Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple

30 07 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1][2]

Every American is an immigrant, or his or her ancestors were immigrants. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists. America is the world’s only true melting pot, with people here from every other country on the face of the earth. Indeed, that is one of its strengths. Yes, we disagree and we squabble and we even discriminate, but we are a nation of immigrants, and we pull together and bury our differences when times get tough or 9/11s occur. Then, we are all Americans, white or brown or black or whatever the color or religion or political persuasion.

My ancestors came from Germany, Scotland, Ireland and England, and the heritage of most Americans is equally diverse. The spouses of my daughter and son have one parent who is of Mexican ancestry, and so the story goes throughout this great country. For me, however, the immigration issue is simple, and its solution is equally straightforward. All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

That may seem harsh to some people, but no other solution is fair and just. I met a lovely Irish woman in Dublin 23 years ago when she was 23 years old; and we traveled across the Atlantic for many years to be together, before she joined me here in the States. Each of us made 12 trips, with some of them lasting as long as three weeks; and both of us got to know and appreciate Ireland and the United States even more during our times together. Among other things, I came to appreciate my country, as seen through the eyes of an immigrant. I have old friends from Germany and other countries too, and I have seen America through their eyes as well, which is always enlightening and generally very positive.

My German ancestors, a husband and wife who had 16 children, landed in New York on September 18, 1849; and in 1860, the husband served with his fellow Minnesotans in the Union Army.  The assimilation had taken only 11 years, but he was proud to serve; and I am sure many other immigrants felt that way who served with the Confederacy.  An Irish ancestor of mine first came to the States in 1850; and an English ancestor came almost a century before, in 1760. I am not entirely certain when my Scottish ancestors came here, but my mother’s maiden name was “Duncan” before she married my father, and it is my middle name.  I am proud of all legal immigrants; and I am equally proud of those of Mexican and Hispanic heritage.

What I found when my Irish love moved to California to live with me at the end of 1996 was that she could not get a job because she did not have a “Green Card.”  She wanted to work, but she could not.  The U.S. had a lottery for Irish immigrants, and her sister applied on a whim and received a Green Card, so she came too and got two jobs, but my Irish love could not work at all.  Could she have found work anyway, and used a phony Social Security number and ID like so many illegal immigrants?  Sure she could have, but neither of us was willing to take the risks involved.

We played by the rules and she was never able to work, and finally she got homesick and returned to Ireland.  We did everything legally and it got us nowhere.  She did not overstay her visas, and she did not work illegally, and she is in Ireland today.  Why should illegal immigrants from Mexico or any other country be treated differently than she was?  Why shouldn’t they be required to wait in line just like she did?  Why shouldn’t they be arrested and deported just like she would have been if she had broken the laws?

Having been born and raised in Southern California, I love its Mexican and Spanish heritage, and Spanish architecture is my favorite, and I love Mexican food, and some of the hardest workers whom I have ever met are Hispanics.  They are wonderful people; however, all immigrants should be subject to the same rules that my Irish love adhered to, or no one should be required to obey those laws.  It is just that simple.  No frills—the same rules for every immigrant, regardless of where he or she is from.  Fundamental fairness requires that; and we owe it to all who have come to this country legally and who have contributed so much to our heritage.

I have watched President Bush’s speeches on the subject, and I have seen the demonstrations on TV, and I have listened to the debate. However, I am fed up with the fact that no politician is willing to do what is right.  Again, from my vantage point, the issue is simple and its solution is straightforward.  There is no mystery about what needs to be done.  Whether any of our politicians will have the courage to do the right thing remains to be seen, but I am not optimistic.  If they fail to do so, the problem will fester for generations to come, and immigration will be an area of the law that applies to some people but not to others, which is wrong and fundamentally unfair and unjust.

Finally, how much does the plan outlined by President Bush before a national television audience on May 15, 2006, differ from what I believe must be done? The first objective of his plan calls for this country to secure its borders, using the National Guard to strengthen and supplement our Border Patrol; and I agree with that as long as the Guard remains in place to effectively shut the border to illegal immigrants, criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.  The second objective is to create a temporary worker program.  I have doubts about such a program, and believe it would be best to eliminate temporary workers altogether, and replace them with Americans who are willing to work, or immigrants who are seeking entry to the United States legally and have been waiting patiently to get in.

The third objective is to hold employers to account for the workers they hire, and I agree with that as long as it is enforced vigorously.  The fourth objective is essentially amnesty for those illegal immigrants who are here already, and I disagree with that.  The president’s fifth objective is described as recognition of the fact that “we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples.” Few Americans disagree with that; however, it can be achieved best by legalizing only those immigrants who followed the rules, not those who ignored this nation’s immigration laws.

At best, the president’s plan would close our southern border, but do nothing about our northern border; and it would stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants, which might send them scurrying back to their countries of origin, to get in line and come here legally. Thus, actual deportation would work in tandem with attrition, and the goals that I believe are necessary might be achieved over time. However, any notion of amnesty is a mistake, as is the idea of a temporary worker program. While many of the president’s proposals constitute steps in the right direction, they do not go far enough.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g.,

[2] This article was published first at on May 16, 2006.  See

More than four years have passed, and George W. Bush’s presidency ended and Barack Obama’s presidency began.  However, the underlying issues remain the same and are still as relevant and timely as when I wrote it.  Our national immigration policies continue to be a disgrace.  Some people play by the rules, such as my long-time Irish love, and they are penalized for doing so.  All immigrants should be subject to the same rules, or no one should be required to obey our immigration laws.



96 responses

5 08 2010

“Anchor Babies” Are Not Entitled To American Citizenship

Ann Coulter makes a well-reasoned and convincing case in this regard, which states in part:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

. . .

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982.

. . .

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S.

. . .

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

. . .

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

. . .

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”

In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.



20 02 2014

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Democrats or Republicans (the diffrerences between those two supposedly different parties is minimal and getting caught up in the media-created fantasy differences is a major distraction that serves as an obstacle to America’s reclaiming its democracy. E.g., in 1986, Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty for all illegal immigrants then resident in the U.S.. He is hailed as a pure-bred Republican (but he was also a major tax-and-spend -not to mention a borrow-and-spend President).

Stockton would be even more in the hole if it had no resident illegal immigrants who pay far more in taxes than receive in tax-supported services (and the ratio is much higher than for US-born residents). Like it or not (I suspect you don’t like it LOL!), these 11m are good for our economy (as well as our society).


20 02 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Felipe, for your comments.

The issue is equity and equality, not racism directed at any immigrants, as my article above discusses.

Our ancestors are all immigrants from somewhere; however, “open borders” is not an option. Those who entered the country illegally should be deported and sent to the back of the line, in terms of entering the United States.

It is just that simple.


24 02 2016
Felipe Ravono

I don’t find it particularly useful to throw around buzz words like “equity” and “equality” or “racism”. It doesn’t serve to help understand what is a complex -not as you assert- a simple problem.

It would be simple if the U.S. were a military dictatorship and had no pretensions having any respect for human rights or international law or domestic law. Your proposal implies that this may be your preferred model of government. It isn’t mine.

To pretend that this issue is anything but complicated is disingenuous. There is no way that 11m residents of the U.S. can, or should, be deported. It’s simply not going to happen. The problem is not between an “open borders” policy and deportation. Again, it’s disingenuous to pretend that these are the only options. There are many other options that can, and will be, under consideration.

As but one very small example of how this issue is not “simple” as you claim because we are supposed to be a nation of laws (the fact these folks have broken a law doesn’t mean the government is then granted the right to break another law in order to punish them): A US-born minor with parents who came to the US illegally has all the rights of a citizen and the courts may decide that these rights include having his/her parents at hand to raise him/her in the U.S.

What the framers of the constitutional clause granting U.S. citizenship to those born here had in mind or did not have in mind is hardly of relevance 200 years later when the national and global contexts are unrecognizable from how they were then. Courts interpret the Constitution through the lens of 21st Century reality, not through the rear-view mirror of a primarily rural society.

Again, the issue of border control and what we want/need to do about it, if anything, is entirely separate from what to do about the 11m US residents who crossed that border illegally. The fact is that, during the last 18 months, more Mexicans moved from the U.S. to the Mexico than vice-versa but facts like this don’t have any impact on either our media coverage of the issue or on our demogogic politicians who would rather raise anxiety and inflame fear as this results in more money for the media and more votes for the politicians.

The larger question is why would one would want to deport these people?


24 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always, Felipe, for your comments.

I respectfully disagree. The issue is not complicated or complex at all. Either they came to the States legally, or they did not. If the latter is true, they must be deported, and sent to the very back of the line of those applicants who are applying to come here legally; or they must be denied entry altogether, for having broken our laws.

Indeed, there are strong arguments for imprisoning them. However, this option would overload our prisons.

And no, it will not be difficult to deport all 11 million, if your figures are correct. As the Washington Post has noted:

Under Clinton, there were only about 870,000 removals/deportations [i.e., “when the government kicks someone out of the country”], but 11.4 million returns [i.e., “people who could have been deported but who left of their own volition”]. Under [George W.] Bush, the numbers were about 2 million deportations and 8.3 million returns.

See (“Ted Cruz gets it very wrong on recent presidents’ deportation numbers”)

And no too, children born in the United States of parents who are here illegally should not be allowed to stay. They have no constitutional right to be here, and must accompany their parents back to their parents’ countries of origin.

See, e.g., (“Anchor Babies” Are Not Entitled To American Citizenship”)

This is not an issue of “human rights” or “international law.” They came here illegally, and now they must pay the price. No exceptions must be allowed.

And yes, there is a very easy way to get rid of them: make it a crime for any American to employ them. Put the onus on employers, and the illegals will not have jobs, and they will leave.

It is time to get tough. Again, there is nothing harsh or cruel about any of this. They knew that they were violating the law.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not repeat again that I love Hispanics. Having grown up in California, I came to love its rich Hispanic heritage and wonderful people.

However, jobs are taken away from them by illegals, just as blacks lose out to illegals; and the list goes on and on.


23 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Would that it were so simple. The very real complexities include both humanitarian concerns (e.g., most especially wrt the so-called “dreamers” – what is a fair outcome for somebody aged 30 now and brought into the US illegally at the age of 6 months?) and economic concerns (if all 11m were immediately deported as you suggest, this would wreak havoc on the U.S. economy and have severely negative consequences for US citizens).


23 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

I agree; however, all of our presidents (most recently Dwight Eisenhower and his successors) have deported illegal immigrants.

If you have read my article above, you will understand the basis of my beliefs. I wanted my Irish girlfriend to come and live here permanently just as much as any other person.

We followed the rules precisely, but it was not to be. I believe all other immigrants must follow the rules too, or never come here.

She and I did not want to take the risk of her being deported and never allowed back into the country. Why should there be different rules and different enforcement for different folks?


23 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

There aren’t different rules for different folks but the situation we are in requires a solution and that is not to drag people from their homes and dump them in a country whose language they don’t speak and culture they don’t know which is what we would be doing by deporting so-called “dreamers”. The solution that’s needed is not a simple one and will require alot of compromise but rigidly applying what’s legally permissible but morally bankrupt is no solution. Among the 11m, there a folks from a HUGE variety of countries and backgrounds with a huge and varied number of reasons to immigrate to the US illegally. Comparing the situation of your girlfriend who is a citizen of one of the wealthiest and most liberal members of the EU where she has lifetime rights to high-quality health care and other benefits to a 5-year-old Honduran orphan whose parents have been killed by gang violence and whose legal-resident aunt pays for the child to enter the US illegally is disingenuous. The way Trump is going, this aunt would be incarcerated for decades for human trafficking, not lauded for saving the child’s life.


23 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again.

As I stated previously, they assumed risks consciously and deliberately. The fact that they are getting caught now and paying a hefty price for having tried to “game” the system is their problem, not ours.

My Irish girlfriend and I paid a heavy price by adhering to the law. They should not receive any different treatment, period.

End of story.


25 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

As I stated previously, they assumed risks consciously and deliberately.
That is untrue for 100s of 1000s of child migrants.

The fact that they are getting caught now and paying a hefty price for having tried to “game” the system is their problem, not ours.
It’s the the migrants’ problem and anyone else’s problem who chooses to make it so.

My Irish girlfriend and I paid a heavy price by adhering to the law. They should not receive any different treatment, period.
You reference your Irish girlfriend and her adherence to immigration law several times and imply that her situation is an appropriate universal template upon which every migrants’ personal history can be understood and/or measured against. The behavior of your Irish girlfriend is not, nor should it be, a foundation for US Immigration policy. The world is many times more complicated that you seem to acknowledge.

End of story.
The end of YOUR story. Others’ stories haven’t even begun yet.


25 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The stories that are being written and will be written in the future involve (1) the immigrants’ return to the native lands, or the lands of one or both parents, or to some other country that may grant them asylum; and (2) a stronger and healthier America.


24 10 2010

Here’s my solution to illegal immigration…..

The Federal government should begin vigorously enforcing the current laws throughout the country (vs just at the border) with a focus on tracking down recent arrivals. This would need to begin with a census identifying those here illegally.

Once it’s clear real enforcement has begun and we have some idea of the extent of the problem, offer those who haven’t committed crimes and who’ve been here for several years (families, jobs, etc.) a special one time permanent legal status – almost citizen – with two exclusions. One they can never obtain full citizenship (i.e. never can vote), and two they cannot bring in or sponsor others to immigrate (no relatives). Anyone who evaded the census and was discovered later would be deported immediately. This offer shouldn’t be available to recent arrivals and anyone with a criminal record.

This isn’t perfect by any stretch. While deporting a few million of the more recent illegals is possible, the great majority have been here too long and have families. They speak English and have absorbed the culture – deporting these latter isn’t feasible and would tear us (they have become ‘us’) apart. Letting them stay is the appropriate solution.

Real enforcement deporting many of the more recent law breakers would set an example for those contemplating coming and also prove to Americans in general that the Federal government has changed its ways and is now serious about enforcement going forward.

A permanent status short of citizenship would recognize that illegal entry cannot and should not be rewarded and also would frustrate the Hispanic Nazi types who have an agenda other than becoming Americans, and would reassure the majority of Americans (who support immigration, but oppose the illegal version) that our political processes will not continue to be distorted by the huge wave of mono-cultural immigrants.

Once the prospect of 15 or 20 mil new Democratic votes is simply taken off the table, both parties and the people can focus more towards what’s good for the country instead of who can appease the growing Hispanic vote with one bribe or another.


24 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

While what you suggest may be a step in the right direction, it still does not address what my Irish love and I went through, which is true to this day with respect to immigrants from a vast number of other countries too (e.g., New Zealand). They must go through an immigration process that takes time and costs lots of money (e.g., in lawyers’ fees), and there is no shortcut for them. If they fail to follow the rules and stay here illegally, they risk being deported and never allowed back into the country.

Everyone should face similar rules, or no one should. What you are suggesting would establish a dual system: one for Hispanics—whom I believe are wonderful people, by and large—and another for everyone else. This is not fair.


23 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Why is appeasing the white vote implicitly “good for the country” while “appeas[ing] the growing Hispanic vote” implicitly not “good for the country”?


23 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

I do not believe we “appease” any one voting bloc over another.

Let me address Hispanics first, with whom I deal each and every day. They are some of the hardest working, most family-oriented, religiously-rich, wonderful groups in America.

Within one generation, they are totally assimilated into the American culture, and often lose their Spanish language skills in the process.

My first maternal ancestor arrived here in 1760 from Bristol, England. My first paternal ancestors arrived from Rottweil, Germany in 1849. They were a husband and wife who had 16 kids, and settled near Minneapolis.

By 1860, the husband was serving in the Minnesota Regiment of the Union Army. Other maternal ancestors served with the Confederacy. The same thing is true of Hispanics today.


24 10 2010

Once the illegal problem is solved, or seen to be well on its way to a solution, then the system resources now wasted on illegals and related issues would be diverted to handling a larger volume of legal immigrants more efficiently.

The only non PC aspect of my recommendation would be to include a macro formula that would restrict certain cultural groups while encouraging diversity so as to ensure those who do come assimilate as efficiently as possible. While I understand that many past groups (e.g. Italians, Germans, Irish) spent considerable time in their own neighborhoods on the way to full assimilation by later generations, the process can be accelerated by putting brakes on groups that for whatever reason are flooding the country. Currently, I would put an almost full stop on Mexicans and hispanics in general, and looking to the future, we might need to slow down the intake of Indians and Han Chinese. The populations of the latter two and their rapidly improving standards of living are hitting the sweet spot in which the pace of emigration is likely to increase beyond our capacity to absorb without significant and traumatizing cultural shifts to our American culture.


24 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your additional comments.

First, with the economy getting far worse between now and the end of this decade, governmental resources will become scarcer, and few if any will be diverted to helping with legitimate immigration issues. Hence, if your recommended solutions were adopted, there would still be the dual system that I mentioned above, with gross inequities arising from one’s country of origin (e.g., Mexico versus every other country).

Second, with due respect, I am anti-PC regarding essentially all issues. Whatever is PC, I am against. 🙂

Third, there have been country quotas for years. This is not new. As I recall, about 40,000 Irish immigrants were permitted entry into the U.S. and Green Cards each year based on a lottery when my Irish love applied. As mentioned in my article above, on a whim, her sister applied and received a Green Card and came here to work, but my Irish love could not work because she did not have such a Green Card. Illegal immigrants ignore such “niceties” altogether, which I find repulsive. Either everyone complies, or no one should.

Lastly, these are thorny problems, and Congress—being a largely corrupt group that only “greases squeaky wheels” that translate into votes and/or money—is never likely to do what is fair, just and right.


23 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Many will celebrate “significant …. cultural shifts to our American culture” and not see these as in any “traumatizing”. That’s always been our history.


23 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Yes, I agree.

The United States is the world’s only true melting pot.

This will never change.


27 10 2010

I agree there’s a possibility of a dual system emerging which would target Mexicans, but hopefully if both increased enforcement were combined with sustained levels of legal immigration (including lower income from non Hispanic sources) the demands for the system condoning large numbers of illegals being brought in to provide cheap labor and or future votes would be removed.

And as I said upfront, my solution is to some extent not PC. I believe your fairness calibration is more liberal/leftist than you suspect. What’s “fair” IMO is what’s good for the US. Why do we have to be fair to Mexicans treating them the same as the Irish? or the Chinese? Or any other group? Part of my solution is specifically that from the point of the view of the country we should make decisions about how many from what sources to allow into the existing national pool. And given how close Mexico is, sharing a border and how many have already entered the country, there are sections of the country in which the Americanization process has weakened considerably. I’m not advocating any stopping of immigration, just adjusting the flow to the country’s advantage so as to maximize the numbers coming in while maintaining the Americanization process at peak efficiency. It’s is to our advantage economically to keep the flow going.

As far as the economy goes, the essential economy is strong. A modest shift in a few policies would get rapid growth going again quickly. One such policy would be a grand compromise on what to do with the current illegals and reform of the enforcement mechanisms.

The idea for the compromise arose from my own attempt to reconcile the fact I know illegals and my own reluctance to deport people I believe will make great citizens with the fact that rewarding the huge numbers of illegals now here with full citizenship will likely end badly for the country inviting huge numbers of additional illegals arriving. As those 15 million or so start voting, there would be simply no hope of ever getting control of the borders. So the compromise of allowing most to stay but granting them a limited form of nonvoting, non-sponsoring status that will enable them to stay and the country to avoid the hugely disruptive and damaging attempt to deport so many people. The limited status ensures their political impact is minimized and seems a modest punishment for coming here illegally – a punishment that I believe most conservatives could eventually accept as sufficient.

IMO deportation is not a viable option and will never be implemented.

Finally regarding fairness to Mexicans, one final point. You mentioned “gross inequities arising from one’s country of origin” targeting Mexicans as being unfair. It seems to me that restricting future immigration from Mexico would be more acceptable and fair, than right now targeting Mexicans living among us for immediate deportation or some form of aggressive attrition process to force them to leave by making the everyday life impossible. There is no doubt that because the great majority of illegals here are from Mexico that they would escape the feeling they were being unfairly single out.

A compromise with amnesty granting limited citizenship is a one time program. Hopefully, aggressive enforcement would have widespread support and remove future needs for granting second tier citizenship ever again.


15 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants Preserved By California Supreme Court

The Los Angeles Times is reporting:

The California Supreme Court decided unanimously [today] that illegal immigrants may continue to be eligible for in-state tuition rates at the state’s colleges and universities rather than pay the higher rates charged to those who live out of state . . . [and that] a California law . . . does not conflict with a federal prohibition on giving illegal immigrants educational benefits based on residency.

California is one of several states that permit illegal immigrants to take advantage of lower college tuition for students who attend high school and graduate in state. About 25,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to receive in-state tuition rates in California.

. . .

College students who are in the country illegally are barred from government financial-aid programs. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected eventually to decide whether the lower tuition rates also violate federal law.

See; see also

Illegal immigrants from Mexico or any other country must be treated the same, and arrested and deported—or existing laws must be changed for all. In effect, we have a double standard: our immigration laws are not being applied and enforced against those who are in this country illegally from Mexico; whereas, we have stringent immigration laws for those who come from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and all other countries.

The California Supreme Court decision is outrageous. No wonder so many Americans have little or no respect for lawyers and the judiciary. Also, it underscores why many Americans view California as “la la land,” and why Congress may be unreceptive when federal funding is needed to bail out California. The chickens will have come home to roost, in spades, and deservedly so.


17 11 2010

Those kids who were brought here as minors (as opposed to an adult who made the choice to break the law in order to gain access to greater job opportunities) should be given a permanent legal status short of citizenship that effectively allows them to take advantage of instate tuition (in this case) but would not allow them to ‘anchor baby’ 25 ‘family’ members into citizenship.


