normandy. Some 9,833 now resting below that sea of crosses in Normandy, some 33,000 never to be found, and that shrinking number who are still around to tell their tales.
Wallace’s entire D-Day show was consumed with Trump bashing. It was all about Trump, but not the man, who on this day, gave a moving tribute to all those souls – living and dead – that Wallace ignored completely. You would think that Wallace & Co. could have had a timeout from their unrelenting criticism of the President to have paid homage to those to whom this day is dedicated. But no. Why can’t they give up the anti-Trump screeds? Because — as the MSNBC motto proclaims – “That’s who we are.”
So, there ‘tis.
It was recently announced that defrocked attorney John Dean has accepted an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on matters relating to … uh … Actually, it is not clear as to what relevant information Dean can provide other then his obvious disdain for President Trump – as evidenced in his frequent appearances on CNN and MSNBC.
Unless you are hooked on one of the anti-Trump cable news networks, you are likely to have no idea who this John Dean is or why his opinions matter. Even if you are familiar with his ubiquitious appearances, you may not know his history. I am aware of all of the above because I had a passing acquaintanceship with Dean when we were both working for the Nixon White House – little more than an occasional nod as we passed in the hallway.
Though Dean lacks substantive value to anything going on before Congress these days, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler sees political value in putting Dean in front of the cameras. That is what it is really about – the cameras. There is no information or insight that Dean can provide the Judiciary Committee that they do not already know – and even that is largely irrelevant to their legislative purpose. Nadler’s scheme is to essentially misuse the investigative process (no surprise there) to create a bit of an anti-Trump dog and pony show.
Dean staked his claim to fame more than 45 years ago when, as White House counsel, he testified against President Nixon in return for getting a lighter sentence for his role in the events surrounding the Watergate burglary by operatives of the President’s re-election campaign and then help orchestrate the cover-up that ultimately ended the Nixon presidency.
Dean had participated in meetings in which plans were made to break in and surveil the Democratic National Committee. When the “burglars” were arrested, Dean proceeded to gather and destroy evidence that tied the break-in to key individuals in the Nixon White House – including Attorney General John Mitchell. He paid hush money to those arrested in the break-in to obtain their silence.
Dean appeared several times before the grand jury – taking the Fifth Amendment for every question. He sought an immunity from prosecutions (a pardon) from Nixon for any crimes he may have (did) committed while serving as White House counsel. Nixon refused, and that is when Dean cut a deal with prosecutors.
Dean was originally sentenced to one to four years in prison in return for his cooperation. That was further reduced to time served in a safe house holding facility – which meant he officially served only four months.
Dean was really one of the bad guys in the entire scenario. He avoided his just desserts by taking a plea agreement and flipping on the President. In many ways, Dean was the sleazy Michael Cohen of his day. Prior to his White House job, Dean had worked for the then-powerful Washington law firm of Welch & Morgan. He was fired for conflict-of-interest when he attempted to negotiate a television broadcast license for himself when he was representing a client seeking the license.
Following his incarceration, Dean began a new career in the investment business and entered the world of political oblivion for decades. Thanks to his willingness to become an unabashed Trump critic, and his role in bringing down a President, the anti-Trump media brought Dean back into at least the edge of the public spotlight – where he could serve as one of the paid parroting panelists. That is where he appears to have attracted Nadler’s attention.
Nadler’s entire strategy with Dean appears to be designed to draw comparisons between the disgraced Richard Nixon and Trump – even though the comparisons are minuscule and largely irrelevant. This is such an obvious shabby political tactic that even some of those in the left-wing media are scratching their heads – wondering what value Dean brings to the table. The answer is little to none – only if you are looking at political value – and even then, the tactic is too obvious to have much impact.
In providing a platform for a guy who has nothing to say except what happened more than 45 years ago suggests that Nadler and the Democrats are getting desperate in their effort to swing public opinion in favor of impeachment.
So, there ‘tis.
That headline may seem like something out of the 1920s, when Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was trying to rid the world of what she considered undesirable human stock – including the handicapped, mentally ill and Negros of any kind. She and her band of progressive eugenicists were pushing for abortions and forced sterilization of those they deemed unfit to propagate – and even live. If this sounds to you disturbingly like the social philosophy of Nazi Germany, you are not wrong. Sanger and her organization were in close touch with Hitler, who praised their efforts.
So, what is the deal with the headline?
Well it seems that a state senator in Ohio proposed that the new so-called “heartbeat law” limiting abortions not … repeat not … include African American women. They should continue to be aborting their offspring at record numbers.