16 11 2010

California has a pattern of defying Federal law in connection with immigration – particularly the illegal sort. It’s revealing that when Arizona passes a law which basically mirrors Federal law [it] is immediately forced into Federal court, but when California refuses to enforce Federal law (e.g. sanctuary cities) not a finger is lifted.


23 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Indeed. And it’s worth noting that California’s economy is one of the more successful in the world.


23 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

I agree with your statement. However, there are lots of factors which contribute to that reseult (e.g., weather, abundance of water and other natural resources, proximity to an ocean and the ability to trade with our Pacific Rim trading partners).


23 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Yeah, but the underlying point that I’m making is that having a huge proportion of the US’s illegal immigration population doesn’t appear to have damaged the economy of California.


23 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your additional comments.

There is no question that damage has been done to the U.S. and California economies.

African-Americans are the last hired and first fired. They have remained at the bottom of the totem pole, while other minority groups have risen above them.

It has been estimated that more than a million African-Americans have been adversely affected.

See, e.g., (“Civil-rights commish: Blacks hammered by illegal immigration”)


25 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

There is no question that damage has been done to the U.S. and California economies.
Evidence? Studies of migration the world over shows a consistent pattern over the last 70 years or more of migrants stimulating host economies even when migrants arrive ill-educated and with no specialized job skills. This pattern is true both of within-country migration and between-country migration. A popular explanation for this phenomenon (though never demonstrated empirically), is that migrants as group are unrepresentative members of their cultures of origin and their very move sets them apart in term of initiative, drive, and creative problem-solving ability.

African-Americans are the last hired and first fired. They have remained at the bottom of the totem pole, while other minority groups have risen above them.
Some would argue that indigenous groups have fared worse than Af-Ams but, in any event, this is NOT a zero sum gain. That others’s socioeconomic status is higher than that of Af-Ams doesn’t mean wealth has been take from Af-Am’s by the success of others.

It has been estimated that more than a million African-Americans have been adversely affected.

See, e.g., (“Civil-rights commish: Blacks hammered by illegal immigration”)
This approach that you cite here represents a classic “divide & conquer” or “divide & weaken” strategy by those currently privileged. If blacks can be persuaded to blame Mexican immigrants for the poverty of the former and Asian immigrants’ success has prevented Mexicans from advancing, then let’s just watch all these minority groups fighting among themselves (keep a wide open interpretation of Amendment II, distribute guns freely, and let them kill and wound each other and, while they’re busy fighting nobody’s looking at us so we might as well get on with the business of securing for ourselves a controlling stake in our corporate nation. That way, we can keep things just as they are …….


18 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

U.S. Senate Blocks Bill For Illegal Immigrant Students, And Rightly So

The New York Times has reported:

The Senate on Saturday blocked a bill that would create a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrant students who came to the United States as children, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check. The vote, 55-41 in favor of the bill, effectively kills the measure for this year, and its fate beyond that is uncertain.

Most immediately, the measure would have helped grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students and recent graduates whose lives are severely restricted because they are illegal residents, though many have lived in the United States for nearly their entire lives.

Young Hispanic men and women filled the spectator galleries of the Senate, many of them wore graduation caps and tassels in a symbol of their support for the bill. And they held hands in a prayerful gesture as the clerk called the roll.


The proposed legislation would have rewarded illegality, and that is not the message to send, ever. As discussed in the article above, people from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries wait patiently and work diligently to be admitted legally to the United States. It would be a mockery of their efforts to enact misguided legislation such as the so-called “Dream Act.” Lots of people have legitimate dreams and hopes of coming to America; and they should be rewarded if anyone is.

While it might seem harsh and cruel to some people, those illegals who filled the spectator galleries of the Senate should be arrested and deported. If our laws mean anything, they require nothing less. Those who seek to come here legally from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries know and accept those risks.


18 12 2010

I’m sympathetic to the those young underage people (basically under 16) who were brought here by their parents. However, the Dream Act seems to be another monstrous size bill (deliberately?) that is described one way positively, but which contains much more than advertised – including much that likely could not survive a vote if done out in the open air and sun.

I haven’t read the act, but have read summaries that make it unacceptable. It basically is an amnesty bill for millions of people who entered illegally. Not only are the definitions loosely structured as to whom it would apply, but once one person in a family is tagged then effectively their whole family is set on a pathway to citizenship. In other words if parents accidentally or by design happened to bring over an underage child then they too will be getting amnesty. That covers a lot more people than advertised in the media.

We don’t need a 2,000 page bill to help those who were brought here. An acceptable bill should be narrowly defined, require significant proof, and apply only to the person brought over – not their families. Any pathway to citizenship and the right to sponsor other family members should be off the table – just legal status granted with citizenship barred permanently – should they decide to exercise this pathway to legal status.

The idea (floated in earlier amnesty bills) that paying over a few hundred or thousand dollars as a fine for illegally entering the country is a joke. At that price we will have tens of millions seeking to enter in the near future – how good are you at learning tonal-based languages?. The penalty has to be meaningful, nor should people who chose to enter illegally ever be able to influence the political direction in our system.

This is not racism, but a simple exercise of sovereignty.


18 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your thoughtful comments as always.

I am not sympathetic at all to the young people who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents. They are illegals; and if our laws mean anything, they must be subjected to the full consequences of those laws. Otherwise, such laws are meaningless; and in effect, there would be no immigration laws at all, affecting anyone. We would have totally open borders, which of course is utter nonsense.

In my judgment, there should not be any amnesty bill for the millions of people who have entered the United States illegally. This is discussed fully in my article above. Next, parents do not “accidentally . . . bring over an underage child.” They do so intentionally; and they certainly do not deserve amnesty, period. They should be arrested and deported, and barred from ever entering the States again.

This is what would happen to immigrants from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. There must not be a double standard. Either the immigration laws apply to all, or they apply to none. Indeed, there are lots of Americans today who immigrated to the States at young ages from countries other than Mexico, and such legislation would constitute “nothing less than a slap on the face to all of us who came to the United States legally,” in the words of one of them. I agree completely.

Those people from other countries who try for years to enter the United States legally—and in some cases get in, while others never do so and finally give up—are the real “heroes” in the immigration process, if there are any. By definition, while it may seem cruel and harsh, the illegals are criminals and must be treated as such.

. . .

Lastly, Mexico is growing more lawless with every day that passes. The human tragedies mount, as the following article underscores, in spades. It tells about a courageous mother, Marisela Escobedo Ortiz, who waged a two-year battle to bring her daughter’s killer to justice—a 17-year-old daughter who was burned and dismembered, and found in a rubbish bin in June of 2009.

The mother was shot to death—possibly by the same man suspected of murdering her teenager—in front of the governor’s office in the northern city of Chihuahua.


Until the people of Mexico rise up and say enough is enough, and until Mexico’s government deals with such violence and moves strategically to put an end to it, the pressures on America’s borders will be enormous. One can certainly understand why illegals from Mexico may not want to return to their country. Also, the violence below the border has been spilling into the States more and more; and steps must be taken by both countries to stop this. It is in the best interests of all Americans to do so—including Hispanics who are here legally, and may become victims in their own communities.


26 06 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Los Angeles, Mexico

This is the title of an article at one of the Tea Party Web sites, which is worth reading because it reflects the beliefs—and yes, deep-seated prejudices—of lots of Americans. There is no question that illegal immigration has gotten out of hand, and our country is being changed by it.


My views with respect to the article are as follows:

First, one of the “culprits” is Barack Obama, who must not be reelected; this much is crystal clear. He must be sent packing either to Chicago or Hawaii no later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his golf scores and his presidential library. It cannot happen fast enough!

See (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

Second, having grown up in Los Angeles, I have seen it change over the years. Yes, the immigration issue is a serious problem nationally, and I have written about it.

See (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

However, by and large, the Mexicans in Southern California are hard-working, wonderful people, who go about their lives just like any other Americans. I listen attentively for Spanish being spoken; however, most speak English among themselves, which I have observed almost consistently. They become integrated into the American culture quickly, taking at most a generation to do so. They are very family-oriented, happy people who genuinely enjoy life. The Catholic churches in Southern California are filled with them; and young Mexican-Americans are attending on their own, without being forced to do so.

Perhaps I am biased because Mexican food is a favorite of mine; Spanish architecture is my favorite; and the Spanish/Mexican culture has imbued much of California (e.g., its beautiful Missions, stretching as far north as the lovely town of Sonoma in California’s wine country; the old Spanish ranchos that are referenched in the titles to property even today).

Third, the author of the Tea Party article complains that soccer fans at the Rose Bowl were loyal to Mexico, not the United States. I had season tickets to the UCLA football games at the lovely Rose Bowl for about 25 years, until I got tired of watching them lose or play dismal football. The Rose Bowl is a perfect venue for soccer; and the 1994 FIFA World Cup matches were held there, which were very exciting.

Having said that, some friends of mine and I were planning to attend a UCLA-USC basketball game near the LA Coliseum some years ago, and arrived in downtown LA early to have dinner. We allowed plenty of time to get to the game; however, it took us almost an hour to go about a mile or so, because a double-header soccer match involving Mexico was being played at the Coliseum. As it was, we missed the first half of the basketball game because of the traffic jam.

I know the intensity of soccer in Southern California, which is wonderful. However, it is not limited to Mexicans. People from other Hispanic cultures are just as enthusiastic; and having played soccer as a kid, with my son playing it too, I know what a great sport it is. And yes, those Mexicans who were not born here are very loyal to Mexico’s teams. The sports rivalries in soccer equal those in American football, basketball, baseball and other sports; and sports fans are often fanatics.

In short, I concur with the Tea Party article that we must stop illegal immigration in its tracks. I have outlined my views in the article cited above. However, to condemn Mexican-Americans on a wholesale basis—who are becoming a significant part of the American culture—is an enormous mistake. Among other things, they were here before the “gringos,” and they are here to stay, contributing mightily to our great country, just as other immigrants have done before them.


23 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Immigration Fiat: Another Reason To Remove Obama From The Presidency

The Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer has a fine article about Obama’s lawlessness, which is worth reading—and it simply adds to the myriad of reasons cited above with respect to why Obama must be removed from the presidency at the earliest possible date. In his article entitled, “Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat: Naked lawlessness,” Krauthammer writes:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations [of immigrants brought here illegally as children] through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.

— President Obama, March 28, 2011

Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended these very deportations—granting infinitely renewable “deferred action” with attendant work permits—thereby unilaterally rewriting the law. And doing precisely what he himself admits he is barred from doing.

Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused.

When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal. “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’s exclusive Article I power to legislate.

With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano.

This is utter nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion is the application on a case-by-case basis of considerations of extreme and extenuating circumstances. No one is going to deport, say, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant whose parents had just died in some ghastly accident and who is the sole support for a disabled younger sister and ailing granny. That’s what prosecutorial discretion is for. The Napolitano memo is nothing of the sort. It’s the unilateral creation of a new category of persons—a class of 800,000—who, regardless of individual circumstance, are hereby exempt from current law so long as they meet certain biographic criteria.

Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. . . .

It would be a scandal, a constitutional crisis, a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, this is not an area of perpetual executive-legislative territorial contention. Nor is cap gains, like the judicial status of unlawful enemy combatants, an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama’s bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law.

It is shameful that congressional Democrats are applauding such a brazen end run. Of course it’s smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and preempts Marco Rubio’s attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever. But, by Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness.

As for policy, I sympathize with the obvious humanitarian motives of the Dream Act. But two important considerations are overlooked in concentrating exclusively on the Dream Act poster child, the straight-A valedictorian who rescues kittens from trees.

First, offering potential illegal immigrants the prospect that, if they can hide just long enough, their children will one day freely enjoy the bounties of American life creates a huge incentive for yet more illegal immigration.

Second, the case for compassion and fairness is hardly as clear-cut as advertised. What about those who languish for years in godforsaken countries awaiting legal admission to America? Their scrupulousness about the law could easily cost their children the American future that illegal immigrants will have secured for theirs.

But whatever our honest and honorable disagreements about the policy, what holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order. That’s the fundamental issue here. As Obama himself argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.”

Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his reelection needs.


Obama and Napolitano must be removed from office immediately, along with Eric Holder!

See (“The ‘Fast And Furious’ Scandal Is Turning Into President Obama’s Watergate”) and (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)

What has been done by Obama could be done by a Republican administration; for example, in shutting down all abortion programs, practices and facilities, and arresting those involved—again, by presidential fiat.

If this was done, the cries for impeachment from the far-Left and its captive media would be reminiscent of Watergate; however, they are conspicuously silent now—or cheering Obama on—when he nullifies our laws and shreds the Constitution.


19 07 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Death Of America?

In an important article entitled, “Democrats’ ideal voter: Illegal alien, convicted felon,” conservative Ann Coulter has written:

Before taking the oath of office, Barack Obama vowed to fundamentally transform the United States. He has certainly done so. For example, Obama has:

– destroyed the job market;

– sent billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, companies overseas, his campaign contributors and public sector unions;

– forced the passage of a wildly unpopular national health care law on a purely partisan vote;

– come out for gay marriage;

– refused to enforce laws on illegal immigration;

– eliminated the work requirement for welfare.

How can a country that elected Ronald Reagan have Obama tied in the polls with Mitt Romney?

The answer is: It’s not the same country.

Similarly, when two successful, attractive multimillionaire women in California can’t beat a geriatric leftist like Jerry Brown or an old prune like Barbara Boxer, that’s not the same state that elected Ronald Reagan twice, either.

The same process that has already destroyed California is working its way through the entire country.

While conservatives have been formulating carefully constructed arguments, liberals have been playing a long-term game to change the demographics of America to get an electorate more to their liking.

They will do incalculable damage to the nation and to individual citizens, but Democrats will have an unbeatable majority. Just like California, the United States is on its way to becoming a Third World, one-party state.

Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was expressly designed to change the ethnic composition of America to make it more like Nigeria, considered more susceptible to liberal demagogues.

Since 1965, instead of taking immigrants that replicate the country’s existing ethnic mix, we’ve been admitting mostly immigrants from the Third World. At the same time, people from the countries that sent immigrants to this country for its first several centuries have been barred.

Eighty-five percent of immigrants now come from “developing countries.” (How are they ever going to develop if their people are all on the dole over here?)

The “browning of America” is not a natural process. It’s been artificially imposed by Democrats who are confident of their abilities to turn Third World immigrants into government patrons.

It’s worked. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57 percent of all immigrant households in the U.S. get cash, Medicaid, housing or food benefits from the government—compared with 39 percent of native households. The highest rates are for immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent).

Isn’t the idea to get immigrants with special skills? If you can’t even get a job, by definition, you do not have a special skill. Other than voting Democrat.

There’s a strange asymmetry in how this matter can be discussed. Liberals and ethnic activists boast about how America would be better if it were more Latino, but no one else is allowed to say, “We like the ethnic mix as it is.”

That would be racist. By now no one even tries to disagree.

Liberals’ other plan to expand the Democratic rolls has been to destroy the family.

Every time someone gets a divorce, Democrats think: We got a new Democratic voter! Every time a child is born out of wedlock: We got a new Democratic voter! And if the woman has an abortion—we got a new Democratic voter!

According to recent polls, Obama has a negative job approval rating of 45 to 49 percent. The reason the polls are tied between Obama and Romney is that single women support Obama by a 2-to-1 margin. The Democrats’ siren song to single women is: Don’t worry, the government will be your husband.

Our prisons are overflowing with the results of the Democrats’ experiment of subsidizing illegitimacy. Children raised by a single mothers commit 72 percent of juvenile murders, 60 percent of rapes, have 70 percent of teenaged births, commit 70 percent of suicides and are 70 percent of high school dropouts.

. . .

Throw in felons voting, and the Democrats have an unbeatable majority.

See added); see also (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)


20 01 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Mexico Reclaims California! [UPDATED]

Hispanics for Obama

In an article entitled, “California’s Hispanic population to outnumber whites by end of 2013,” the UK’s Daily Mail reported:

California’s Hispanic population is slated to become the state’s majority ethnicity by the end of this year according to a new report by the governor’s office.

. . .

As early as July Hispanics are expected to be equal in size to non-Hispanic whites before outpacing them, according to the report, with both demographics in that month reaching 39 per cent of the population.

It’s a swap that comes earlier than experts had expected.

Gov Brown, responding to the outlined future of his state, has since proposed shifting more school funding to those schools with more students in poverty and/or don’t speak English.

Currently 40 percent of the state’s students are living in poverty and 20 percent are non-native English speakers he said.

With the report having also found the state’s Hispanics being predominantly younger than whites—with 19 percent of Hispanics over the age of 50 compared to 43 percent of whites—he said ‘this is an aging society and inequality is growing.’

Nationally, Hispanics are already the fastest growing demographic, with their demographics seen increasing by 3.1 per cent since 2010.

More than half of the country’s Hispanic population live within just three states, however, of California, Texas and Florida.

State wise, New Mexico has the highest percentage of Hispanics among their entire population, seeing 46.7 per cent in last year’s census figures. White non-Hispanics make up 40.2 per cent.

Among [California]’s overall figures released, by July the state’s total population is expected to top 30 million after adding 300,000 or 0.8 percent more than last year.

That figure is uncharacteristically slow for the nation’s most populous state, with the report reasoning a sluggish economy stifling the historically fast-growing state’s population.

See (emphasis added)

California has a rich Hispanic heritage that is reflected in its beautiful Missions—which stretch from San Diego in the south, to the lovely town of Sonoma in the north—and in the names of its cities, towns and roads; in its wonderful Mexican food; and in the smiling, hard-working Hispanics who contribute so much to California’s culture and economy.

I seem to have loved them always; and perhaps the first one I met was the kind and gentle Alfredo Baños in my elementary school classroom in Los Angeles, many years ago.

See, e.g., (“Spanish missions in California“); but see


22 02 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Illegal Immigration: The Opiate Of America

Like the issue of legalizing marijuana and other so-called “recreational drugs,” which is utter nonsense, Barack Obama wants the following—in the words of the Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer:

[He] makes virtually automatic the eventual acquisition of a green card and citizenship by today’s 11 million [illegals]. The clock starts on the day the bill is signed: eight years for a green card, five more for citizenship. It doesn’t matter if the border is flooded with millions of new illegal immigrants (anticipating yet the next amnesty). The path to citizenship is irreversible, rendering enforcement irrelevant.


The reason, again in the words of Krauthammer: “Democrats have little real interest in border enforcement. They see a rising Hispanic population as the key to a permanent Democratic majority.”

Conservative Ann Coulter adds:

I understand the interest of business lobbies in getting cheap, unskilled labor through amnesty, but why do Republican officeholders want to create up to 20 million more Democratic voters, especially if it involves flouting the law?

. . .

Without citing any evidence, the [Marco] Rubio Republicans simply assert that granting 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens amnesty will make Hispanics warm to the GOP. Yes, that’s worked like a charm since Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986!

True, Romney lost the Hispanic vote, but so did John McCain, the original Rubio. (McCain lost Hispanics by 67 percent compared to 71 percent who voted against Romney.)

President George H.W. Bush created “diversity visas,” massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test. In the 1992 election, he won 25 percent of the Hispanic vote—less than what Romney got.

Although Hispanic politicians, spokesmen and TV networks benefit from Rubio’s mass legalization scheme, there’s no evidence that Hispanic voters care very much about it.

Amnesty never shows up in polls as a top concern of Hispanics. It’s a top concern of employers, not workers—which isn’t going to do much to help Republicans shed that “Party of the Rich” image. After Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, unemployment among Hispanics skyrocketed when, suddenly, there was increased competition for low-skill jobs. That’s precisely why businesses want amnesty, not because of their deep concern for the plight of the underclass.

How’s this for an idea: Why don’t Republicans remind Hispanic voters that the more low-skilled immigrants who are admitted, the lower their wages will be? That at least has the virtue of being untried.

Whatever it is that makes Hispanics love Obama, it’s not amnesty. He double-crossed Hispanics on amnesty; in the words of Univision’s Jorge Ramos, “You promised (amnesty), and a promise is a promise and with all due respect, you didn’t keep that promise.” Obama still won 71 percent of their vote.

Indeed, almost alone among demographic groups, the Hispanic vote increased for Obama from 2008 to 2012. Protestants, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, men, whites, white women—even single women—all voted in larger percentages for Romney than they had for McCain.

Only Hispanics and Asians increased their vote for Obama. Coincidentally, these have been our two largest immigrant groups over the last several decades. (It’s sort of touching that Democrats couldn’t get Americans to vote for them, so they had to bring in new voters from other countries to start winning elections again. Immigrants really are doing the job Americans just won’t do.)

The canard about Hispanics being “natural conservatives” comes from the same cliche machine that gave us the one about blacks being “natural conservatives.” At least blacks really are social conservatives—they just vote Democratic, anyway.

As Charles Murray has pointed out, Hispanics are less likely to go to church or be employed than non-Hispanics. They are less opposed to gay marriage than everyone else—44 percent compared to 50 percent. (By contrast, 55 percent of African-Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a 2012 Washington Post/ABC poll—even more, according to how they vote.)

Nor, unfortunately, do Hispanic immigrants become more Republican the longer they’ve been here, as some Republicans claim without bothering to see if it’s true.

To the contrary, they get more liberal. Cubans used to vote Republican nearly as reliably as Mormons. In 2012, 49 percent of Cubans voted for Obama.

Will amnesty win the Cubans back? I don’t think so: They already get amnesty under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. Same with Puerto Ricans, who are automatic American citizens.

Trying to appeal to Hispanics with amnesty would be like trying to win over baseball fans by shouting “Go Yankees!” at a Mets game. Except that would at least capture some baseball fans.

It’s not clear that amnesty wins any Hispanics, apart from the ones who can’t vote (because they’re illegal) and their ethnic “spokesmen,” whose power increases as the Hispanic population grows.

So why do Hispanics vote Democratic? Like most legal immigrants since Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, Hispanic immigrants are poor. The poverty rate of second-generation Hispanics is lower than the first—but the third generation’s poverty rate is higher than the second.

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Hispanics have the highest illegitimate birthrate in the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, for every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 80.6 had children out of wedlock, compared to 65.3 for unmarried black women and 29 for unmarried white women.

If Republicans think we can have mass amnesty for millions of government-dependent immigrants and become a more libertarian country, they’re crazy.

This isn’t because of a failure to “reach out.” Republicans can’t beat Democrats at the government assistance game. From single mothers to corporate subsidy-takers, they want your money and the Democrats promise to give it to them.

Instead of trying to compete with the ethnic lobbies, welfare schemes and racialized politics of the Democrats, perhaps Republicans should allow our immigration system to admit more immigrants who won’t immediately go on government assistance, as 60 percent of new immigrants do now.

Putting 12 million to 20 million of them on a “path to citizenship” won’t make them like Republicans; it will make Republicans lose.


Once again, Democrats are “evil,” and Republicans are “Neanderthals.”


12 06 2013
Timothy D. Naegele


Truer words were never written. Indeed, Coulter opines:

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn’t that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate—not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn’t Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to everyone’s expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane. Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65—mostly elderly black women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party’s entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don’t want.

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent — and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote — and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

John McCain, the nation’s leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney’s 27 percent.
Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.

The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don’t care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was “scratchy towels.”)

Also, note that Pew asked about “immigration,” not “amnesty.” Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it — by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren’t low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she’d like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people’s houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on why amnesty won’t win Republicans the Hispanic vote — even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: “Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs.”

But rich businessmen don’t care. Big Republican donors — and their campaign consultants — just want to make money. They don’t care about Hispanics, and they certainly don’t care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don’t care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don’t want amnesty, and they’re hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It’s as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn’t be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.

And it still wouldn’t be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn’t create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on “Fox News Sunday” about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell’s reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can’t bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.


As I have written: “Once again, Democrats are ‘evil,’ and Republicans are ‘Neanderthals.’”

See (see also the article above, as well as the other comments beneath it)


3 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Republicans Are Neanderthals; The Democrats Are Evil But Shrewd

One of the many lessons that I learned while working in the U.S. Senate is that the Democrats are smart and shrewd, while the Republicans are often unsophisticated losers. Ann Coulter describes this phenomenon in her latest article:

We keep hearing insistent claims that if Republicans don’t pass amnesty yesterday it will be the end of the party.

Can I see the math on that? I can see why bringing in 30 million new Democratic voters would be good for the Democrats, but how does it help Republicans? Maybe conservatives shouldn’t blindly trust the calculations of the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy.

If I were a Democrat, I would have tried to sneak this bill past Republicans by proposing amnesty only after reaching some easily rigged benchmarks. But, apparently, Chuck Schumer knows elected Republicans better than I do.

Step One: Everyone’s amnestied. Step Two: After they’re amnestied, they can bring in all their relatives.

If Hispanics voted 50.1 percent for Democrats, amnesty would be a bad deal for Republicans. But, in fact, they vote 70 percent to 80 percent for Democrats. How did it become an urgent priority for Republicans to bring in 30 million new voters, 80 percent of whom will vote Democratic?

Democrats want 30 million new voters and they will say anything to get there:

It’s a crisis! Illegal immigrants are “living in the shadows”!

That’s not a “crisis.” At most—and this is highly dubious—it’s a crisis for the illegal immigrants. But evidently, “living in the shadows” is at least better than living in Guadalajara. Otherwise, there’s an easy solution.

We’re told, “You don’t know what it’s like to live in the shadows!” Yes, you’re right, and that proves it’s not a crisis.

Sorry to sound legalistic, illegal aliens, but you broke the law and—look me in the eye—you know you broke the law. You hid in the backs of trucks, traveled across remote desert locations, ran from U.S. agents and stole American IDs.

It’s supposed to be uncomfortable to break the law. We aren’t required to grant amnesty to people just because they’ve put themselves in the awkward position of being here illegally. (Or because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.)

If illegals were Republicans, Chuck Schumer would be a “Minuteman,” patrolling the Mexican border 24-7.

Oh boy! Are Hispanics ever going to take revenge on Republicans!

The obvious retort is: If these people vote 80 percent against Republicans, how does it hurt Republicans if they can’t vote? Is the claim that next time legal Hispanics vote against you, they’ll have an angry glint in their eye? Voting machines don’t register angry glints.

How could any decent person be against granting amnesty to lawbreakers?

In common parlance, “the decent thing to do” is usually defined as “following the law.” The fact that Democrats want 30 million new voters is not a good enough reason to ignore the law and screw over the millions of people who have been waiting 20 years to immigrate here legally.

We already have “de facto amnesty.”

I gather Marco Rubio considers this his big showstopper, since he says it in every interview as if he’s announcing the Kochen-Specker theorem. But if we already have de facto amnesty, why is this bill even necessary? Oh, that’s right! The Democrats need 30 million new voters.

It’s curious that Democrats don’t hysterically demand amnesty for other lawbreakers, such as tax-cheats or polluters. Right now—hold on to your hat, Marco!—we have “de facto amnesty” for tax-cheats and polluters! (Also rapists and murderers and every other crime that doesn’t have 100 percent enforcement.)

And if we won’t grant amnesty to tax-cheats and polluters, what about their children? Why punish the children? They did nothing wrong. Their parents told them they had lots of money for houses, clothes and college tuition. How can you put a tax lien on the homes of innocent children? Think of how BP executives’ children have suffered—the divorces, the deferred dreams, the broken families.

. . .

And by the way, polluters are also hard workers. They love their families and want the best for them, too. I bet illegal aliens who rape women and kill people in drunk-driving accidents love their families. Members of MS-13 work very hard at gang activities, such as, for example, when you cross them, they are very dogged about having you killed in a drive-by shooting. That shows a real stick-to-itiveness.

But weirdly, Democrats are obsessed with amnesty only for the lawbreakers that will get them 30 million new voters. (Violent felons come next.)

Republicans don’t have to be brave to vote against amnesty. They need to not be idiots.

This isn’t a single issue. It’s every issue. Presidential elections are decided by a few million votes. Giving the Democrats 30 million new voters means Republicans lose on everything—Obamacare, public sector unions, big government, abortion, gay marriage, racial preferences, and on and on and on.

In another few years, the whole country will be California and no Republican will win another national election.

Maybe New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie supports amnesty (as he did, via his appointed senator), hoping to be the last Republican ever elected president. There’s one for the history books!

But if Christie says he’s pro-life while giving the Democrats 30 million new voters, he’s a liar. Hispanics favor abortion by 66 percent, compared to 50 percent of other voters.

If he says he opposes Obamacare, court-mandated gay marriage, wants small government and loves his country while voting to give the Democrats 30 million new voters, he’s a liar.

Hispanics support Obamacare by 62 percent, gay marriage by 59 percent and big government by 75 percent.

If he says he opposes bloated, expensive public sector unions, he’s a liar. Look no farther than California for our future.

Instead of the elites bringing in another flood of low-wage immigrants to clean their homes and manicure their lawns (and vote Democrat!), how about we start getting some immigrants to compete with Florida senators and New Jersey governors?

See (emphasis added)

Chris Christie is a Democrat, who must be driven from the GOP; and immigration “reform” must be killed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Otherwise, lots of us who are Independents will never vote for Republican candidates again.


14 10 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever

Barack Obama and his Democrats want a permanent majority in voting nationally, and to make the United States into a one-party system of government—not dissimilar to Putin’s Russia.

Neither Obama nor his Democrats are altruists. Rather, they are using this issue to achieve political control, which would change America forever.

If the illegals become legal, all or most will vote for Democrats; and Obama and his Democrats will have a permanent majority in this country: a one-party system of government.

Immigration reform must be blocked forever because Obama and his Democrats will never allow reasonable reform, but will fight tenaciously to achieve their goals. The “Neanderthal” Republicans will give in at some point, because they have no cojones.

My article above sets forth the only fair and just solution. Anything else would constitute a cruel and tragic “joke.”

. . .

America’s founders must be truly weeping . . .

. . .

See (“Barack Obama’s Welfare Socialism Sparked The US Government Shutdown, Not The American Constitution”); see also (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”) and (“Poverty In America”) and (“Big Business Lobbies For Illegals!”)


4 11 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Big Business Lobbies For Illegals!

No amnesty for illegals

An article published by Bloomberg on October 25, 2013, stated:

Evangelical pastors, corporate leaders, elected Republican officials and small-government activists arrive in Washington next week to lobby lawmakers to revamp U.S. immigration policies before year’s end.

The “conservative fly-in” will involve about 600 people and include personal meetings with at least 80 Republican members of Congress, said Ali Noorani, an organizer of the event and executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

“When was the last time that you saw the conservative movement calling for something? Most of the time it’s, ’Stop this,’” Noorani said. “No Republican member really wants to do this, but they’re going to be hearing from constituents demanding that they do it, and do it this year.”

The Republican-to-Republican appeal is the latest tactic of immigration lobby groups that want to jar loose a Senate plan that passed in June and has been foundering in the other chamber. House Speaker John Boehner has said he won’t act on the Senate’s plan, with his caucus preferring instead to pass smaller bills.

The Democrat-led Senate and President Barack Obama have called for a comprehensive approach that includes a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Most of the participants in the lobbying campaign aren’t household names, yet they will be well-known to the lawmakers they’re meeting, Noorani said.

“These are the same people they’ll be sitting across from in a few months to ask for their vote or even for financial support,” he said.

Ohio Republicans

Terry Boose, a state representative from Norwalk, Ohio, who is flying in for the effort, wants to talk to Boehner, one Republican lawmaker from Ohio to another.

“I’d like to tell him, and anyone else from Ohio who will listen, to think of immigration in terms of jobs, especially for our state’s agricultural industry,” he said. He’ll be working the halls with an Ohio farm owner who lost crops because he couldn’t find enough legal workers.

“Immigration is all about the economy. I think many of my fellow conservatives get that,” said Boose.

The fly-in is sponsored and paid for by Noorani’s National Immigration Forum, the Partnership for a New American Economy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, a technology group formed by Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg.

The Partnership for a New American Economy is an association of mayors and business leaders formed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

Cost Unknown

None of those groups is required by law to disclose donors or expenses, and representatives from the groups declined to say how much the fly-in will cost.

Marriott International CEO Arne Sorenson will welcome the group at a reception the night of Oct. 28. Marriott’s chairman and former CEO Bill Marriott Jr. is one of eight co-leaders of the Partnership for a New American Economy, along with fellow Republican donor Rupert Murdoch, founder of media company News Corp., now called Twenty-First Century Fox Inc.

“It is time for Congress to pass pro-growth, pro-security measures that modernize our truly dysfunctional immigration system,” Sorenson said in a statement yesterday. “That begins with an honest and serious debate about the status of the undocumented, our need for an efficient system for employers to verify work eligibility, and the current failure of our legal immigration programs to meet the actual needs of the labor market.”

Chamber Gathering

On Oct. 29, the group heads to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce building across from the White House to listen to economists, religious leaders and Republican strategists make the case for comprehensive immigration revisions.

Among the scheduled speakers are Barrett Duke, a vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Afterward, participants will head to Capitol Hill, where they had more than 120 meetings confirmed as of this week, including at least 80 with the members themselves.

Jeremy Robbins, director of the Partnership for a New American Economy, said the idea is to flood the Hill with “right-of-center” voices who favor changes in immigration law that reflect the Senate’s plan.

“We just feel that the lesser-told story of all this is the conservatives who embrace immigration,” he said. “We are seeing stories all over the country and wanted to bring them to Washington.”

Mixed Group

Participants come from about 30 states and include a mix of local religious leaders, business owners, politicians, including Boose and Kris Steele, a former speaker of Oklahoma’s House of Representatives.

“Regardless of your political leanings, we all start with this agreement: The current system does not work,” Steele wrote about immigration in a Sept. 19 editorial in the Shawnee News-Star. He’s written several editorials on the topic in Oklahoma newspapers, each time basing his appeal for immigration policy changes partly on religion—“Americans are all children of our God”—as well as on economic grounds.

This isn’t the immigration advocates’ first attempt at wooing Republicans with their own., Zuckerberg’s group, included Democratic and Republican subgroups when it began in April. The Republican version, called Americans for a Conservative Direction, includes as board members former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Joe Kaplan, a Facebook executive who served as a deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Americans for a Conservative Direction aired supportive advertisements for Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. All three have advocated for changing U.S. immigration policies.


Also, it has been reported:

Fast food chains and other big restaurant lobbyists are turning their attention to efforts to try to grant amnesty to the 11 million illegal aliens in the country, Breitbart News has learned.

In a public statement released post-government shutdown on Oct. 23, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) wrote that it thinks Congress should focus on immigration reform efforts before the end of the year.

“Now that Congress can refocus after the showdown over the budget and debt ceiling, we are hearing calls from both sides of the aisle to go back to immigration reform,” EWIC wrote. “The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) is looking forward to continuing to work with the House of Representatives as it deliberates the important issue of immigration reform.”

Among other groups, the EWIC represents the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR). According to the group’s website, its board includes a who’s who of fast food restaurant executives. For instance, NCCR’s chairman is Chip Kunde of Darden Restaurants—which owns brands like the Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn Steakhouse, Seasons 52, the Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze, Eddie V’s, and Yard House. Other members include:

• Vice Chairman: Mary Schell of Wendy’s
• Treasurer: Cicely Simpson of Dunkin’ Donuts
• Secretary Lynn Liddle of Domino’s Pizza
• Past Chairman: Mike Starnes of Denny’s
• Board members: Donald Balfour of Waffle House, Steve Hilton of McDonald’s, Craig Prusher of Church’s Chicken, James Richardson of White Castle, Patrick Sheehy from Cracker Barrel, Mark Simpson of Texas Roadhouse, Dan Colegrove of DineEquity, Inc., which owns IHOP and Applebee’s, and Joe Taylor of Brinker International, Inc., which owns Chili’s and Maggiano’s brands
• Chairman Emeritus: Steve Brigandi of Jack in the Box

The EWIC argued that despite unprecedentedly high unemployment rates, the industries it represents somehow need more workers. According to the September report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in America stands a 7.2 percent and has not dropped below 7 percent since President Barack Obama took office.

“There is currently no effective process by which lesser skilled essential workers can immigrate legally other than a guest worker in a seasonal or temporary period position,” EWIC wrote in its statement. “Our American-born workforce will increase only 1% over the next 10 years. The restaurant industry alone projects a need for 15% more workers. There are simply not enough American-born workers to fill the jobs we expect to be created by a vibrant economy in the coming years.”

EWIC argued that American workers cannot always cut it in the fields this group of lobbyists represents, writing that its clients need “a new essential temporary worker program to identify qualified immigrant workers when domestic labor is unavailable.” The industry association called for a “workable and fair” E-Verify system, without giving specifications; “legal immigration reforms for employment-based immigrants to deal with unrealistic quotas and processes”; and “a mechanism for unauthorized immigrants to earn legal status under strict conditions and after complying with strict criteria.”

The group listed five different immigration bills currently weaving their way through the House of Representatives, each of which presumably would be used by House GOP leadership in efforts to combine the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” immigration bill in a conference committee if one of them or any group of them passed the House. “Although we recognize that these bills may be modified when they get to the floor, it is still significant to have so many bills in process,” EWIC wrote.

“We are particularly encouraged to hear that a new lesser-skilled temporary worker program is being drafted by Members that will allow the economy to get the workers needed from abroad when domestic labor is unavailable,” the statement continued. “We understand that this new temporary worker program will include visa numbers that reflect the economic needs of U.S. job creators and will be open to all industries. We encourage all House Members to support this policy initiative.”

House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has publicly stated he wants a conference committee with the Senate bill. “A lot of people are saying, just pass the Senate bill,” Ryan said in July. “That’s not what the House is going to do. I think we can make it better.”

Other industry groups the EWIC represents include:

• American Health Care Association
• American Hotel & Lodging Association
• American Immigration Lawyers Association
• American Meat Institute
• American Nursery & Landscape Association
• American Staffing Association
• Associated Builders and Contractors
• Associated General Contractors of America
• Federation of Employers & Workers of America
• Greenberg Traurig, LLP
• ImmigrationWorks USA
• Independent Electrical Contractors
• International Franchise Association
• National Apartment Association
• National Association of Home Builders
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Club Association
• National Multi Housing Council
• National Retail Federation
• National Roofing Contractors Association
• Professional Landcare Network
• Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
• Small Business Workforce Alliance

EWIC is hardly the only group representing fast food restaurants pushing for amnesty. The National Restaurant Association (NRA) has participated in the campaign to lobby the House of Representatives as well. In July, after the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill passed that chamber, Gang of Eight members Chuck Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL) Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Michael Bennet (D-CO) met with NRA lobbyists to discuss pressuring the House to push for amnesty.

“With the fate of immigration reform in the hands of the House of Representatives, the National Restaurant Association took part in a meeting with senators who authored the Senate’s immigration reform bill to discuss strategies for moving immigration reform legislation forward,” the group noted on its website at the time. It also noted that tech lobbyists from Google and Facebook also attended the briefing.

“The overall message of the meeting was that the business community, including restaurant operators, needs to be vigilant in urging representatives to act on a comprehensive reform package,” the NRA added. “During the Senate debate, restaurateurs across the country contacted their senators to encourage them to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Restaurateurs in several states took part in media events to call attention to the importance of immigration reform to the U.S. economy.”

“The NRA will continue its discussions with key members of Congress in an effort to secure its three priorities in immigration reform: a clear path to citizenship for undocumented workers, national use of the E-Verify employment verification system, and increased border security that does not impede legal travel and tourism,” the group stated.

The Hill has named the NRA’s Scott DeFife as one of the “top lobbyists” in Washington, D.C., an honor the outfit brags about on its website. The NRA’s president and CEO Dawn Sweeney noted in a statement that DeFife earned the lobbyist award for pushing on issues like healthcare and immigration. In addition to lobbying for amnesty, DeFife helped get big businesses an Obamacare delay by getting the Obama administration to push off the employer mandate while ordinary Americans continue to suffer from the law’s individual mandate.

“The NRA, under DeFife’s leadership, has played a significant role in encouraging the Obama Administration to delay the Affordable Care Act’s employer-mandate penalties and some reporting requirements until 2015,” the NRA wrote on its website. “It also has been vocal about immigration reform, making it a top priority for the restaurant industry and playing a key role in moving reform forward. Creating a clear path to legalization for undocumented workers, national use of the E-Verify employment verification system, and increased border security that does not impede legal travel and tourism are among the objectives DeFife and the Association are currently working on with members of Congress as well as the White House.”


This is “Obamacare II.” All of the businesses that are supporting so-called immigration “reform” must be boycotted.

It is just another way of changing America forever, and ending up with a one-party system of government, which of course is the goal of Obama and his Democrats!

See (“Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever”)

It is argued by these misguided “Neanderthals” that the current system does not work, which of course is utter nonsense. It would work just fine if existing laws were enforced.

Indeed, make it emphatically illegal for employers to hire them and rigidly enforce such laws, and they would be headed back to their countries of origin “overnight.”


16 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Gallup: Only 3 Percent Of Americans Rank Immigration Reform As Top Priority

Breitbart has reported:

New polling data from Gallup shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not think handling immigration reform is even close to a top priority for 2014.

Immigration places well behind other issues like healthcare, jobs, the economy, dissatisfaction with Washington politicians, the debt and deficit, lack of money, ethics and moral issues, poverty, the gap between the rich and the poor, education, foreign aid and others. In fact, only three percent of Americans think the issue is a priority that must be dealt with this year.

“Americans start the new year with a variety of national concerns on their minds,” Gallup’s Lydia Saad wrote on Wednesday. “Although none is dominant, the government, at 21%, leads the list of what Americans consider the most important problem facing the country. The economy closely follows at 18%, and then unemployment/jobs and healthcare, each at 16%. No other issue is mentioned by as much as 10% of the public; however, the federal budget deficit or debt comes close, at 8%.”

In fact, immigration is so low among Americans’ priorities that Saad did not even mention it in her report on Gallup’s findings. It is, however, listed near the bottom of a chart of Americans’ priorities, slightly above welfare and “lack of respect for each other” as issues Americans think need to be dealt with.

Despite the fact that most Americans clearly do not think Congress or President Barack Obama should consider immigration issues a priority in 2014, House Speaker John Boehner and the rest of House GOP leadership are currently considering them a priority.

Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, and Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, among others, are currently drafting immigration “principles” that will all but certainly recommend granting legal status to large swaths of illegal aliens in America while massively increasing the levels of legal immigration to the country.

In fact, the only way immigration issues would fit into the priorities of voters is if they are viewed through the lens of how economically devastating amnesty and a subsequent massive increase in legal immigration would be to American workers—something that affects jobs and the economy, two top priorities according to Gallup.

A little over a week ago, 16 House Republicans—led by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)—stepped forward to write to President Obama about how American workers would be displaced if these immigration reform proposals succeeded.

“Rapidly expanding unskilled immigration—at a time when factory work and blue collar jobs are disappearing—would represent the final economic blow for millions of workers who have been struggling to gain an economic foothold,” the members wrote. “Yet, despite this jobs crisis for American workers, the White House continues to advocate that CEOs and business executives seek lower cost labor. The White House has entertained a parade of high-powered business executives to discuss immigration policy, all while shutting out the concerns of everyday wage-earners who overwhelmingly oppose these measures. You even released an economic report saying that the ‘hospitality and leisure industry’ needs ‘legislation that would legalize workers in the U.S. and facilitate the lawful employment of future foreign-born workers.’”

See (emphasis added)

The Republicans are on a suicide mission.

This is “Obamacare II.” It is just another way of changing America forever, and ending up with a one-party system of government, which of course is the goal of Obama and his Democrats!

“Big Business” has been pushing the GOP for immigration “reform,” which is a travesty unto itself!