One might assume that such a proposal would come from some white supremacist who, like Sanger, wants to reduce the number of little black babies coming into the world. That would make sense – wacko as it is. It would be consistent with the genocidal underpinning of Planned Parenthood today – which places most of their abortion operations in poor minority neighborhoods and aborts black babies disproportionate to the population demographics. While blacks represent 13 percent of the population, they account for more than 40 percent of the abortions. It is the reason that Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King, campaigns so vigorously against the “services” of Planned Parenthood.
Of course, such an exemption would violate the Constitution, which requires that all laws be equally applied. At least that is the general theory of it.
But hold on! The proposal to continue to abort black babies was not introduced by some old white racist. No. No. No. it was introduced by Ohio State Representative Janine Boyd – a black female Democrat. But what in God’s name could possibly motivate a black woman legislator to want to encourage the mass abortion of black children – exempting women from a law intended to protect the rights of ALL unborn human beings?
Boyd does explain her reasoning – although it does not make a lot of sense. But here it is. In urging her legislative colleagues to support her amendment, Boyd said:
“I consider the slave trade and how black slaves were once treated like cattle and put out to stud in order to create generations of more slaves. I consider the how many masters raped their slaves. I consider how many masters forced their slaves to have abortions, and I consider how many pregnant slaves self-induced abortions so that they would not contribute children they had to this slave system. … And so, I ask you, with all of your values, to consider that and vote yes to this amendment.”
She wants to allow black women to have abortions because slave owners forced them to have babies “to create generations of more slaves” and because slave owners “forced their slaves to have abortions” in order to reduce the number of black babies. Does Boyd’s reasoning suffer from a bit of inconsistency? She wants to preserve the ability of modern black women to have abortions because 150 years ago slave owners made them have babies and … made them have abortions. I just cannot get passed the head-scratching phase on that bit of reasoning.
She also notes that “pregnant slaves self-induced abortion so that they would not contribute children they had to the slave system.” Does this mean that Boyd sees today’s black women having abortions as some sort of historic tradition — some sort of cultural ritual?
I only had one college course in logic, so maybe I am missing something – but none of that seems to explain why black women should be granted an exclusive right to abort their unborn children under circumstances in which the children of white, Asian and Hispanic women are allowed to live. I would think that abortion, itself, draws a better comparison to slavery since both require the dehumanization of a person. But that’s just me.
It is interesting that Boyd’s outrageous proposal did not get very much attention from the left-wing east coast media – which is quick to give such local stories excessive national coverage if the outrageous news can be made to reflect badly on the Republicans and conservatives.
Reflecting the fact that there is still a modicum of sanity on our political process, the proposed amendment to Heartbeat Bill did not get very far. Whew!
So, there ‘tis.
According to former Massachusetts Governor, and current Republican presidential challenger to Donald Trump, William Weld, the president will not willingly leave the White House if he does not win the re-election in 2020.
Weld made the unusual comment during a recent broadcast of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher asked the former governor directly, “If Trump loses, do you think he’ll leave?”
“Not voluntarily,” said Weld. “He’ll have a run at saying, ‘It was a rigged game so I’m not leaving.’ I don’t think the military and indeed even the Justice Department — the rank-and-file, the investigative agencies — would stand for that in this country.”
Maher (as is this reporter!) laughed at this notion that the existing system of government couldn’t prevent the president from refusing to admit defeat, “But we’ve said that about everything so far! As he becomes more and more a dictator, we go ‘That would never happen, they would never stand for that’” and yet they do.
Weld, who in addition to being Massachusetts’ former governor, was the 2016 Libertarian VP pick, replied, “It’s very obvious that he wants to be what the people who wrote the Constitution were hell-bent to avoid, which is a king. He loves autocrats and he consorts with them and he says a free press is the enemy of the people…” He says “’We just can’t have these restrictions on me. I’m not gonna play. If anyone’s investigating me, I’m not gonna engage with Congress.’ What could be a more obvious violation of his oath of office?”
Weld’s Comments Don’t Hold Water
To give Weld his due, Trump himself has joked about remaining in office past the two-term limit mark on more than one occasion. For instance, after Chinese President Xi Jinping got rid of term limits, Trump reportedly said, “He’s now president for life. President for life….And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”
However, in November 2018, the president told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that he had no intention of trying to remove presidential term limits in the U.S.
“I think the eight-year limit is a good thing, not a bad thing,” said Trump.
This is not the first “whackydoodle” comment Weld has made about Trump since announcing himself as the sole Republican challenger it his re-election bid. At a recent event at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, Weld practically called the president of the US a Nazi, by saying that he believes that Trump would prefer it if the US was an “Aryan Nation.”