See (“Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever“) and (“Big Business Lobbies For Illegals!“) and (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“) and (“Homeland Security Secretary: Illegals Have ‘Earned Right to be Citizens’”—Johnson should be removed from office immediately. He is charged with enforcing our laws, not subverting them. Imagine the message he sends to illegals, terrorists and others!)


30 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Republicans Are Suicidal

GOP is suicidal

As discussed above, clearly Republicans are suicidal with respect to the issue of so-called immigration “reform.”

See (“Gallup: Only 3 Percent Of Americans Rank Immigration Reform As Top Priority“) and (“One in Six Say Immigration Most Important U.S. Problem“)

Ann Coulter has added:

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.

Immigrants—all immigrants—have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)

This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.

At the current accelerated rate of immigration—1.1 million new immigrants every year—Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.

Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control. According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent.

Overall, 69 percent of immigrants like Obamacare, according to a 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

That same survey showed that only 35 percent of native-born Americans support affirmative action, compared to 58 percent of immigrants, including—amazingly—64 percent of Asians (suggesting they may not be as smart as everyone thinks).

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government—also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent.

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It’s not their position on amnesty that immigrants don’t like; it’s Republicans’ support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.

Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation’s No. 1 priority?

It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, “You can’t vote.” But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?

Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.

Yes, it’s great for the most powerful Americans to have lots of cheap, unskilled labor. Immigration definitely solves the rich’s “servant problem.”

. . .

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

See; see also (“Children’s surge of illegal aliens is overwhelming the southwest border”—”This is a mass movement of immigrants that threatens to transform the nation“)

I began as a Democrat, and then switched and became a Republican. However, I have been an Independent for more than 20 years. I cannot remember when I voted last for a Democrat. If the GOP is responsible for so-called immigration “reform,” I will never vote for the party again.

Once, I was proud to be a Democrat. However, the party left me, by becoming too Liberal. I was proud to be a Republican too, which was my parents’ political party. However, it has become filled with too many “Neanderthals.”

See (“The Rise Of Independents”) and (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)

Also, American blacks should be very concerned about illegal immigrants, inter alia, because as each new group enters the country, blacks seem to end up at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of jobs and other opportunities.

See (“Black Americans: The True Casualties of Amnesty”) and (“Obama slammed by black Chicago residents: ‘Worst president ever’”)


24 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

More Than 14 Percent Of Non-Citizens Indicated They Were Registered To Vote

Illegal aliens vote

This is outrageous. Not only should they not be allowed to vote, but they should be deported to their host countries, and put at the end of the line of those who can enter this country!

The Washington Post has noted:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.

There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.

See (“Could non-citizens decide the November election?”) (emphasis added; chart omitted)

As I have written in the article above:

All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

That may seem harsh to some people, but no other solution is fair and just.

. . .

[A]ll immigrants should be subject to the same rules . . . , or no one should be required to obey those laws. It is just that simple. No frills—the same rules for every immigrant, regardless of where he or she is from. Fundamental fairness requires that; and we owe it to all who have come to this country legally and who have contributed so much to our heritage.

See (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)

By and large, Hispanics are wonderful, hard-working people, who are only trying to better themselves. Within about one generation, they are speaking English and embrace our culture.

However, there must be uniformity in our immigration laws . . . or recognize that we have no laws at all.


20 11 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009 [UPDATED]

Obama Amnesty

The Daily Caller has reported:

President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.

The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.

Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. . . . An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan,” according to a Nov. 19 report in The New York Times.

The five million total was attributed to “people briefed on his plans,” the Times reports.

The five million work permits will add to Obama’s prior giveaways, which have provided work permits to almost one million foreigners.

Since 2009, the U.S. economy has added only six million jobs, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The total number of jobs rose from 139,894,000 in 2009, to 145,871,000 in 2014, according to the IMF. That’s an increase of 5,977,000 jobs in five years.

Obama’s administration claims it has helped create 10 million jobs. If so, he is giving out one work permit for every two jobs created since his inauguration.

Not all the five million illegal immigrants who get permits will work, and many are already working under fake names or for cash. However, their new work permits will allow them to compete for jobs now held or sought by blue-collar Americans, including the many African-Americans and Latinos who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Polls show that the public is hostile to the amnesty plan and want Obama to work with Congress on immigration.

Currently, less than one percent of the nation’s population of 12 million illegal immigrants are repatriated each year. Obama’s policy will likely shrink the repatriations, while providing millions with work permits.

Obama’s total of six million extra work permits does not include the normal inflow of legal immigrants.

Each year, the nation accepts one million new immigrants, or roughly five million since 2009. That total includes roughly 3.5 million working-age immigrants, which is slightly less than the number of Americans — 4.3 million — who turn 18 each year.

Also, companies annually hire roughly 450,000 blue-collar guest workers and roughly 200,000 white-collar guest workers. Most of these guest workers stay for less than a year, but many stay for six years.

That current population of roughly 600,000 foreign graduates is expected to increase, if, as reported, Obama’s plan allows American universities to offer green cards to foreign tuition-paying students who will then compete for the well-paying jobs or the prestigious jobs sought by the offspring of the nation’s influential upper middle class.

Each year, roughly 4.3 million Americans join the workforce in search of good jobs. That total includes roughly 800,000 Americans with expensive degrees in business, engineering, medicine, technology and architecture.

At least nine million Americans are unemployed, and at least seven million have given up looking for work. Employment rates among African-Americans and Latinos are lower than rates for whites and Asians.

Since 2000, the number of native-born Americans with jobs has stalled, despite a growing population of working-age native-born Americans.

The surplus of domestic and foreign job-seekers also helps ensure that U.S. median wages have flat-lined since 2000. Economists — including Obama’s top economic adviser — say that wages stall when the labor supply is larger than the supply of new jobs.

But if the labor market tightens because the number of job-seekers is fewer than than number of new jobs, the wages will rise in the tight labor market. For example, in the late 1990s, even lower-skilled people saw their wages increase because the labor supply grew slower than the Internet-boosted job market.

That relationship, however, is shifted by technology, which creates and eliminates jobs for Americans.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million work permits to foreigners since 2011.

Since June 2012, Obama used the legally questionable Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals program to give work permits to almost 600,000 illegal immigrants. That DACA number may go above 1.5 million.

In May 2014, Obama’s deputies announced they would provide work permits to 100,000 spouses of university-trained guest workers used by brand-name companies.

In October 2014, his deputies announced they would accelerate the paperwork for 110,000 would-be Haitian immigrants, allowing them to begin working in the United States long before they were due to get green cards.

Since 2011, Obama has allowed roughly 180,000 migrants from Central American to cross the border and apply for green cards.

Despite the administration’s focus on “unaccompanied children,” only about a third of the Central American inflow consisted of school-age kids. The majority were working-age youths and adults, all of whom can apply for work-permits while their legal causes slowly work their way through the courts.

See (emphasis added); see also (“More Than 14 Percent Of Non-Citizens Indicated They Were Registered To Vote”)

Barack Obama is hurting America’s blacks and Hispanics, but he does not care. Cynically, he considers them to be solid Democratic voters, just like America’s Jews, regardless of what he does to them.

Americans must never forget that Obama never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. Instead, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. His views are out of touch with most Americans who were born and raised here.

He is a Narcissist, a demagogue, a liar and incompetent; and his reelection in 2012 merely elevated and reinforced these qualities in him. Indeed, he has come to believe that he is invincible, politically; and he has set about to change America, much like Richard Nixon did after his landslide reelection victory in 1972.

Obama’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies are on display, each and every day, like Nixon’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies.

If you have any doubts whatsoever about such anger, which has undergirded Obama’s life and still does, read (or reread) his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words.

See; see also (Obama releases more Gitmo detainees) and (Obama Frees 30,862 Foreign Criminals) and (“While the [Obama] administration struggles to move forward with its plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, the list of foreigners trying to get into the United States legally has surged to 4.4 million“) and (“Census: Record 51 million immigrants in 8 years, will account for 82% of U.S. growth”) and (“Every Pro-Immigration Claim is a Lie“)


15 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

The Emerging Latino Divide In America [UPDATED]

Assimilation of American Hispanics

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

Tear up the textbooks, a new pattern may be emerging among Latino voters. The conventional wisdom—that Hispanics habitually vote Democrat over the immigration issue—may be obsolete.

Gallup found that support for President Obama’s amnesty order was primarily among the foreign born population—whether Latino or not. Hispanics born in the United States only backed the amnesty plan by 51-42. Latinos born outside the U.S. backed it by 75-17. (Non-Hispanics born outside the U.S. backed Obama’s plan by 60-32).

Since only one-quarter of Hispanic voters are foreign born, this finding is electrifying! It means that the knee jerk approval Democrats are expecting from the Latino community may not be forthcoming, particularly not in sufficient numbers to offset the backlash among non-Hispanic voters.

But the longer term political and social implications of this fissure in the Latino community, based on place of birth, are even more important. Political science experts have long wondered if the rapidly growing Latino population would auger in a permanent Democratic majority. When black and Latino voters reach one-third of the electorate combined (they are now one-quarter), will that cause Republican extinction?

Certainly if Hispanic voters follow African-American voting patterns it would spell bad—and possibly fatal—news for the GOP. But the Gallup data suggest that Latinos are assimilating politically into the larger population and, unlike blacks, abandoning race consciousness in their voting patterns. Like German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Irish-Americans, they are mirroring national public opinion in their thinking rather than sticking with their ethnic orientation.

This birthplace gap in the Latino vote may help explain the 13 point gain by Republicans among Latino voters in the 2014 elections. While Democrats still won Hispanics 2:1, they did not win by the 3:1 margin that Obama tallied in 2012.

For decades, politicians spoke of the gender gap in voting patterns before they realized that pro-Democratic voting patterns were largely concentrated among unmarried women. It was more of a marriage gap than a gender gap.

So, with outspoken Latino advocacy groups urging immigration amnesty at the top of their lungs, the compliant and complacent media have assumed that they speak for all Latinos. But they don’t. While foreign-born Hispanics account for half of the U.S. Latino population, they are only one-quarter of the citizens and, perhaps, an even smaller share of the electorate.

So Republicans should not fear increases in the Latino population as much as they do. In the second generation, the children of our new neighbors, show the classical signs of healthy assimilation.

See (emphasis added)

What many Americans who do not live in States with large Hispanic populations fail to realize is that they assimilate very quickly. After one generation, most are speaking English; and often to the chagrin of some family members, more and more do not speak Spanish anymore.

Also, unlike many American blacks, they do not participate in violent demonstrations and burn buildings, loot and kill innocents. And they are not seeking reparations almost 152 years after Emancipation either.

American blacks should be very concerned about illegal immigration, inter alia, because as each new group enters the country, blacks seem to end up at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of jobs and other opportunities.

See also (“1.5 Million Missing Black Men”)

By and large, Hispanics are wonderful, hard-working Americans, who are only trying to better themselves and embrace our culture.


25 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Personally, I’ve never sweeping generalizations -whether positive or negative- about groups of people from cultural backgrounds not one’s own to be particularly useful in understanding the world. Hispanics are no more “wonderful [or] hardworking” than they are the rapists that Trump wails about. Hispanics include saints and killers just like every other human group. The reference to “reparations” (and Hispanics not seeking these, while some Af-Am have sought same) is thoroughly gratuitous: Hispanics do not have a history of enslavement in the in the United States and since slavery would be the basis for any reparations, these are not analogous situations.


25 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The matter of “reparations” is a totally-bogus issue. Our Civil War ended in 1865, more than 140 years ago.

To the extent that any reparations were ever owed, they were discharged fully with welfare, ObamaCare, housing and other taxpayer-funded benefits.

End of story.


28 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Others’ stories don’t end when you state “end of story”.

Unless an independent, international body with no vested interest were to be set up to solve this problem, domestically, African-Americans are the only legitimate authority to determine when acceptable reparations have been made. Yes, the civil war ended in 1865. Every year that reparations are delayed represents, in our capitalist economy, a great debt owed – given the convention that interest is due on past due loans. We don’t really have a model for when loans are forcibly extracted from lenders so that issue and the amount of any fine for the forcible nature of the loan may best be determined by an international tribunal set up for such a purpose.


28 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Utter nonsense.

No international body will ever determine our future. Quite to the contrary, U.S. participation in and funding of the UN may be cut in the future.

An even bigger joke is that African-Americans would determine the nature and scope of their reparations. Before that happens, they will be taxed for (1) all welfare and related payments made since the Civil War, (2) the cost of police and other social services provided because of their “lawlessness” (e.g., in our inner cities), and (3) the list goes on and on.

Truly end of story.


22 01 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The Extraordinary Story Of Columba Bush [UPDATED]

Columba Bush

The UK’s Daily Mail must be commended for an excellent article about Jeb Bush’s wife, Columba.

See (“EXCLUSIVE: An illegal immigrant, warring parents and a bitter rift with the father she did not see for 40 years – the extraordinary story of Columba Bush as her husband bids to make her the first Hispanic first lady”); see also–gop_2016-george_p_bush-fcc00fdf15.html (“Can George P. make Jeb the 3rd Bush to win the White House?”)

The article presents both sides of difficult family relationships. They are present in Hispanic and Latino families today, who live in the States.

See, e.g., (“Hispanic vs. Latino – Difference and Comparison”)

These are wonderful people, who have often gone through very trying times to get here and adjust. Yet the success stories abound.

I have nothing but praise, admiration and respect for them. I have seen them in a variety of contexts, having grown up in California.

They are the hardest of workers, even in the most menial of tasks. And they seem to have nonstop, wonderful smiles on their faces, which are infectious.

It would be an honor to have Columba Bush as our First Lady.

But see (“‘Tonight I’m going to sleep with the best friend I have’: Jeb Bush pays tribute to his wife after disastrous show in South Carolina forces him to bow out of Republican race despite raising $150MILLION”)


24 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Melania Trump MSNBC Interview [UPDATED]

She is smart and lovely; and she is correct with respect to immigration.

She came to the United States legally, and she followed the often difficult and arduous process. Lots of others have too, and they have waited patiently in line; and many have never been admitted. Tragic stories exist, such as those described in the article above.

Others ignore our laws and come here illegally; and they should be deported and go back to their native countries and get at the end of the line, and wait to come here legally—if at all.

See (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple“); see also (“ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases“)


23 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Remember Kate Steinle: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities [UPDATED]

Kate Steinle

Breitbart has reported:

The vast majority of residents living in California would like to see sanctuary cities barred, a state home to multiple jurisdictions which refuse to abide by federal immigration laws.

Roughly 74 percent of California residents want to see an end to sanctuary city policies, according to a poll by UC Berkeley.

The issue to end sanctuary cities in the state crosses racial and party lines, with 65 percent of Hispanics registering their agreement, while 70 percent of independents, 82 percent of Republicans, and 73 percent of Democrats feel the same.

During President Donald Trump’s term, sanctuary cities could see a cut in federal funding and pushback from the Department of Justice under likely Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Miami-Dade Mayor Orders Jails to Comply With Federal Immigration Plan“)

Remember Kate Steinle’s tragic death in San Francisco!

Cut off ALL federal funding to or related to San Francisco, and all other sanctuary cities. Gut them!

See (“Shooting of Kathryn Steinle“)


28 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Remember Kate Steinle: California’s Lawless Politicians Must Be Imprisoned [UPDATED]

Kate Steinle

18 U.S. Code § 2384 states explicitly with respect to a “Seditious conspiracy”:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


CBS in San Francisco has reported:

The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.

Officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.

“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.

See (“California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats“) (emphasis added)

California is lawless. It has been this way for decades.

Its politicians, officials and others (e.g., Willie Brown, Jr.)—including state and local judges—must be imprisoned if they defy federal laws.

No mercy should be shown to them.

See, e.g., (“Remember Kate Steinle: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities“) and (“Sanctuary Sheriff Faces Removal From Office For Aiding Criminal Illegals“) and (“The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished“) and (“California campaign to secede gains momentum“)


29 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Immigration Order Restricted By Despicable U.S. Judges [UPDATED]

Despicable Judges

Reuters has reported:

U.S. judges in at least four states blocked federal authorities from enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington state, each home to major international airports, issued their rulings late Saturday or early Sunday, following an order on Saturday night by U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York’s Brooklyn borough.

Donnelly had ruled in a lawsuit by two men from Iraq being held at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

While none of the rulings struck down the executive order, the growing number of orders could complicate the administration’s effort to enforce it.

Trump’s order on Friday halted immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and stopped the resettlement of refugees for 120 days. The new Republican president said these actions were needed “to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.”

Condemnation of the order was swift and broad-based. Democratic politicians and civil rights groups weighed in, as well as U.S. allies who view the actions as discriminatory and divisive.

Democratic attorneys general from California, New York and other states, meanwhile, were discussing whether to pursue their own legal challenges.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Sunday said it “will comply with judicial orders,” while enforcing Trump’s executive order in a manner that ensures those entering the United States “do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.”

Across the United States, lawyers worked overnight to help confused international travelers at airports. Activists and lawyers tracking the arrivals said some Border Patrol agents appeared to be disregarding the various court orders.

“There is really no method to this madness,” Becca Heller, director of the New York-based International Refugee Assistance Project organization, told reporters on a conference call.

Supporters of Trump’s order said authorities acted properly in swiftly taking steps to enforce it.

“It is better (to) be safe than sorry,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

Lawsuits brought on behalf of more than 100 individual travelers have been filed around the country, some activists and lawyers have estimated.


In Boston, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs on Sunday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the removal of two Iranians who have taught at the University of Massachusetts, and had been detained at the city’s Logan International Airport.

That order was set to last seven days, and appeared to go further than Donnelly’s by barring officials from detaining, as well as removing, approved refugees, visa holders and permanent U.S. residents entering from the seven countries. Donnelly’s order forbade only removal.

Matthew Segal, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, in a statement called Burroughs’ order “a huge victory for justice” in the face of what he characterized as Trump’s “unconstitutional ban on Muslims.”

In Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema late on Saturday barred the Homeland Security agency from removing an estimated 50 to 60 legal permanent residents who had been detained at Dulles International Airport, which serves the Washington, D.C., area.

That order also required the agency to let those individuals speak with lawyers, according to the Legal Aid and Justice Center in Virginia, which represents lower-income people.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly barred the government from removing two people, who were not identified by name in court papers. He scheduled a Feb. 3 hearing over whether to lift that stay.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Trump Wants to Enlist Local Police in Immigration Crackdown“) and (“Trump’s executive orders dramatically expand power of immigration officers“) and–sector.html (“Trump travel ban stirs faint corporate outcry beyond Silicon Valley“) and (“Unions of Border Patrol, ICE agents cheer Trump actions“) and (“Sanctuary Sheriff Faces Removal From Office For Aiding Criminal Illegals“) and (“Trump’s heartland voters shrug off global uproar over immigration ban“) and (“Calif. To Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary“) and (“Trump’s first week: For many in Arizona, it doesn’t get any better than this“) and (“Federal judge in Mass. won’t extend order halting Trump immigration ban“); but see (“Federal judge halts Trump’s immigration order“)

The fish rots from the head down. The worst of America’s legal profession become judges.

From top to bottom, America’s legal system is a travesty, unjust, corrupt, a disgrace, shameful and lawless.

It has been polluted the most by judges who are egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent and arrogant. They can smile at you, just as easily as they can “slit your throat” and never think twice about doing it.

Shakespeare’s famous quotation—“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”—must have been written by the Bard in some light-hearted, clairvoyant moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

See, e.g., (“Early wins against Trump immigration order may not last“) and (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“) and (“The American Legal System Is Broken: Can It Be Fixed?“) and (“The United States Department of Injustice“); see also (“Remember Kate Steinle: California’s Lawless Politicians Must Be Imprisoned“) and (“Remember Kate Steinle: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities“)


30 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Raises His Ugly Head And Speaks Out Against Trump’s Refugee Ban [UPDATED]


Variety has reported:

Former President Barack Obama, in his first statement since leaving office, issued a statement through his spokesman expressing support for protesters as “exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”

His spokesman, Kevin Lewis, said that Obama “is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be guardians of our democracy — not just during an election but every day.

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”

Obama had signaled at his final press conference that he would not remain silent about speaking out on a number of issues. Since he left office, there have been widespread protests including the Women’s March on Jan. 21 and, last weekend, demonstrations at major airports over President Trump’s executive order restricting refugees as well as visits from seven Muslim-majority countries until new vetting procedures are established.

“With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” his spokesman said.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Obama ‘fundamentally disagrees’ with Trump’s temporary ban on migrants“)

As a result of his failed policies in Syria and throughout the region—and elsewhere in the world—there has been a flood of refugees to Europe and globally. Included among these immigrants have been terrorists who have struck Europe, and produced chaos, violence and fear.

Yet, America’s only black racist president has the audacity to blame our new President Donald Trump for trying to protect the United States and the American people.


See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“); see also (“[Black Lives Matter] BLM Anti-Trump Protest In Seattle: ‘We Need To Start Killing People’”)


30 01 2017
Felipe Ravono

You are very naive if you think that Trump has any interests in protecting anything but his own narrow personal interests and depraved need for attention – he’d rather have people demonstrating in anger at his actions than simply be ignored, like a poorly-parented 11-year old. So, we can expect more and more unpopular actions just to feed his need for attention. Pathetic

As for security, are you aware that Americans in the U.S. are several thousand times more likely to die from a lightning strike than from any so-called “terrorist”. And the countries that produced the few terrorists who have come to American soil to attack us are still free to send their citizens here. Why? Trump’s business interests in those terrorist-producing nations would be threatened by including them in this blacklist.

The action he took to block the entry of people based on religion and citizenship was taken to try convince people of limited intelligence that he was being “tough on security”. It had nothing whatsoever to do with security. If he was interested in our security, he’d be better off spending a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on research into preventing random strikes from lightning.


30 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Felipe, for your comments.

First, the person seeking attention is our failed former black racist president, Barack Obama.

He still cannot admit that his policies in the Middle East and elsewhere have led to the massive immigration problems in Europe and around the world, which potentially threaten Americans and others.

He is delusional and in denial.

Second, if you have any doubts whatsoever that he is a black racist, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core racist beliefs that undergirded his failed presidency.

The book is shocking, and it has been summarized in the following article, with direct quotes and page cites.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Please read it for yourself. My guess is that you will be shocked too.

Third, President Trump has hired more Hispanics in his businesses than almost any other American. Since Obama’s career has been limited to government, he has not employed anyone, Hispanics or otherwise.

Fourth, it took only a few terrorists to launch 9/11. One terrorist in this country is one too many.

Lastly, from the tone of your comments, I assume you did not vote for President Trump, which is fine. The choice was yours.

However, vast numbers of Americans did. Indeed, the Democrats were decimated across this country in election after election, in state houses and local races.


5 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Cut Off All Federal Funding To Berkeley And Fire The U.C. President! [UPDATED]

Janet Napolitano

Chaos has erupted again on the Berkeley campus, and nothing was done about it by the University of California administration, most notably Barack Obama’s Janet Napolitano who must be fired.

She should not have been hired by the Regents of the University of California in the first place; and she should be fired summarily now.

As Breitbart has reported— in an article by Aaron Klein that was subtitled, “Amid violent protests that prompted the cancellation on Wednesday of Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech at the University of California at Berkeley, it is important to recall that UC President Janet Napolitano – former secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama – has been a key player in providing sanctuary to illegal aliens”:

Milo was planning to use his UC Berkeley speech to call for the withdrawal of federal funds from so-called sanctuary campuses, meaning universities that don’t enforce U.S. immigration law.

Breitbart News reported:

Milo and the David Horowitz Freedom Center have teamed up to take down the growing phenomenon of “sanctuary campuses” that shelter illegal immigrants from being deported. Milo will kick start the campaign with a speech at the University of California’s Berkeley campus on February 1, where he, backed by the Freedom Center, will call for the withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials who endanger their students with their policies, starting with UC President and former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks.

On Tuesday, the East Bay Times reported protesters were gearing up to confront Milo’s kickoff of the campaign against sanctuary campuses.

Last month, Napolitano announced the UC system would continue to defy immigration law despite then President-elect Donald Trump’s expected policies of enforcing such laws.

The Washington Times reported:

The University of California system announced Wednesday that campus police will not undertake joint efforts with any law enforcement agencies to investigate students suspected of breaking federal immigration laws.

Police officers at the UC’s 10 campuses will not contact, detain, question or arrest any individual solely on the basis of immigration status, except as required by law, the school system said in a statement.

“While we still do not know what policies and practices the incoming federal administration may adopt, given the many public pronouncements made during the presidential campaign and its aftermath, we felt it necessary to reaffirm that UC will act upon its deeply held conviction that all members of our community have the right to work, study and live safely and without fear at all UC locations,” Napolitano said in the statement.

The 10-campus UC system admits there are about 2,500 illegal alien students enrolled across the university.

While at the helm of DHS, Napolitano infamously usurped existing immigration law and utilized a memorandum to implement key sections of the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act, which Congress repeatedly failed to pass.

Napolitano’s June 2012 memorandum was titled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

As I previously reported, the memorandum called for “prosecutorial discretion” to be used in implementing immigration law for those who fit the following criteria:

*Are under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012;

*Arrived to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday;

*Continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007, to the present;

*Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at the time of requesting deferred action

*Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or had any lawful immigration status expired on or before June 15, 2012;

*Were in school at the time of application, or have already graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; and

*Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Earlier, in August 2011, Napolitano announced a two-pronged initiative that prioritized deportations to those deemed by DHS to be the most dangerous illegal aliens instead of focusing on the general illegal population. “This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said at the time. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”

See (“UC President Janet Napolitano Played Key Role in Providing Sanctuary to Illegal Aliens“) (emphasis added); see also (The worst federal appellate court in the nation, the Ninth Circuit “Appeals Court Denies Motion Requesting “Immediate Stay” of Ruling Halting Trump Executive Order”) and (“Janet Napolitano“)

This is outrageous, but typical of the far-Left that was rejected in elections across the country last November.

The time for talking has ended. Berkeley and Napolitano must be targeted and become examples.

Also, one must never forget that when Ronald Reagan was California’s Governor, he “cracked heads” on the Berkeley campus, rather than succumb to anarchy. This message needs to be sent again, this time indelibly.


8 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Blasts Courts On Travel Ban [UPDATED]

Despicable Judges

Newsmax has reported:

In a speech to major city police officers Wednesday, President Donald Trump continued to press the case for his executive order banning banning travel from some Muslim-majority countries, slamming the nation’s court system as “so political.”

He read from U.S. law before insisting that even a “bad high school student” would rule in favor of him the president having broad control over who enters the country.

“This isn’t just me. This is for Obama, for Ronald Reagan, for the president. This was done, very importantly, for security,” Trump told the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

“It was done for the security of our nation, for the security of our citizens, so people don’t come in who are going to do us harm. That is why is was done. It couldn’t have been written more precisely.”

In his attack on the courts, Trump assured his audience that “I don’t ever want to call a court biased. So I won’t call it biased. And we haven’t had a decision yet. But courts seem to be so political. And it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read the statement and do what’s right.

“I think it’s a sad day. I think our security’s at risk today,” Trump said.

“If these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they’d do what they should be doing,” he said.

Last week Trump labeled the judge who put his directive on hold, U.S. District Judge James Robart of Seattle, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, a “so-called judge.” Last year Trump sharply attacked a judge who was presiding over a case involving one of his businesses.

In a Twitter post earlier on Wednesday, Trump wrote, “If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!”

He later telegraphed the topic of his speech to the chiefs in another tweet, saying he would be “discussing the horrible, dangerous and wrong decision.”

He followed up with a thank-you tweet after the speech.

During an oral argument lasting more than an hour on Tuesday, the appeals court panel in San Francisco pressed an administration lawyer over whether the Trump administration’s national security argument was backed by evidence that people from the seven countries posed a danger.

See (“Trump to Police Chiefs: Even a ‘Bad High School Student’ Would Uphold Travel Ban“) (emphasis added)

President Trump is too kind when he says that our great nation’s judicial system as “so political.” It is a disgrace and lawless, populated by judges who should be removed summarily.

As I have written before:

The fish rots from the head down. The worst of America’s legal profession become judges.

From top to bottom, America’s legal system is a travesty, unjust, corrupt, a disgrace, shameful and lawless.

It has been polluted the most by judges who are egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent and arrogant. They can smile at you, just as easily as they can “slit your throat” and never think twice about doing it.

Shakespeare’s famous quotation—“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”—must have been written by the Bard in some light-hearted, clairvoyant moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

See (“Trump Immigration Order Restricted By Despicable U.S. Judges“)

President Trump has tweeted:

If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled.

As importantly, we can never believe in our judiciary again.


22 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Mexicans Weigh The Daunting Prospect Of Deportee Camps

No amnesty for illegals

AP has reported:

Mexicans fear deportee and refugee camps could be popping up along their northern border under the Trump administration’s plan to start deporting to Mexico all Latin Americans and others who entered the U.S. illegally through this country.

Previous U.S. policy called for only Mexican citizens to be sent to Mexico. Migrants known as “OTMs” — Other Than Mexicans — got flown back to their homelands.

Now, under a sweeping rewrite of enforcement policies announced Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, migrants might be dumped over the border into a violence-plagued land where they have no ties while their asylum claims or deportation proceedings are heard in the United States. U.S. officials didn’t say what Mexico would be expected to do with them.

The only consensus so far in Mexico about the new policies of President Donald Trump is that the country isn’t remotely prepared.

“Not in any way, shape or form,” said the Rev. Patrick Murphy, a priest who runs the Casa del Migrante shelter in the border city of Tijuana, which currently houses about 55 Haitian immigrants. They were part of wave of thousands who swarmed to the border in the closing months of the Obama administration in hopes of getting asylum in the U.S.

Tijuana was overwhelmed, and while the government did little, a string of private Christian groups pitched in to open shelters with improvised bedding, tents and sanitary facilities. Donated food kept the Haitians going.

Mexicans quake at the thought of handling not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of foreigners in a border region already struggling with drug gangs and violence.

“Just look at the case of the Haitians in Tijuana, what were they, seven or eight thousand? And the situation was just out of control,” said Alejandro Hope, a Mexico City-based security analyst. “Now imagine a situation 10 or 15 times that size. There aren’t enough resources to maintain them.”

It’s unclear whether the United States has the authority to force Mexico to accept third-country nationals. The DHS memo calls for the department to provide an account of U.S. aid to Mexico, a possible signal that Trump plans to use that funding to get Mexico to accept the foreigners.

Murphy said, “I hope Mexico has the courage to say no to this.”

Mexico’s foreign relations secretary, Luis Videgaray, said Wednesday that his country has “no reason to accept unilateral decisions imposed by one government on another.”

“We are not going to accept that because we don’t have to and it is not in the interest of Mexico,” Videgaray said.

In apparent reference to broadened definitions of those subject to deportation, he said “Let there be no doubt, Mexico and the Mexican government will not hesitate in going to international organizations, starting with the United Nations, to defend human rights, liberties and due process for Mexicans abroad according to international law.”

Victor Clark, director of Tijuana’s Binational Center for Human Rights, said Mexico can simply refuse to accept non-Mexican deportees. “They come through one by one, and when the Mexican immigration agent sees a person who isn’t Mexican, he tells the ICE agent, ‘I can’t accept this person, he’s not Mexican,’ and they return him to the United States.”

Hope said the new U.S. policy could create an “explosive situation,” noting that some anti-foreigner sentiment already exists in Mexico’s northern border region and that Central American migrants have been recruited, sometimes by force, into drug gangs like the Zetas and the Gulf cartel.

The United States could pay to build the needed facilities. There would be precedents for such a deal. Turkey has agreed to house Syrian refugees headed for the European Union in exchange for at least $3 billion in aid.

“For this to be politically acceptable in Mexico, it would have to be paid,” said Hope. “No Mexican administration could accept this kind of thing unless it were accompanied by billions of dollars.”

Mexico’s government didn’t formally react to the DHS policy statements.

But in a hearing with Mexican senators, Mexico’s new ambassador to the United States, Geronimo Gutierrez, said, “Obviously, they are a cause for concern for the foreign relations department, for the Mexican government, and for all Mexicans.”

But Gutierrez praised the Trump administration’s release of the policies before this week’s visit to Mexico by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, calling that “a position that is much more straightforward and honorable, to make these positions known beforehand … so they can be discussed.”

There are precedents in Mexico for refugee camps.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Mexico took in about 46,000 Guatemalans fleeing civil war. With help from the United Nations, camps were set up in the southern states of Chiapas, Campeche and Quintana Roo. When peace accords were signed in Guatemala in the mid-1990s, almost 43,000 refugees and their children went home, but more than 30,000 Guatemalans and their children born in Mexico decided to stay.

The same thing could happen with any migrants housed in Mexico.

Haitians streamed into Tijuana last year to seek asylum in the U.S., but since January they have stopped applying after hearing that other Haitians’ requests were being denied and U.S. authorities were sending them back to Haiti. Murphy estimated the 3,000 Haitians still in Tijuana have mostly decided to seek asylum in Mexico.

He said a lot of Latin American migrants might do the same.

“You know, a lot of Central Americans would rather be deported to Mexico than their own countries,” Murphy said.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Hidalgo Co. Deputies Notice Less Activity in Illegal Immigration Hot Spots“)

Those who entered the U.S. illegally assumed the risks involved. They knew of the possible consequences.

There is no protection for them, and none should be afforded.

When Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco, it sent a torrent of revulsion through the American body politic, which is unlikely to ebb for perhaps a generation or more.

See, e.g., (“Remember Kate Steinle: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities“) and (“Remember Kate Steinle: California’s Lawless Politicians Must Be Imprisoned“)


25 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Those who entered the U.S. illegally assumed the risks involved. They knew of the possible consequences.
1. This is certainly not true of the 100s of 1,000s who migrated to the U.S. as young children.

There is no protection for them, and none should be afforded.
There is protection for them if we as a society choose to protect them. Some need and deserve protection; some don’t. But just because they entered the U.S. illegally doesn’t mean that they don’t need or deserve protection. In fact, how they entered the U.S. is irrelevant under international law if they apply for asylum and it remains irrelevant until their asylum application is adjudicated.

When Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco, it sent a torrent of revulsion through the American body politic, which is unlikely to ebb for perhaps a generation or more.

If Kate Steinle is the unfortunate woman who was killed accidentally by a stray bullet at Fisherman’s Wharf several years ago the “torrent of revulsion” was a media-manufactured event. The immigration status of the man who picked up the gun an accidentally pulled the trigger which resulted in a randomly-directed bullet tragically killing a passer-by is of no consequence to this tragedy. What is of consequence is our casual attitude to firearms -this incident should have been a wake-up call but, predictably, wasn’t. The owner of the firearm (who was a federal agent trained in the use of firearms) was never held accountable for his irresponsible and reckless abandonment of his loaded weapon in a public place. Instead, a witchunt for illegal immigrants ensued. Go figure. America can’t look itself in the mirror and face up to our national pathology nicely and succinctly outlined by successive SCOTUS interpretations of Amenment II.


25 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

A logical extension of what you advocate is to have open borders, or no borders at all.

I do not believe in this, at all.


25 02 2017
Felipe Ravono

Open borders? No. That’s a policy issue that I wouldn’t support nor would many, I would think. The point here was simply that the trigger-puller’s immigration status was a complete irrelevancy to the facts of this case – it had no more bearing on the tragedy than if he’d been born and raised in Wyoming and the media suddenly began to demonize people from Wyoming.


5 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Black Racist Barack Obama Defends His Lawlessness [UPDATED]


Newsmax has reported:

Former President Barack Obama said that the decision by the Trump administration to end the “Dreamer” program was “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

In a rare statement since leaving the presidency, Obama said that “the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.”

“Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would be rescinded, after a phase-out of six months. President Donald Trump has called for Congress to address the issue of what happens to individuals who came to the United States as kids with their undocumented parents.

But Obama defended his 2012 executive order that established the DACA program, noting that he issued it after Congress failed to pass so-called “Dreamer” legislation.

In his statement, Obama said that “Today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong — because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating — because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel.”

Sessions argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued his executive order. But legal scholars have different opinions on whether that is the case.

Obama said that his executive order was “based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm.”

He said that after the executive order, “deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.”

See (“Obama: Trump Immigration Move ‘Cruel,’ Not ‘Required Legally'”) (emphasis added)

Barack Obama and Moochie are black racist scum, who have done more to damage the fabric of America than any other POTUS and FLOTUS in our great nation’s history.

If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a racist, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words, and they are shocking.

The two of them are the very worst of America, followed closely by Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton and Elijah Cummings.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Michelle's anger

America’s Leftist media ignores the fact that the Democrats gave us slavery and fought to preserve it.

Also, Barack Obama’s efforts to help illegal aliens actually hurts black Americans, who are often the last hired and first fired, and who keep getting pushed farther down America’s economic totem pole by the new arrivals from other countries.

Lots of us were Democrats once; however, like Ronald Reagan, we left the Party and will never go back.

The “Black Lives Matter” and Antifa groups spread violence and racism, and must be crushed.


8 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Janet Napolitano

Teresa Watanabe has written for the Los Angeles Times:

The University of California sued the Trump administration Friday for rescinding protections for immigrant students without legal status, saying it unconstitutionally violates their rights on “nothing more than unreasoned executive whim.”

The lawsuit filed in the northern district of California is the first legal effort by a university to block the Trump administration’s decision to end protection from deportation of nearly 800,000 young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally before age 16, completed high school-level education and stayed out of trouble.

UC President Janet Napolitano, who was an architect of the program in 2012 as U.S. Homeland Security secretary, said the decision to sue the federal government was not taken lightly. The 10-campus system educates about 4,000 students — with teachers, researchers and healthcare providers — who are in the country illegally.

“It is imperative, however, that we stand up for these vital members of the UC community,” Napolitano said in statement. “They represent the best of who we are — hard working, resilient and motivated high achievers. To arbitrarily and capriciously end the DACA program, which benefits our country as a whole, is not only unlawful, it is contrary to our national values and bad policy.

“As a result of the defendants’ actions, the Dreamers face expulsion from the only country that they call home, based on nothing more than unreasoned executive whim,” the complaint reads.

“The University faces the loss of vital members of its community, students and employees. It is hard to imagine a decision less reasoned, more damaging, or undertaken with less care. … Defendants’ capricious rescission of the DACA program violates both the procedural and substantive requirements of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act), as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

The lawsuit was filed with the pro bono support of the law firm Covington & Burling LLP.

Napolitano has said UC campuses will continue to provide services for its immigrant students without legal status, also known as “Dreamers.” Those efforts include:

• Providing in-state tuition

• Maintaining the DREAM loan program for financial aid

• Free legal services

• Campus-based student-service centers

• Directions given to campus police not to contact, detain, question or arrest individuals based on their documentation status, or to enter agreements to undertake joint efforts to make arrests for federal immigration law violations.

See (“UC sues the Trump administration for rescinding DACA protections for immigrant students“)

First, the UC system—of which many of us are graduates—should not be educating anyone who is in our great nation illegally, much less 4,000 of them.

Second, as Barack Obama admitted, what he did was illegal. Yet, the disgraceful Obama-shill Napolitano has double-downed on his illegality, and is seeking to perpetuate it.

See, e.g., (“The Immigration Fiat: Another Reason To Remove Obama From The Presidency”—”In his article entitled, ‘Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat: Naked lawlessness,’ [the Washington Post‘s Charles] Krauthammer writes: ‘With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano”—”[B]y Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness”—”What has been done by Obama could be done by a Republican administration; for example, in shutting down all abortion programs, practices and facilities, and arresting those involved—again, by presidential fiat”)

Third, there are reasons to believe that Napolitano is a bull dyke, who certainly should be fired summarily from the UC system for her lawlessness.

See, e.g., (“Geraldo Rivera Addresses Lesbian Rumors About Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary“) and (“Janet Napolitano-Run Homeland Security Routinely Humiliated Male Staffers, Federal Discrimination Lawsuit Alleges“) and (“Big Sis Janet Napolitano ‘promoted [a] woman with whom she had a long relationship’ while her female staff tormented male colleagues with ‘sexually charged games'”)

Fourth, unlike Ronald Reagan who put down violence in the UC system when he was California’s governor, Napolitano did nothing when despicable lawless and racist “Black Lives Matter” and Antifa thugs rioted on the Berkeley campus, and prevented the exercise of free speech by conservatives.

For this alone, Napolitano should have been fired. However, her latest actions with respect to illegal aliens are equally repugnant.

As stated previously, all federal funding to Berkeley and other UC campuses must cease until Napolitano and others of her ilk are gone from the UC system.

Nothing less will suffice.

See, e.g., (“Cut Off All Federal Funding To Berkeley And Fire The U.C. President!“)

Lastly, three University of California campuses—U.C., Santa Barbara, UCLA and Berkeley—have been named in the top twenty of America’s most dangerous universities. Santa Barbara and UCLA top the list.

Even though the study’s methodology and results may be challenged, this is merely an attempt to shoot or kill the messenger or the bearer of bad news, which occurred in antiquity. To address crime on the UC campuses requires concerted and able leadership, and none exists on the part of the Leftist Napolitano.

See (“Ivory Tower Incidents: America’s Most Dangerous Universities“)


9 09 2017

Partisan gridlock has done more damage to our nation than 11m illegal immigrants and selecting the Obama administration out for instituting DACA is yet one more example of the kind of puerile divisiveness that we don’t need any more of. Obama’s record of Executive orders is miniscule compared with many other Presidents from both parties so the “emperor”/”king” epithet is a shallow attack of no substance. As for an amnesty, Reagan granted 3m or so illegal immigrants a permanent amnesty and Presidents before him and since have done the same so granting temporary amnesty to 800,000 DACA folks is a minor chapter in the history of amnesty-by-executive-fiat. Presidents regularly pardon political allies convicted of serious crimes so why the attention on these 800,000 whose “serious crime” was to cross the border into the U.S. and fail to depart? Their having been granted temporary amnesty is not worthy of any special attention unless one is in the business of manufacturing entertaining drama for partisan purposes. Deporting these people makes no moral or economic sense -taxpayers have already invested in their education so why give away that investment to the countries of their birth against their will? One reason and one reason only: Political point-scoring.

We need to get on with addressing the serious problems facing our nation – not get bogged down in manufactured, faux drama whose only purpose seems to be to distract attention from paying attention to who is running away with the wealth of our nation.


9 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Philip, for your comments.

First, I agree that partisan gridlock has done enormous damage to our great nation and to the American people.

As I wrote when this blog began:

Politically, I am an Independent, and have been for several decades, since leaving the U.S. Senate where I witnessed firsthand the shortcomings of both major political parties. I was a member of the National Democratic Club and the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill, simultaneously. I felt it was good business to entertain our clients and others at whichever club they preferred, and I felt comfortable at both of them. In fact, when I worked in the Senate, there was a spirit of bipartisanship and congeniality in both the Senate and House, which I believed was healthy and beneficial for the country.

See (“What Is This Blog All About?”)

The spirit of bipartisanship is largely gone; and politics on Capitol Hill today is vicious and not in the best interests of the American people. Fortunately, they are wise—certainly collectively—and they sense this, which is among the many reasons why Congress is held in such low esteem nationally.

Second, as stated in my article above, I do not believe there should be one illegal alien in our country, much less 11 million of them, or any number of them. My Irish friend and I followed the rules; these people did not.