“I celebrate that America has always been a melting pot. It seems he [Trump] would prefer an Aryan nation. I know that sounds strong and tough but he’s very interested in bloodlines and it has resonance,” Weld said.
Weld later tried to walk back the comments by saying he meant that he believes that Trump would prefer it if the US was “a nation with no immigrants whatsoever.”
According to a letter from Mexico’s President to U.S. President Donald Trump, poor migrants from 3rd world countries have the moral right make the United States their home.
In the angry letter, Mexico’s President Andrés López Obrador also excused Trump of turning the United States into an anti-immigrant country ‘overnight’.
The letter comes on the heels of President Trump’s announcement that he would levy a five percent blanket tariff on Mexican goods beginning in early June – a tariff that would gradually increase until the Mexican government takes action to stop the sustained illegal immigration spike.
“If Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States, Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019,” Trump said in a statement.
Obrador’s letter, which he posted to Twitter, asserted a migrant’s ‘right for justice,’ saying, “President Trump. Social problems are not resolved by taxes or coercive measures. How do you transform the country of fraternity for the world’s migrants into a ghetto, a closed space, where migrants are stigmatized, mistreated, persecuted, expelled and the right for justice is canceled to those who tirelessly seek to live free of misery?”
The scathing letter also seemed to assert that impoverished Mexicans also have the moral right to make the United States their home.
“It is worth remembering that, within a short period of time, Mexicans will not need to migrate into the United States and that migration will become optional, not compulsory,” Obrador wrote.
Instead of formally accepting or rejecting President Trump’s demand that the Mexican government takes action to block the vast numbers of Central Americans migrating into the U.S., the Mexican president repeatedly claimed the poor people simply have the right to move into the U.S. The letter also failed to denounce Trump’s threat to impose new tariffs on Mexico.
In one portion of the letter, Obrador appropriates the Statue of Liberty as an apparent symbol of both legal and illegal migration, saying, “The Statue of Liberty is not an empty symbol.”
In actuality, the Statue of Liberty was constructed to display to other nations how America’s culture and its Constitution has helped to develop flourishing democratic society. Regardless of that fact, progressive neoliberals continue to argue that the statue should be viewed as a symbolic invitation to migrants from all over the world.
Since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was instituted – a law which drastically loosened the country’s immigration laws – the U.S. population of citizens with Mexican ancestry and illegal immigrants has exploded to 30 million. That enormous population delivers roughly $30 billion in remittances to Mexico every single year.
But it’s not just foreign heads of state who would like to see the United States continue to be weakened via mass immigration from the third world. Unfortunately, there are many influential voices within the United States who make the claim that Americans’ homeland is a nation of and for immigrants – not a homeland for 280 million American-born citizens and their children.
In 2018, when speaking to an Indian audience, Republican in Name Only Nikki Haley had this to say: “The one thing about America and what I have always loved is America is a country of immigrants. It’s the fabric of America to have multiple cultures. Multiple populations. Multiple heritages that do come into America that make it what it is.”
From the other side of the aisle, Senator Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate asserted in February of last year that “rejecting the notion that we are a nation of immigrants [is] to deny our birthright as a nation … to really defy who we are, what we are and what we will be.”
Durbin also regurgitated the age-old lie globalists continue to propagate to the detriment of the societies in which they rule over when he declared, “We have a diverse nation, and that is our strength as far as I’m concerned.”
In contrast to globalist Democrat and Republican politicians, President Trump has continually argued that America is for Americans. In his letter which announced the new tariff threat, he said:
“As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico and entering our country illegally. This sustained influx of illegal aliens has profound consequences on every aspect of our national life—overwhelming our schools, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing untold amounts of crime. Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal drugs and narcotics of all kinds are pouring across the Southern Border and directly into our communities. Thousands of innocent lives are taken every year as a result of this lawless chaos. It must end NOW!”
The current situation is deeply unfair and immoral to the American worker and taxpayer, who end up bearing the extraordinary financial cost imposed via mass immigration.
Each year, the federal government imports around 1.1 million legal immigrants and renew a resident population of about 1.5 million white-collar visa workers and approximately half a million blue-collar visa workers.
In addition to that, the government hands out over a million work permits for foreign nationals, tolerates around eight million illegal workers, and fails to punish business who employ illegal migrants.
Policies like these not only decrease wages by flooding the labor market with cheap, foreign-born, white-collar workers and blue-collar laborers, but also transfers vast amounts of wealth from young employees to older investors. As a result, wealth gaps are widened, state and local tax burdens are increased, and college educations become less valuable.
Something must be done.