Third, I respectfully disagree with your comment that “selecting the Obama administration out for instituting DACA is yet one more example of the kind of puerile divisiveness that we don’t need any more of.” Barack Obama was and is a black racist, who did more than any other American president to divide and polarize our country.

If you have any doubts whatsoever that he was and is a racist, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” which is summarized in the first article that began this blog. He is quoted extensively, and page cites are provided.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)

Fourth, for the reasons that I stated in my article about immigration, I do not believe that any form of amnesty should have been offered by any president. When I left Capitol Hill, I became an Independent, and have been one ever since, after having been a Democrat first and then a Republican. More and more Americans are rejecting both parties, and rightly so.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“)

Fifth, you have written:

Presidents regularly pardon political allies convicted of serious crimes so why the attention on these 800,000 whose “serious crime” was to cross the border into the U.S. and fail to depart?

Two wrongs do not make a right. It is just that simple.

Lastly, you wrote:

We need to get on with addressing the serious problems facing our nation – not get bogged down in manufactured, faux drama whose only purpose seems to be to distract attention from paying attention to who is running away with the wealth of our nation.

Again, I respectfully disagree. The greatest threat to the United States and the American people today, and the continued existence of our great nation and civilization, is the possibility of an EMP Attack that might kill all except 30 million of us. Thereafter, the nation would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

See, e.g., (“North Korea Nuclear Test Furthers EMP Bomb”)

To further put an EMP Attack against the U.S. into perspective, please consider how South Florida is running out of food and gasoline as Hurricane Irma approaches and evacuations occur. After an EMP Attack, this blog, the Internet and our phones would cease to work; cars and other forms of transportation would stop, as integral electronics “die” and gasoline supplies are exhausted; food supplies would end within days; gangs would roam, looting and killing; and a complete breakdown of our society and country would occur.

All of this is discussed in my EMP Attack article and the extensive comments beneath it.


15 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Trump and Sheriff Joe

Derek Hawkins has written in the Washington Post:

Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio was exuberant last month when President Trump made the controversial decision to pardon him before he was sentenced in his criminal-contempt case.

“Thank you @realdonaldtrump for seeing my conviction for what it is: a political witch hunt by holdovers in the Obama justice department!” Arpaio tweeted.

But he may be in for a rude awakening. A presidential pardon does not mean a conviction automatically gets thrown out. A judge has to rule on that — and the one handling Arpaio’s federal court case has some hesitations.

In a filing Thursday, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton wrote she wasn’t convinced that she could scrub the guilty verdict from Arpaio’s record. Instead, she signaled she was considering simply dropping the criminal case but letting the conviction stand — unless the government can persuade her otherwise.

Bolton found Arpaio, 85, guilty of criminal contempt of court in July after he deliberately defied another judge’s order to stop detaining people he suspected of being undocumented immigrants, a practice that violated the U.S. Constitution. Arpaio was scheduled to be sentenced in October, at which point Bolton would have entered a final judgment.

Trump’s pardon upended that. Because he made the decision before Arpaio was sentenced, no final judgment was ever rendered.

Following the pardon, Arpaio’s attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the case and vacate his conviction, which is protocol in such circumstances. Department of Justice attorneys joined them, writing in court papers this week that Trump’s pardon made the entire case moot because Arpaio “will face no consequences that result from the guilty verdict.”

But Bolton said it wasn’t that simple. Vacating the conviction didn’t seem to be an option because no judgment had been entered, she wrote in her order. On top of that, the order read, attorneys for Arpaio and the government didn’t cite any cases that supported their request to toss out the conviction, technically called a “motion for vacatur.”

In the judge’s words: “The Government appears to agree with the Defendant, but furnishes no authority conferring so broad a scope to orders of vacatur issued under similar circumstances.”

Bolton went on to quote from U.S. Supreme Court and appeals court cases suggesting that presidential pardons leave the recipient’s “underlying record of conviction” intact.

One case, Nixon v. United States (involving a judge named Walter Nixon, not President Richard Nixon) seemed to put the issue in plain terms. “The granting of a pardon is in no sense an overturning of a judgment of conviction by some other tribunal,” the excerpt read, “it is an executive action that mitigates or sets aside punishment for a crime.”

Bolton said the government hadn’t sufficiently addressed that case and others. She gave the Department of Justice until Sept. 21 to file a response as to whether she should vacate Arpaio’s conviction.

Arpaio’s hardline stance on immigration and his harsh treatment of prisoners in Arizona’s Maricopa County made him a household name and earned him scores of fans on the political right, Trump among them.

In 2011, a federal judge found that he and his deputies had racially profiled Latino drivers in traffic stops, violating their constitutional rights, and ordered him to halt the practice. When he refused, the Department of Justice filed a contempt-of-court case against him. Arpaio consistently denied that he intentionally violated the court’s order.

Bolton was unsparing toward Arpaio when she handed down her guilty verdict after a bench trial held over the summer. Arpaio showed “flagrant disregard” for the court’s command and had attempted to pin blame on his deputies, she wrote.

“Not only did Defendant abdicate responsibility,” Bolton wrote, “he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise.”

Arpaio was scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 5 and faced up to six months in prison.

Trump announced his pardon in a Friday night statement on Aug. 25, released as Hurricane Harvey was about to make landfall in southeast Texas. The president made no mention of Arpaio’s crime but praised his military and law enforcement service.

“Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration,” Trump said. “Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.”

An array of civil rights organizations and legal scholars have jumped into Arpaio’s court case urging Bolton not to vacate the conviction. Several parties, including the Protect Democracy Project, have asked the judge to invalidate the pardon itself, arguing it prevented the court from protecting people’s constitutional rights. That would be an extraordinary act, as the president’s pardon power for federal offenses is explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Arpaio’s attorneys have opposed the motions.

“Our system of criminal justice is premised on lenity, and the defendant’s presumption of innocence,” they wrote in a filing Thursday. “A conviction that will never be confirmed by appeal, cannot stand.”

See (“Yes, Joe Arpaio got pardoned. But a judge isn’t convinced she should toss his conviction“) (emphasis added)

If there were any doubts about a president’s plenary pardon powers, the disgraceful pardon of Marc Rich by Bill Clinton, and others by Barack Obama, would not have seen the light of day.

See also (“Judge accepts Arpaio pardon, vacates conviction”—”Bolton rules in favor of requests by Arpaio’s defense attorneys and Trump’s Justice Department to toss out the conviction after the president pardoned Arpaio in August”—”Bolton tossed out the conviction with prejudice, meaning Arpaio cannot again be tried for his actions in the case”)


27 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Record $135 billion A Year for illegal Immigration [UPDATED]

No amnesty for illegals

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner‘s “Washington Secrets” columnist, has written:

The swelling population of illegal immigrants and their kids is costing American taxpayers $135 billion a year, the highest ever, driven by free medical care, education and a huge law enforcement bill, according to the the most authoritative report on the issue yet.

And despite claims from pro-illegal immigration advocates that the aliens pay significant off-setting taxes back to federal, state and local treasuries, the Federation for American Immigration Reform report tallied just $19 billion, making the final hit to taxpayers about $116 billion.

State and local governments are getting ravaged by the costs, at over $88 billion. The federal government, by comparison, is getting off easy at $45 billion in costs for illegals.

President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and conservatives in Congress are moving aggressively to deal with illegals, especially those with long criminal records. But their effort is being fought by courts and some 300 so-called “sanctuary communities” that refuse to work with federal law enforcement.

The added burden on taxpayers and the unfairness to those who have applied to come into the United States through legal channels is also driving the administration’s immigration crackdown.

The report, titled “The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers,” is the most comprehensive cost tally from FAIR. It said that the costs have jumped about $3 billion in four years and will continue to surge unless illegal immigration is stopped. It was provided in advance exclusively to Secrets.

“Clearly, the cost of doing nothing to stop illegal immigration is far too high,” said FAIR Executive Director Dan Stein. “President Trump has laid out a comprehensive strategy to regain control of illegal immigration and bring down these costs,” said Stein. “Building the wall, enhancing interior enforcement and mandating national E-Verify will go a long way in bringing these ridiculously high costs under control,” he added.

Over 68 often shocking pages, FAIR documents the average $8,075 in state, local and federal spending for each of the of 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.

Broadly, the costs include $29 billion in medical care, $23 billion for law enforcement, $9 billion in welfare, $46 billion for education.

Just consider the cost of teaching an illegal alien child who doesn’t speak English. FAIR estimates an average cost of over $12,000 a year, and that can reach $25,000 in New York. Add to that welfare, health care, school lunches, and the per student price soars.

In state costs alone, California leads the list at $23 billion per year, followed by Texas at $11 billion, and New York at $7.4 billion.

And it also documents the taxes paid and how they don’t come close to offsetting the costs. What’s more, FAIR noted that 35 percent of the illegal population operate in an underground economy hidden from tax collectors. And worse, employers hire illegals and either pay them cheaply or under the table.

“The United States recoups only about 14 percent of the amount expended annually on illegal aliens. If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were filled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments,” said FAIR.

Key findings pulled from the report:

• The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.

• The nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.

• On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.

• At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).

• The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion).

See (“Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY“) (emphasis added); see also (“Two ‘Dreamers’ caught smuggling illegal immigrants into U.S.“)

Obviously, illegal immigrants come from lots of different locations in the Americas and around the world. As mentioned in my article above, my long-time Irish Love would have been one of them if we had chosen to violate the laws.

In all of my comments, I have not singled out Hispanics for criticism or ridicule. They are wonderful people, and I love them dearly; and each of my grandchildren is one-fourth Hispanic.

Growing up in California as I did, one comes to appreciate the too-numerous-to-count contributions that Hispanics have made to our culture.

However, unlike the EU, the United States does not have an “open borders” policy, and hopefully it never will.


24 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Adios, California! [UPDATED]

Assimilation of American Hispanics

This is the title of an article written by Steve Baldwin for The American Spectator:

It’s not easy watching California self-destruct. After all, my four sons are 6th generation Californians. One relative of ours journeyed here prior to the Gold Rush when the state population was just a handful of people. Family lore has it he was a gunslinger who, victorious in a gun duel, headed to California to avoid the law. He ended up ranching on what is now known as Mammoth Mountain. Other family members took part in the gold rush and one ended up discovering gold in 1895 in the Mojave Desert. My grandparents arrived in Kern County in the 1930s and worked as teachers educating the children of oil workers shortly after the discovery of oil in that region.

Proud of my heritage, I had this urge to run for the state legislature, so I did and I won. I was hoping I could do something in Sacramento to slow the decline of the Golden State. But it was not to be. I quickly discovered that the legislature was so dominated by far left ideologues, there was nothing that could be done to reverse course. My Democrat colleagues were not concerned one bit about how their policies were destroying the economic golden goose that made California so famous worldwide. Indeed, they actually believe their big government and nanny state policies have made California the model of how progressives can succeed in governing. Seriously.

The entire time I served in Sacramento, the Democrats were focused almost exclusively on legislation which either had to do with wealth redistribution or creating new “rights” for alleged victims such as illegal aliens, criminals, union members, homosexuals, transgenders and other “oppressed” groups. And it’s no different today. The reality is that the average middle class Californian hasn’t had representation in the halls of Sacramento for decades. Indeed, I predict the destruction of California will, unfortunately, be one of the great legacies of the progressive movement.

Indeed, the Democrats hold supermajorities in both legislative chambers. The Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election, except for 1995-1996. The Senate has been controlled by the Democrats continuously since 1970. As for the Governor, well, the last semi-real Republican Governor was Pete Wilson, who ended his term in 1999. However, action superstar and former champion body builder Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, did serve as Governor from 2003-2011 but essentially governed as a Democrat, even to the point of hiring leftists to be his key staff. So much for his tough guy image. Progressive hero Jerry Brown has served as Governor since 2011.

Sure, the liberals like to claim California socialism is working by pointing to the much heralded statistic that “California’s economy is the 6th largest in the world” as calculated by the state’s Department of Finance. Indeed, California’s $2.62 trillion economy is larger than that of France, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and Italy. However, that GDP stat does not factor in California’s cost of living, which is 36.2% higher than the national cost of living. As Carson Bruno writes in Real Clear Markets, “using the cost of living adjusted data from the International Monetary Fund and adjusting California’s GDP data provides a better snapshot of California’s economic standing in the world. Doing so shows that California is actually the 12th largest economy — a drop of 6 spots — and actually puts the state below Mexico.”

Moreover, as Bruno points out, Silicon Valley “accounted for 50% of California’s private industry real GDP growth.” In other words, without a few dozen mega profitable high-tech Silicon Valley firms such as Apple, Google, and Facebook, California’s GDP would be significantly smaller.

However, as economic blogger Richard Rider points out, the aggregate GDP statistic is really not a good indicator of a state’s economic health, especially since one industry appears to be propping up the “6th largest economy” myth. California has over 39 million people, more than any other state, so a far more accurate assessment of its economy, Rider writes, would be per capita GDP as compared to the rest of the country. After adjusting the GDP figures to account for the cost of living (COL), the Golden State ends up with a paltry 37th place ranking within the U.S.A., with a $45,696 per capital GDP. Even rustbelt states, such as Michigan and Ohio, have a higher adjusted per capita GDP. Despite Silicon Valley’s high-tech giants, California barely squeezes past impoverished New Mexico. Rider also reports that when one looks at per capita GDP stats for the rest of the world, California ranks 19th, but those stats don’t factor in the COL data; if they did, California would be even further down the rankings internationally.

One should not also assume that high-tech companies are a permanent feature of California’s economy. Already, the extremely high cost of living in Silicon Valley has, since 2016, caused more Silicon Valley employees to leave the state than it has attracted. With a few high-tech companies having left California for other states such as Virginia, Texas and North Carolina, it’s only a matter of time before this turns into a flood.

But it’s not just Silicon Valley employees fleeing California; it’s productive — and job-creating — citizens from all over the state. As Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox wrote in the Mercury News last April, “the largest group of outmigrants tends to be middle-aged people making between $100,000 and $200,000 annually.”

Indeed, California has done everything possible to make it difficult for businesses and employers to produce goods and services. California now has the highest state income tax rate and the highest state sales tax rate in the country. Our gas tax rate is fourth-highest, but if you add in the 10-12 cent “cap and trade” cost per gallon, we have the highest gas tax in the country. Based on 2014 numbers, California’s single-family residence property tax is the eighth highest in the country with the median homeowner property tax bill 93% higher than the average property tax bill for the other 49 states. As for the state’s corporate income tax rate, it is also eighth in the country. And let’s not forget our small business tax, a minimum of $800, even if no profit is earned.

Overall, the Tax Foundation ranks California as fifth worse in overall tax burden, but the state is especially hostile to its high earners who start businesses and create most of the jobs. Indeed, the top 1% pays 50% of all state income taxes. Moreover, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranked California as having the worst anti-business climate in the country; the American Tort Reform Foundation ranks the state as the “worst state judicial hellhole” in the U.S. and the national Chamber of Commerce rates California as having the fourth-worst business climate.

If California is such a prosperous state as liberals claim, why does it have the highest poverty rate in the nation? According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate is 23.4%, which is 17% higher than second place Nevada. Indeed, while California has 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of the nation’s TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) welfare recipients, more than the next seven states combined.

What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household.

Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.

Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.

Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.

And let’s not forget the impact illegals have upon employment and wages. Illegal aliens are driving down wages across the board in California, especially in the service and construction industries. The people who suffer the most are legal citizens who lose out jobs to illegals willing to work for rock bottom wages. What most people do not understand is that illegals enter the country without their families and as many as ten of them will pile up in a cheap apartment. With very few expenses, they are able to bid on jobs at a rate most legal citizens cannot afford to work for.

I served for six years in that God forsaken capital, Sacramento, and the one thing I found most bizarre was the intense focus by my Democrat colleagues on creating agencies and programs that cater to illegal aliens and thus attract even more illegal aliens to California. Such pro-illegal alien policies undermine the hundreds of thousands of legal minorities who work in the service and construction industries, but strangely the biggest boosters of such policies were the Democrat legislators of Hispanic descent. It’s as if the entire Hispanic delegation in both houses made a concerted decision to abandon legal Hispanics and to represent only Mexican citizens. I find that odd and a violation of their oath of office, but I also believe that this is all about political power. The more illegals, the more registered Democrats.

But one can’t be too surprised; many of these Hispanic elites have little in common with middle class Californians. While in college, many belonged to a Hispanic separatist movement called Movimiento Estodiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), which believes our borders should be eliminated and that the entire southwest USA was stolen from Mexico. In other words, these extremists do not even believe in the notion of citizenship or borders.

With the state now funding over 250 agencies that intrude into every aspect of its citizens’ lives, it is clear that government spending is completely out of control. California political writer Steve Frank estimates that the real state government debt is $2.8 trillion. Since the state can’t print money like the feds do, it’s only option is to assess its overtaxed citizens more fees and taxes. The truth of the matter is that California would be far better off if they randomly selected 120 people out of the phone book to serve in the Assembly and the Senate, since that way, many will actually be normal people with private sector experience. As it stands now, many state politicians have never held a real job and have little in common with the vast majority of hard-working Californians.

Today, large sections of California look like a Third World country with ramshackle buildings, junky cars and trash strewn everywhere. We even have outbreaks of Hepatitis A, just like the Third World has. A state cannot chase away the producers and attract the takers year after year without economic consequences. That doesn’t end well so there’s little doubt California is headed toward economic disaster. Perhaps it is time for conservatives to support California’s succession movement before the state completely collapses and comes begging the federal government for a bailout.

See (emphasis added); see also (“America’s Left And The Ravages Of Poverty“) and (“UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDENT NAPOLITANO IS A DISGRACE, AND MUST BE FIRED“) and (“The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished”—”Under former California Governor Pete Wilson, for all intents and purposes, it was put out of business; and its uselessness was exposed for all to see, like the emperor in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes'”)

This is an excellent article, which should be read by anyone who cares about California and our great nation.

Some of us were born and raised in California, and will always love the State. And yes, we love our Hispanic brothers and sisters, and the heritage that their predecessors have bequeathed to all of us. Whether it is the food, or the Missions, or their respect for and support of organized religion (e.g., just visit a packed-to-capacity Catholic church in Oxnard any weekend), or their love of family, they have been a gift to California and the nation.

But illegal immigration hurts those at the bottom of the economic totem pole, such as blacks and Hispanics who are here already. They lose the chance to enter the work force, and fall farther down the economic ladder.

And the Democrats nationally have been hurt by California politics. Those Americans in the “Flyover States” elected Donald Trump; and there is reason to believe that he will be reelected in 2020.

The “face” of the Democrats in the U.S. today consists of the criminal Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, the demented Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, black racists like Maxine Waters and Frederica Wilson, and others of their ilk. They will be a “dream ticket” to run against.

Liked by 1 person

23 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Shakespeare Was Correct: Judges Are The Very Worst Of The Legal Profession [UPDATED]

Despicable Judges

As stated in my previous article:

[Judges] are imperfect at best—and often egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent and arrogant. They can smile at you, just as easily as they can slit your throat and never think twice about doing it.

. . .

Many of them, at least in the United States, are former prosecutors who seemingly have never laid eyes on an innocent criminal defendant. To put on black robes does not change their mindset. Indeed, many seem to relish the power trip. Shakespeare’s famous quotation—“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”—must have been written in some light-hearted moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

See (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“)

Cogan Schneier has reported for The Recorder:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against the third iteration of President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order Friday.

The court, which heard oral arguments in the case last month, ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in issuing the Sept. 24 travel ban proclamation. The court said that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Trump could only ban immigrants based on nationality if he makes a “finding” that the entry of those individuals would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Trump, the three-judge panel ruled, failed to make such a finding before issuing the proclamation, which indefinitely bans immigrants from eight countries on the basis that those countries have insufficient information-sharing protocols when it comes to vetting immigrants and granting visas.

“The President is not foreclosed from acting to enhance vetting capabilities and other practices in order to strengthen existing immigration law, but must do so in a manner consistent with Congress’s intent,” the per curiam opinion said. “Put another way, the President cannot effectively abrogate existing immigration law while purporting to merely strengthen it; the cure cannot be worse than the disease.”

The court, however, limited its ruling so that the injunction against the ban only applies to [those] with no bona fide relationship to the United States.

The case was brought by the state of Hawaii, as well as an individual affected by the Sept. 24 order and a Muslim association.Hogan Lovells’ Neal Katyal, who represented the state, said on Twitter that the ruling was a “thorough repudiation of Trump’s position on both substance and procedure.”

In the opinion, the judges wrote that allowing the ban to take effect would be against the public interest.

‘In assessing the public interest, we are reminded of Justice Murphy’s wise words: “All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land.’” the opinion said, quoting from the dissent in Korematsu v. United States. “It cannot be in the public interest that a portion of this country be made to live in fear.”

A separate challenge to the travel ban, brought by several immigrant rights groups and individuals, is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court heard oral arguments on the case en banc last month, just days after the Ninth Circuit.

See (“Ninth Circuit Slaps Down Trump’s Travel Ban a Third Time“) (emphasis added; opinion omitted); see also (“Trump Travel Ban Dealt Blow by San Francisco Appeals Court”—”A regional appeals court based in San Francisco, one of two panels reviewing the third version of the president’s travel ban, concluded Friday that it continues to illegally discriminate against travelers just as earlier executive orders did. The three-judge panel also ruled, however, that Trump can continue to bar or limit entry by people from the Mideast and North African nations if they don’t have a relationship with a U.S.-based person or institution”) and (“Cut Off All Federal Funding To Berkeley And Fire The U.C. President!“) and (“Adios, California!“)

California is lawless. And the Ninth Circuit is a disgrace, and has been for decades. It “personifies” lawlessness.


20 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Democrats Choose Illegals Over Americans!

No amnesty, secure the borders, deport the illegals

Kristina Peterson, Natalie Andrews and Siobhan Hughes have written for the Wall Street Journal:

The Senate rejected a one-month spending bill on Friday, triggering a shutdown of many government services as lawmakers scrambled to reach a deal.

Senate leaders have held the vote open for more than an hour late Friday night as senators gather on the chamber’s floor to discuss whether they could stitch together a last-minute deal. It was clear early that the bill didn’t have the 60 votes it needed to clear a procedural hurdle.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) hasn’t voted, and Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) was at home undergoing cancer treatment.

Although a handful of Republicans opposed the spending bill, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders blamed Democrats for the shutdown, saying “this is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators.”

Entering the vote, lawmakers had no clear fallback plan for when funding runs out at midnight, but they have intensified discussions as the vote stretches on. Aides from both parties said they were discussing a stopgap spending bill of less than a month to avoid or limit a partial government shutdown on the first anniversary of President Donald Trump’s inauguration Saturday.

The spending bill, approved by the House on Thursday largely with GOP votes, would have funded the government through Feb. 16.

In the Capitol on Friday, leaders mired in disputes over immigration and spending refused to take the first step toward preventing a shutdown without concessions from across the aisle.

“I think it is almost 100% likely the government will shut down for some period of time,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D., Ky.) after meeting with other members of House Democratic leadership before the vote. “Everything we see indicates there’s no way to avoid a shutdown.”

Lawmakers vowed to continue negotiations over the weekend, some holding out hope a resolution could be reached over the weekend and before normal business hours resume on Monday. Their disagreements range from the amounts to allocate for military and domestic spending to provisions, demanded by Democrats, aimed at providing protections to young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.

The measure failed despite intense negotiations throughout the day. In a last-ditch effort to strike a deal Friday, Mr. Trump had met in the early afternoon with Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chamber’s Democratic leader, and he called House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) later. Although Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer said progress was made in their meeting, it failed to yield an immediate long-term agreement.

One senator briefed on the meeting between the president and Mr. Schumer said it didn’t go well, putting the onus back on Congress to find a path forward. Another person familiar with the meeting said it wasn’t contentious, but it made clear that neither side would budge.

Mr. Trump called it an “excellent preliminary meeting in Oval with @SenSchumer” in a tweet Friday evening, writing that they were “making progress.”

But without any breakthrough on the immigration and spending issues that have stymied lawmakers for weeks, Washington prepared for the first major shutdown of a government controlled by one party.

A half-hour before the Senate was set to vote, Mr. Trump tweeted that averting a shutdown was “not looking good.”

“Dems want a Shutdown in order to help diminish the great success of the Tax Cuts, and what they are doing for our booming economy,” he wrote.

As the hours ticked down, both parties worked to ensure any political fallout would fall on the other side of the aisle in a year when control of both chambers is up for grabs in the fall’s midterm elections. Democrats stressed that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House.

“Their ability to govern is so tremendously in question right now,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) said.

Republicans chastised Democrats for derailing the spending bill in the Senate over an immigration debate that faces a later deadline.

“Apparently they believe that the issue of illegal immigration is more important than everything else, all of the government services people depend on,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor Friday.

The immigration fight stretches back to September, when Mr. Trump ended a program shielding the young illegal immigrants known as Dreamers from deportation. He gave Congress until March 5 to hash out a replacement.

Democrats sought to use their leverage on the spending bill, which needed their votes to clear the Senate, to secure legal protections for the Dreamers. Lawmakers from both parties have been meeting to hammer out a compromise but weren’t able to reach one by the government-funding deadline.

“I do think both sides want a deal and it’s going to happen,” said Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, on Friday night. But he said lawmakers were “too far apart this time to get it done in the next 48 hours.”

Much of the government’s work is expected to continue despite the shutdown, as the Trump administration aims to apply what senior administration officials called flexibility to shutdown rules that contain a variety of exceptions.

Social Security payments would be deposited as 53,000 workers for that agency stay on the job, as would Medicare reimbursements, because the payments don’t rely on an annual appropriation. In addition, Mr. Trump’s agencies aim to go further than previous shutdowns and existing plans on the book, keeping agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency open with unused funds, as well as national parks.

Mr. Trump’s own activities, including planned travel to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, can continue under an exemption for activity required by the president to carry out his constitutional duties. However, the president’s scheduled departure for his Florida resort on Friday afternoon was canceled.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also isn’t halting a planned trip to Asia this weekend; the military will generally continue operations, as will the Department of Homeland Security under exceptions for essential activities.

The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, said Friday that his agency intended a different shutdown approach from the one taken by the Obama administration in 2013.

“We are going to manage the shutdown differently; we are not going to weaponize it,” Mr. Mulvaney said.

Still, Republicans worried that their party would shoulder an unfair portion of the blame, given that they control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

“We can say the Democrats voted against” funding the government, said Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.). “On the other hand, we control everything.”

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), who has been one of four lawmakers involved in immigration negotiations with the White House, blamed the bind on the president and the Republicans.

“We don’t want to shut down this government. We want to solve the problems facing this government and this nation, and that means working together, something which Sen. McConnell has not engaged in,” Mr. Durbin said.

See (“Deadline Passes, Triggering Shutdown; Senate Rejects Short-Term Spending Bill“) (emphasis added)

Democrats are putting illegals before U.S. citizens, especially America’s blacks. No surprise there!

The Democrats are against government shutdowns unless they are fighting for illegals to stay in this country.

And then they wonder why lots of us left their party years ago, and will NEVER vote for a Democrat again.

Screw the illegal “Dreamers,” every last one of them. They must be arrested and deported to the country of their parents’ origin, and get at the end of the line of those seeking to come here.

Otherwise, our laws are meaningless!

Democrats are evil


27 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Whites made up more than 75 percent of the American population in 2008. This is a voting bloc that the Democrats cannot afford to lose.

See (“White Americans: Demographic information“)

Yet, the 2016 election exit poll results shown above indicate that white Americans are deserting the Democrats’ party, which is born out by other polls as well.


There are reasons to believe that this gap may widen, as the Democrats choose illegals over Americans, which hurts blacks and all other Americans who are here legally.

As I have written:

The Democrats are against government shutdowns unless they are fighting for illegals to stay in this country.

And then they wonder why lots of us left their party years ago, and will NEVER vote for a Democrat again.

See (“Democrats Choose Illegals Over Americans!“)

Democrats are evil


18 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Imprison California Sanctuary Officials

Victor Morton has written for the Washington Times:

The federal government may soon get an ally in its battle with California over its sanctuary laws.

According to a report in the Orange County Register, the city of Los Alamitos will vote Monday on a ordinance to exempt itself from SB54 (aka the California Values Act), which limits cooperation between law enforcement and immigration authorities.

The ordinance says the state’s sanctuary law violates the U.S. Constitution and thus the council “finds that it is impossible to honor our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States” if the state law applies in the city.

Annie Lai, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at UC Irvine, told the OC Register that “it looks like they’re setting themselves up for litigation.”

But the mayor and other other council member both told the Register they were leaning toward passing the ordinance and the paper did not cite any council member as actively and publicly opposed.

And one community activist both praised the proposed ordinance and criticized the California state law as a relic of the 1850s.

“Everyone holding elective office takes the same oath to uphold the laws to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It doesn’t say ‘unless the state legislature decides otherwise,’” Art DeBolt said. “I do believe somewhere in our history, we fought a war to prevent states from ignoring the law of the land and preserving the union.”

See (“Orange County city may declare itself a sanctuary from California’s sanctuary law“); see also (“Remember Kate Steinle: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities“) and (“Remember Kate Steinle: California’s Lawless Politicians Must Be Imprisoned“)

Federal officials must arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison all California officials (e.g., mayors, judges) who defy the federal government (e.g., ICE agents).

California’s lawlessness must not be allowed to stand.


4 04 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Migrant caravan in Mexico

AFP has reported:

A caravan of Central American migrants whose trek across Mexico infuriated President Donald Trump has decided not to travel to the US border, leaders said Tuesday.

“We will wrap up our work in Mexico City,” said Irineo Mujica, the head of the migrant advocacy group People Without Borders (Pueblo sin Fronteras).

“We have support teams at the border if there are people who need assistance there, but they would have to travel on their own,” he told AFP in the town of Matias Romero, in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca.

The just over 1,000 migrants who currently make up the caravan — many traveling in families of up to 20 people — have been camped in the southern town since the weekend, deciding their next move in the face of daily attacks from Trump.

The Republican president vowed to send the US military to secure the border and threatened to axe the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if Mexico did not stop the caravan.

The caravan is in fact a yearly event whose goal is more to raise awareness about the plight of migrants than to reach the United States — though some participants have traveled to the border in the past.

Mujica said this year’s caravan was so large it would have been dangerous to travel to the border by train-hopping.

“There are too many children — 450 in all. There are lots of babies. Hopping the train, as we did in the past, would have been crazy,” he said.

The caravan now plans to travel to the central city of Puebla for a conference, then on to Mexico City for a series of demonstrations — and end its journey there.

The group, mainly Hondurans, also includes Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans, mostly fleeing the brutal gang violence that has made Central America home to some of the highest murder rates in the world.

Organizers say Mexican immigration authorities are working with the migrants to get them papers to stay in Mexico.

Mujica praised the Mexican government for its response.

“Donald Trump wanted the world to crush us, to erase our existence. But Mexico responded admirably and we thank the government for the way it handled this caravan,” he said.

See (“Migrant caravan abandons plan to travel to US border“) (emphasis added); see also (“Mexico hands out visas to Caravan as organizers say it will shut down in Mexico City“)

As stated in my article above:

All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

Either our immigration laws matter, or they do not. If they matter, and presumably they do, they must be applied equally, to everyone.

Also, Mexico is a savage state today, run at least in part by the brutal cartels, which vie for power and kill without mercy.

See, e.g., (“Who Is Next? The Murder Of A Young American And The Harvesting Of His Body Parts In Mexico“)

Lastly, do I care about the plight of migrants who are fleeing from oppression and violence? Of course I do, whether they be from Mexico or elsewhere in the Americas, or those from Syria and other war-ravaged areas of the Middle East.

Often, they are victimized by the “Coyotes” in the case of sexual and other predators who prey on them in Mexico, or those who do the same in the Middle East as people try to make their way to safety in Europe. And of course I care about those in Africa and elsewhere who have been kidnapped or otherwise brutalized by ruthless leaders and marauding gangs.

Among many others, it seems that I will never forget little Aylan And Galip Kurdi.

See (“Aylan And Galip Kurdi Will Be Remembered“)


21 06 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Melania Trump Makes Surprise Visit To Border Facilities

Melania visits detention center

Kate Bennett has written for CNN:

First lady Melania Trump touched down in McAllen, Texas, Thursday making a publicly unannounced and hastily planned trip to get a first-hand look at the crisis affecting immigrant families at the US border.

“I want to thank you for your hard work, your compassion and your kindness,” the first lady said at a roundtable briefing at Upbring New Hope, with doctors and medical staff, social workers and other experts on hand.

Melania Trump becomes the first Trump family member to personally witness the situation that has captured the country’s attention over the past several weeks.

“She wants to see what’s real,” said the first lady’s spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham told CNN during a 10-minute press briefing en route to Texas. “She wanted to see as close to what she had been seeing on TV. She wants to see a realistic view of what’s happening.”

The first lady’s visit comes one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to cease his own administration’s separation practice that has caused wide-ranging criticism and consternation. Previously the President had insisted Congress needed to act to stop the practice, but then reversed that claim.

Trump’s first stop in Texas is the Upbring New Hope Children’s Center, part of Lutheran Social Services of the South, also in McAllen, Texas, a department of health and human services-overseen facility.

She was greeted by Upbring CEO Dr. Kirk Senske, who outlined Upbring’s five markers of success: safety, life skills, health, education and vocation. The facility here opened in 2014 and there are currently 58 children aged 12-17.

“We’re honored to show you our shelter,” Senske told Trump. “We treat them like our own children.”

During the roundtable, Trump asked several questions including how many times the children speak with their families. She was told twice a week, but the official noted that there is a process to verify that the persons they are communicating with are their families.

She also asked what kind of physical and mental health the children come to the facility in.

The children are “usually distraught” when they arrive, Trump was told, but “when they see the environment they start relaxing.”

Upon arrival, basic needs are taken care of — showers, clothing, food.

“The first 24 hours are crucial,” she was told.

An administration official briefing the press before the visit said most children at an HHS-funded and regulated facility such as this one remain there for approximately 58 days, receiving medical, dental, vision and psychological care, as well as what the official described as the ability to be inside a “safe and happy environment.”

The official emphasized the predominant mission at this stage of the process for unaccompanied children, is to place them back with appropriate sponsors. Those sponsors can be their parents, if the parents are not involved in the judicial or criminal process or they can be other approved family members already living inside the United States.

If neither of those options are possible, which is the case in about 10% of the unaccompanied children, then they are placed with vetted foster families or volunteers.

Acting or commenting from the sidelines apparently was not enough for Trump, who fewer than 48 hours ago informed her staff — and her husband, the President of the United States — that she had decided she needed to see for herself the family intake and unaccompanied children facilities.

The facilities have all but dominated the news for days on end, causing heated political battles from the White House to Capitol Hill, ricocheting around the world in an uproar of disbelief and consternation.

” ‘I’m headed down to Texas,’ ” is what Grisham said the first lady told her husband, and “he was supportive.”

Grisham confirmed the trip would have taken place whether or not the President signed an executive order on Wednesday.

“This was 100% her idea,” said Grisham of Trump’s decision to travel to McAllen, making clear the first lady is not on a mission assigned by the President nor is she acting as his emissary. “She wanted to come down.”

The first lady intends to inform the President on what she sees.

“She will continue to update her husband,” said Grisham, confirming what was reported first yesterday by CNN, that the first lady had been actively lobbying the president behind the scenes, encouraging him to stop the separation of children as swiftly as possible, either via legislative process or executive power.

The latter was ultimately the route Trump chose, in a stunning reversal of his previous rhetoric.

“As with a many topics she will continue to give her husband her opinions,” Grisham said.

Like most of the country, the first lady has been watching media reports about children taken from their parents and placed in holding facilities.

It is unclear what, exactly, Trump intends to accomplish from this visit to Texas, outside of seeing firsthand what is happening today in America.

Since becoming first lady, Trump has said she wants to champion helping children, yet has been for the most part vague about how exactly she intends to accomplish her goal. In May, Trump unveiled her “Be Best” platform, which outlined three predominant avenues of focus: health and well being; kindness and safety online; and highlighting the effects of the opioid crisis on children and families.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Obama Admin Also Separated Families at the Border“)


21 06 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Laura Bush Has Become Just Another Useful Idiot

David Catron has written for The American Spectator:

The Bush family has a famously adversarial relationship with English. It became clear this week that at least one of them is also illiterate where U.S. history and immigration policy are concerned. This was demonstrated when former First Lady Laura Bush took to the pages of the Washington Post to denounce President Trump for enforcing a statute signed into law by her own husband, George W. Bush. Even worse, she compared the HHS facilities where the children of illegal immigrants are briefly housed to the infamous internment camps where Democrat icon FDR imprisoned 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent.

This comparison not only played into the hands of the very Democrats and partisan journalists who remorselessly savaged both her and her husband for eight solid years, it is wildly inaccurate. Mrs. Bush clearly knows very little about the plight of children caught up in the illegal immigration crisis, and even less about the internment camps she so glibly evoked. It’s blindingly obvious that she has been suckered by the propaganda relentlessly pumped out by the “news” media, completely taken in by their lurid images of wailing children and “cruel” DHS officials. Laura Bush has thus become just another useful idiot.

Let’s look at some actual facts: According to the former First Lady’s opinion column, “I was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents… the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers.” The facilities to which she refers are actually run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a division of Health and Human Services. It has been in operation since 2003, at which time Mrs. Bush’s husband had been President for two years. Here are the evil doings that ORR has been up to for the subsequent fifteen years:

ORR has cared for more than 175,000 children, incorporating child welfare values as well as the principles and provisions established by the Flores Agreement in 1997, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and its reauthorization acts, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005 and 2008.

The children in question have either entered the United States unaccompanied by adults (this accounts for the vast majority of the approximately 12,000 kids being housed by the agency) or with “parents” attempting to enter the country illegally. It should be obvious to anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to the illegal immigration issue that many of the adults accompanying these children are not their parents or even distant relatives. Indeed, they are frequently criminals involved in human trafficking. What matters, as far as the separation issue is concerned, is whether the adult is detained for illegal entry.

In cases resulting in the arrest of the adult, the unaccompanied children are referred to ORR, which attempts to place them in the least restrictive setting consistent with the interests of the child. Sometimes that means foster care, which Mrs. Bush weirdly conflates with “warehousing.” If foster care isn’t possible, ORR may use temporary shelters in what she describes with horror as “converted box stores,” insinuating that there is little difference between a Walmart building and Auschwitz. Mrs. Bush doesn’t seem to get that the media have crafted the images to which she is responding for the specific purpose of creating that illusion.

Even if the false narrative of Nazi-like cruelty were true, naïve opinion columns in left-leaning media outlets are not the way to handle the problem. It can, in fact, be resolved without much difficulty by Congress. Indeed, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has already proposed just such a bill. The Texas Tribune reports that the provisions of the legislation would include doubling the number of federal immigration judges, authorizing new temporary shelters to keep families together, requiring immigrant families to be kept together in the absence of criminal conduct, and providing for expedited processing of legitimate asylum cases.

The bill has the support of prominent Republicans, and there is no doubt that the President would sign it into law without hesitation. It would not merely solve a variety of practical problems encountered at the border and stop most separations of children from genuine parents. It would calm down the hysteria surrounding this issue. But the Democrats aren’t willing to support it. Why? Because they don’t really give a rat’s posterior about “the children.” What they want is an issue that they can leverage into a majority in at least one house of Congress in the midterms. If this problem is resolved, they’re toast. Thus, as the Hill reports:

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed a legislative proposal backed by Republican leaders to keep immigrant families together at the border.… Asked if that meant Democrats would not support a bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to keep immigrant families together while seeking asylum on the U.S. border, Schumer said they want to keep the focus on Trump.

In other words, given the choice between helping the children over whom they and the media have shed so many crocodile tears, and damaging Donald Trump, the Democrats went for Trump’s jugular. And the media are worse. Slate, for example, ran a typically dishonest article titled, “Ted Cruz’s Proposal to Fix Child Separation Is a Cynical Ploy.” The primary premise of this absurd piece is that Senator Cruz has introduced his bill only to fend off a challenge by Democrat Beto O’Rourke. Cruz leads by 9 points. Nonetheless, seeing that the Democrats had no intention of doing the right thing, President Trump handled it.

Meanwhile, what about those Japanese internment camps? They were indeed “one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history.” It occurred because a Democratic president signed Executive Order 9066, resulting in the illegal incarceration of 110,000 loyal Japanese Americans. This is consistent with that party’s long catalogue of racialist crimes. For Mrs. Bush to conflate that atrocity to the current border situation is utterly irresponsible.

See (“Illegal Immigration, Internment Camps, and Useful Idiots”) (emphasis added)

Lots of us voted for George H.W. Bush and Laura’s husband, George W. Bush, because they seemed like the best of the alternatives. However, George W. Bush, Israel and its “neocon” surrogates brought us the Iraq War in which more than 5,000 Americans died and many more were maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.

As the 2016 election cycle began, some of us even contemplated voting for Laura’s brother-in-law Jeb, but wisely we decided against it. Lovely Laura seems to have as much political sense as he has, which is Z-E-R-O.


26 06 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Supreme Court UPHOLDS Trump’s Travel Ban [UPDATED]

MAGA hat

David Martosko has written for the UK’s Daily Mail:

President Trump says that the Supreme Court ruling today on his travel ban is a ‘great victory’ for his administration and the U.S. Constitution.

Trump said that the 5-4 ruling was also a ‘tremendous success’ and a ‘tremendous victory’ for the entire nation.

The president made unexpected remarks on the ruling this afternoon during a luncheon with lawmakers that was initially supposed to be closed to press.

After the high court handed down its judgement Trump invited cameras into the room to declare himself vindicated on migration and his long-held stance that the government [] has to implement extreme vetting for nationals from countries deemed to be a security risk.

‘The ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the Democrat politicians, all turned out to be very wrong,’ he said. ‘So I will always be defending the sovereignty, the safety and the security of the American people. That’s why I was put here.’

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for the Trump administration on Tuesday, ruling that the White House had the authority to limit travel into the United States from a short list of Muslim-majority countries.

‘SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!’ the president tweeted in response to the win.

The president said after the ruling that he firmly believes that the U.S. has to change its entire policy for permanent entry and move to a merit-based system.

‘It’s so simple,’ he said of his desire to move people out as soon as they unlawfully cross the border. ‘You don’t have to see a judge.’

Trump pointed to Europe, saying it has been ‘overrun’ with migrants.

‘And what we’re looking for as Republicans I can tell you is strong borders, no crime. What the Democrats are looking for is open borders, which will bring tremendous crime. It will bring MS-13 and lots of others that we don’t want to have in our country.’

The president said lawmakers were at the White House to discuss funding for his border wall’

We worked with $1.6 billion dollars. But we’re going to ask for an increase in wall spending so we can finish it quicker. It stops the drugs, it stops people that we don’t want to have and it gives us security and safety. And with that, we might just take a quick spin around the room…”

Trump said that he would ‘of course’ go through with the travel ban now that the Supreme Court has ruled in his favor saying it is ‘pretty much the final word.’

Trump’s authority to determine who may come into the country is ‘squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA,’ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 5-4 majority opinion, referring to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

That, the justices declared, makes a lower court’s preliminary injunction stopping the travel ban ‘an abuse of discretion’ that won’t stand.

Trump said in an official statement that the court had ‘upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States.’

‘In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country.’

Trump also called the decision a ‘profound vindication’ and lashed out at ‘months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.’

Roberts wrote that Trump’s travel-ban proclamation, issued shortly after his inauguration, was ‘expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.’

‘The text says nothing about religion,’ he added.

Writing for himself and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Roberts also noted that the Trump travel ban did not apply to Iraq, ‘one of the largest predominately Muslim countries in the region.’

‘The policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population,’ he wrote, ‘and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.’

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, issued a separate two-page opinion agreeing with them but pointing a finger of caution at the White House.

‘There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects,’ Kennedy wrote.

The majority found that the president acted after a ‘worldwide review process’ by many Cabinet agencies,’ and decided not to quibble with its results even though they were just 18 pages long.

The case decided Tuesday signals that much of Trump’s immigration policy – stemming from his campaign promise to tightly control the nation’s borders – is passing key legal tests.

The third and final iteration of the travel-ban policy applied to foreign nations from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

The African nation of Chad was initially included but later removed from the list in April and dropped from the list of affected countries two months ago.

The Court determined that the administration ‘set forth a sufficient national security justification’ to survive a review of whether there was a ‘rational basis’ for Trump’s travel ban.

But the five-justice majority cautioned: ‘We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.’

Opponents of the travel ban argued that it bore parallels to the World War II-era forcible relocation of Japanese-Americans to concentration camps on the basis of their race.

That practice was ‘objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority,’ the justices wrote, but Trump’s policy was ‘neutral’ on its face – a decision ‘denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission.’

The travel ban, they added, was ‘well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President.’

In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there were ‘stark parallels’ with the court’s now discredited 1944 decision that upheld the internment camps.

After cataloguing Trump’s campaign statements that were seen as anti-Muslim, she concluded: ‘Taking all the evidence together, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus.’

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a scathing statement condemning what it called Trump’s ‘Muslim ban.’

‘This is not the first time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it,’ the group said.

‘History has its eyes on us – and will judge today’s decision harshly.’

Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton said in a statement that he agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

‘Congress has long delegated to the president the authority to regulate the entry of people into the United States, particularly from war-torn countries or well-known state sponsors of terrorism,’ he said.

‘The Court has rightly upheld this common-sense, longstanding practice, which I hope will end once and for all the tortured reasoning of liberal judges who make up new legal doctrines because they personally disapprove of the president.’

Trump opponents in Congress pulled no punches.

‘This is a dark day for America,’ Califorrnia Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee complained, saying the decision would be remembered as ‘a stain on our nation and an abdication of our fundamental American values.’

Delaware Democratic Sen. Christopher Coons insisted that the travel ban was, indeed, a form of religious bigotry.

It’s ‘is not only discriminatory and counterproductive,’ he said, but also ‘stands in direct contrast to the principles embedded in our Constitution and our founders’ vision of a nation where all people are free to worship as they choose.’

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker told CNN that other judicial decisions will serve to keep Trump in check.

‘Thank God we are not a nation of tyranny,’ he said, ‘because the president has tried multiple times and his efforts have been diluted by the court system.’

Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez vented that ‘[d]iscrimination is not a national security strategy, and prejudice is not patriotism.’

‘Let’s call this ban for what it is: an outright attack on the Muslim community that violates our nation’s commitment to liberty and justice for all.’

The state of Hawaii, arguing against the travel ban, had claimed it was motivated by religious discrimination.

Candidate Trump had at one point called for ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.’

But President Trump’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argued before the Supreme Court that if his travel ban had been conceived as a ban on Muslims, ‘it would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine.’

‘Not only does it exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders, including Iraq, Chad, and Sudan,’ Francisco said.

. . .


‘Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States. In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country.

‘This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.

‘As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens. Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch.’

. . .


Currently banned:

North Korea

Previously banned:


See (“‘A tremendous victory for the Constitution!’ Trump hails 5-4 Supreme Court ruling UPHOLDING his travel ban on majority-Muslim countries as justices say that he DOES have power to block entry for ‘national security'”) (emphasis added); see also (actual USSC decision in Trump v. Hawaii)

As indicated above:

Justice Anthony Kennedy . . . issued a separate two-page opinion . . . pointing a finger of caution at the White House.

‘There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects,’ Kennedy wrote.

How seemingly hypocritical of Justice Kennedy. His comments might have been directed at Barack Obama and other treasonous wrongdoers, including but not limited to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton; former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy AG Sally Yates; former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey; former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; former CIA Director John Brennan; former National Security Advisor Susan Rice; former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe; and Senior Advisor to Obama, Valerie Jarrett.

Each has participated in the “deep-state cover-up,” or the combined efforts of Barack Obama and others to destroy the candidacy and the presidency of Donald Trump. Such a wholesale attack against our Constitution, presidency, democracy and republic is every bit as evil as a physical attack against our great nation by an enemy, such as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

See, e.g., (“The Department Of Injustice’s Inspector General Is Complicit In The Deep-State Cover-Up!“) and (“Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court“) and (“With Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Gone, Abortion and LGBT Rights Are Next“) and (“Anthony Kennedy: Reagan’s Worst Mistake”—”[T]wo especially odious decisions stand out: The first was the June 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the latter being Pennsylvania’s governor, the late Bob Casey Sr., who represented something now near-extinct: a pro-life Democrat politician. Casey lost in a 6-3 vote that affirmed a constitutional right to abortion in all 50 states. . . . Tens of millions of unborn babies would continue to be legally aborted courtesy of that bucket of philosophical hogwash”—”[I]n Obergefell, rendered on June 26, 2015, Anthony Kennedy and four liberals took it upon themselves to legally redefine marriage from the bench and impose their judicial fiat upon all 50 states. In an unprecedented display of judicial conceit, Kennedy and comrades arrogated unto themselves the right to create their own definition of marriage — a right theretofore restricted to the laws of nature and nature’s God”) and (“Feds to begin distributing grant money to non-sanctuary cities“) and (“Ex-Clinton aide: 84 percent of Americans support turning undocumented immigrants over to authorities“)


5 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


See also (“Human Trafficking“) and (“Problems With Foreign Adoptions“) and (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns“) and (“Poverty In America“) and (“Who Is Next? The Murder Of A Young American And The Harvesting Of His Body Parts In Mexico“) (see also the comments beneath each of these articles)

American poverty


20 10 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Stop The Advancing Horde Of Invading Foreign Immigrants, Using Every Means Known To Mankind [UPDATED]

Advancing horde

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Our mainstream media remain consumed with the grisly killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and how President Donald Trump will deal with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Understandably so, for this is the most riveting murder story since O.J. Simpson and has strategic implications across the Middle East.

Yet far more critical to the future of our civilization is the ongoing invasion of the West from the Third World.

Consider the impact of the decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015 to throw open Germany’s doors to 1 million refugees from Syria’s civil war.

Last weekend, in a crushing blow to Merkel, the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of her CDU, won its smallest share of the vote in half a century, 37 percent. Her coalition party, the SPD, saw its share of the Bavarian vote fall to a historic low of less than 10 percent.

The right-wing Alternative for Deutchland saw its support rise to 10 percent and has become a force in German politics. Some conservatives are urging the CDU to adopt the AfD hardline on illegal immigration.

The message sent by the Bavarian electorate is the message voters across Europe have been sending to their own capitals for years: You are failing in your first duty — defense of the homeland from foreign invasion. Mass migration of unassimilable peoples and cultures from a global South represents an existential threat to our Europe.

As Merkel’s chancellorship approaches its end, French President Emmanuel Macron, her progressive EU partner, has seen his approval fall to below 30 percent.

The U.S.-led NATO alliance may guard the Baltic and Black Sea regions against a Russian invasion from the east. But in Central, Southern and Western Europe, the more feared invaders are the peoples of Africa and the Muslim world, whose numbers are expected to triple or quadruple by this century’s end.

And as their numbers grow, so, too, does their desperation to escape, even at risk of their lives, the poverty, wars and repression of their homelands to cross the Med and fill the empty spaces left by a depopulating Europe.

It also now appears that the U.S. elections, not three weeks away, may be affected by another immigration crisis on the U.S. border.

As of Thursday, a caravan of 4,000 refugees without visas had crossed from Honduras into Guatemala and was heading toward Mexico. By Election Day, it will either have been stopped, or it will be here. And this caravan is a portent of things to come.

According to The Washington Post, during FY 2018, which ended last month, 107,212 members of “family units” crossed over into the U.S., “obliterating the previous record of 77,857 set in 2016.”

Citing DHS figures, the Post adds, “Border patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September alone, the highest one-month total on record and an 80 percent increase from July.”

When Trump, under intense political fire, ended his “zero tolerance” policy of separating refugees from their children, this message went out to Mexico and Central America:

Bring your kids with you when you cross the border. They will have to stay with you, and they cannot be held for more than 20 days. Thus, when they are released, you will be released to await a hearing on your claim of asylum. The odds are excellent that you can vanish into the U.S. population and never be sent back.

Enraged, Trump has threatened to cut off aid to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala if they do not stop the caravans and has warned Mexico he will use the U.S. military to secure our border.

Unwanted mass migration is the issue of our time, as there is no foreseeable end to it before it alters America irremediably.

As these migrants are almost all poor, not highly skilled, and do not speak English, most will join that segment of our population that pays no income taxes but qualifies for social welfare benefits like food stamps, medical care and free education in our public schools.

They are thus a net drain upon the resources of a nation that is already, at full employment, running a deficit of $779 billion a year.

These migrants, however, are a present and future benefit to the Democratic Party that built and maintains our mammoth welfare state, and which, in presidential elections, routinely wins 70 to 90 percent of the votes of people whose trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Not without reason, Democrats believe that if they can change the composition of the American electorate, they can control America forever.

If Donald Trump was elected on any one issue, it was immigration and his promises to secure the border, build the wall and halt the invasion.

How he deals with the impending crisis of the migrant caravan may affect both the fate of his party in November and his presidency in 2020.

See (“Caravan Puts Trump Legacy on the Line“) (emphasis added); see also (“Should US-Saudi Alliance Be Saved?“) and (“Homeland Security warns of cartels’ role in migrant caravan”—”[A]bout 2,000 people have barged into Mexico and vow to press on to the U.S., defying the will of the Mexican and American governments”—”The ease of entering is a selling point for the cartels, who control the drug and human smuggling routes into the U.S. and require payment of a ‘mafia fee’ just to cross the U.S.-Mexico boundary line. Court records show that fee typically runs from $1,000 to $2,000. That doesn’t include thousands of dollars in other fees that cover foot guides, drivers, stash houses and the rest of the illegal journey”)

All U.S. aid to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala must be terminated if they do not stop the caravans. And Mexico must understand fully that its new trade agreement will be in jeopardy too unless the tidal wave of illegals is stopped before they reach the American border.

And yes, if necessary, President Trump must use the U.S. military to secure and enforce our border.

See, e.g., (“Military to Deploy 5,000 Troops to Southern Border“)


1 11 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


[President Donald Trump’s latest campaign ad, “DEMOCRATS LET HIM INTO OUR COUNTRY,” features illegal immigrant Luis Bracamontes who was convicted of killing police officers]

grabiennews has noted:

President Trump dropped a “closing” ad for the 2018 midterm elections Wednesday night, and it’s causing a firestorm in the media.

The ad features footage of Luis Bracamontes, a convicted cop killer and illegal immigrant. The ad says Bracamontes “Killed our people!”

The spot features footage of Bracamontes boasting of his killings and saying he’d like to kill more cops.

‘Democrats let him into our country,” the ad reads. “Democrats let him stay.”

The ad then shows footage from the migrant caravan heading north, and shows one man telling a Fox News reporter that he’s hoping President Trump will grant him a pardon for his role in a murder.

“Who else would Democrats let in?” the ad asks.

It closes with a title card reading: “President Donald J. Trump and Republicans Are Making America Safe Again.”

CNN’s Chris Cuomo said of the ad, “it makes the Willie Horton ad seem fair,” a reference to the George H. W. Bush ad depicting Michael Dukakis as “soft on crime” after a “weekend pass” program he supported allowed Willie Horton to commit rape while out on furlough.

Sen. Jeff Flake told CNN: “This is just a new low in campaigning. It’s sickening.”

CNN’s Don Lemon said the ad shows Trump “is willing to use lies and scare tactics to terrify his base.”

The ad, Lemon said, “is racist.”

Robert Reich said: “This may be the most desperate and vile ad since Willie Horton. Trump and Republicans don’t want to talk about the fact that they plan to repeal the ACA, gut Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid, and cut taxes even further for their donors, so they’ve resorted to fearmongering.”

Max Boot complained: “This ad is giving demagoguery a bad name. This is so blatant, so over the top, so hysterical. It is just a disgrace.”

Don Lemon said that “every American” should speak out against Trump’s ad.


The ad should be applauded because it tells the truth. Also, Americans should speak out uniformly against CNN’s resident racist Don Lemon, and seek his firing by the disgraced network.

See, e.g., (“CNN’s [Don] Lemon doubles down: ‘Evidence is overwhelming’ that white men are ‘biggest terror threat’”)

Next, both NBC and Facebook have pulled the Trump ad; and both should be boycotted—along with CNN, which has been boycotted for months if not years now.

See (“NBCUniversal Pulls Controversial Trump Campaign Ad“) (“Facebook Pulls Racist Trump Ad“); see also (“Mexico cracks down on illegal entry at southern border: ‘Get in line and you can enter our country'”)

Cop killer Luis Bracamontes


5 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Lawless 9th Circuit Court Strikes Down Federal Law Against Encouraging Illegal Immigration

Justice And The Law Do Not Mix

Sudhin Thanawala has written for the Washington Times and the Associated Press:

A U.S. appeals court struck down a federal immigration law Tuesday that opponents warned could be used to criminalize a wide range of statements involving illegal immigration.

The law made it a felony for someone to encourage an immigrant to enter or live in the U.S. if the person knew either act is illegal.

The law violates the First Amendment because it criminalizes a substantial amount of protected speech, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The statute, for example, would make it illegal for a grandmother to urge her grandson to ignore limits on his visa by encouraging him to stay in the U.S., Judge A. Wallace Tashima said.

In addition, a speech addressed to a crowd that encouraged everyone in the country illegally to stay here could also lead to a criminal prosecution, Tashima said.

“Criminalizing expression like this threatens almost anyone willing to weigh in on the debate,” he said.

A message to the Justice Department was not immediately returned.

Attorneys for the government have argued that the law only prohibited conduct and a very narrow band of speech that was not protected by the U.S. Constitution. They also noted it had not been used against “efforts to persuade, expressions of moral support, or abstract advocacy regarding immigration.”

The law preceded the Trump administration, which has taken a hard line on immigration.

The ruling came in the case of an immigration consultant in San Jose, Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, who was convicted of fraud after prosecutors said she falsely told immigrants they could obtain permanent residency under a program she knew had expired.

Sineneng-Smith was also convicted of encouraging or inducing an immigrant to remain in the country for financial gain. The 9th Circuit panel overturned those convictions on appeal and considered the constitutionality of the law.

See (emphasis added)

The Ninth Circuit is one of America’s most lawless courts; and this judge—who was appointed by Bill Clinton—should be removed from the bench. He is advocating and promoting lawlessness.


24 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Very Definition Of Insanity: NASA Puts Return To Moon In Crosshairs [UPDATED]

Border wall

S.A. Miller has written in The Washington Times:

NASA is buzzing with excitement these days about its ambitious new mission to return to the moon — this time to stay.

The agency set an aggressive timetable to have the Gateway space station orbiting the moon by 2024, then begin ferrying astronauts from the station to the lunar surface sometime after 2026.

And that is just the beginning.

Gateway also will serve as an outpost for deep space science and exploration, including a manned mission to Mars in the 2030s, according to NASA.

The timeline, which some scientists say is overly optimistic, isn’t fast enough for President Trump, who dreams of sending humans on the 33.9-million mile journey to the red planet during his administration.

“We want to try to do it during my first term or at worst during my second term. So we’ll have to speed that up a little bit, OK?” he quipped in a video call last year with NASA astronauts aboard the International Space Station.

The president likely will have to make do with getting astronauts aboard Gateway before the end of a potential second term.

Just hitting the 2024 goal will take major technical feats and a bunch of cash. So far, the Trump administration and Congress have kept the money flowing, with $19.5 billion in 2018 and $19.9 billion teed up for 2019.

NASA has spent years drafting plans for Gateway, officials known as Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway or LOP-G, but the space agency has not yet built any of it.

The design for the 55-ton orbiting station consists of several components: a power and propulsion unit, a habitat module to house astronauts, an airlock section where spacecraft will dock and a massive robotic arm.

The first section NASA wants to finish is the power and propulsion element, currently scheduled to deploy in 2022.

If everything goes according to plan, the next pieces — habitat and airlock modules — would quickly follow. They would be delivered by the agency’s new deep space rocket, the Space Launch System or SLS.

Heralded as the world’s most powerful rocket, SLS has been under development for a decade and is scheduled for its debut flight in 2020. The flight, code named EM-1, is supposed to send the empty Orion crew capsule on a three-week voyage around the moon.

David Akin, director of University of Maryland’s Space Systems Laboratory, said current funding levels should get a basic Gateway station up and running by 2024 or maybe 2026.

Putting space boots on the moon by 2026 is a much taller order.

“Given that there is currently no crew landing vehicle, no funding for early studies of a crew landing vehicle, no budget to develop a crew landing vehicle, and every likelihood that successive upgrades to SLS will eat NASA’s budget for the foreseeable future, I think it’s highly unlikely NASA will get humans to the lunar surface by 2026 without taking maximum advantage of disruptive technologies from SpaceX, Blue Origin and other commercial vendors,” said Mr. Akin.

Those types of partnerships are not off the table, said the aerospace engineering professor.

“In fairness, I think that’s what NASA would like to do [but] it’s very unlikely Congress will allow them to do it,” he said.

Mr. Trump has advocated for more NASA partnerships with private space exploration companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX, but it is unclear how those relationships will develop.

NASA announced in August the nine astronauts selected to fly to the International Space Station aboard commercial space capsules developed by Boeing and SpaceX. The space agency called it the beginning of “a new era in American spaceflight.”

The astronauts — seven men and two women — will be the first to launch from U.S. soil since the end of NASA’s space shuttle program in 2011.

Astronauts have not set foot on the moon since 1972.

Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the reconstituted White House Space Council, frequently affirms the administration’s commitment to returning to the moon and further space exploration, goals that became U.S. policy when the president signed Space Directive-1.

“Our administration has restored the moon as the focal point of our national space activities because we recognize its pivotal importance,” Mr. Pence said in a speech at Johnson Space Center in Houston. “Now, we’re on the cusp of a new golden age of exploration. I believe it with all my heart. And we’ve got the courageous astronauts that are ready to lead us there again.”

The work on SLS and Orion played a staring role in a recent NASA video that highlighted the space agency’s redoubled vigor for spaceflight and exploration.

The space missions are an enterprise — and an attitude — that proved hugely popular with the American public.

The video, narrated by vocational-education champion and former “Dirty Jobs” host Mike Rowe, racked up more than 3.7 million views since its debut in November.

“We thought it was important to show two things. The progress being made on returning to the Moon and the people who are making it happen,” said NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs. “Too often we get caught up in pretty animation of the future. SLS and Orion are happening now. And there are a lot of people working hard to make it happen.”

See (“NASA puts return to moon in crosshairs with ambitious timetable“) (emphasis added)

This is utter nonsense; and yes, insanity. Build the entire wall on our southern border, comparable to Israel’s wall, before one penny is spent on future space exploration!

Also, every single penny of the Democrats’ “sacred cows” (e.g., Planned Parenthood, Food Stamps, Tesla and all other electric car and “green” subsidies/tax benefits) must be zeroed out until the entire wall on our border with Mexico is finished and built up to at least the standards of the Israelis’ wall.

See (“Build The Wall, Mr. President!“) and (“Overwhelmed border officials beg for help amid surge of sick migrants“)

Next, Mexico must be boycotted and all benefits flowing to it under the new trade agreement must cease until (1) it reimburses the United States and the American people for the cost of the entire wall; (2) it shuts down the flow of immigrants to America’s southern border; and (3) shuts down the activities of the cartels and narcotraffickers and slave traders and those who traffic in the human body parts of Americans and others.

See (“Who Is Next? The Murder Of A Young American And The Harvesting Of His Body Parts In Mexico“) (see also the comments beneath this article) and (“Heartbreaking last photo shows cop, 33, smiling next to his family on Christmas Day just HOURS before he was ‘shot dead by an illegal immigrant’ during a traffic stop, as Trump calls for action and manhunt continues“)

Nothing less will suffice.


11 01 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Mass Migration From America’s South, Not Climate Change, Is The Real Crisis Of The West: Declare An Emergency And Build The Wall [UPDATED]

Border wall

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

In the long run, history will validate Donald Trump’s stand on a border wall to defend the sovereignty and security of the United States.

Why? Because mass migration from the global South, not climate change, is the real existential crisis of the West.

The American people know this, and even the elites sense it.

Think not? Well, check out the leading liberal newspapers Thursday.

The Washington Post and The New York Times each had two front-page stories about the president’s battle with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on funding the border wall.

Inside the first section, the Post had more stories, including one describing walls in history from China’s Great Wall to the Berlin Wall to the Israeli West Bank wall to the wall separating Hungary from Serbia.

Inside the Times was a story on a new anti-immigration party, Vox, surging in Andalusia in Spain, and a story about African migrants being welcomed in Malta after being denied entry into Europe.

Another Times story related how the new president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has pulled out of a U.N. pact on migration, declaring, “Brazil has a sovereign right to decide whether or not it accepts immigrants.”

Half the columns on the op-ed pages of the papers dealt with Trump, immigration and the wall. And there was nothing significant in either on the Democrats’ hot new issue, a Green New Deal.

Consider. In 1992, this writer’s presidential campaign had to fight to have inserted in the GOP platform a call for “structures” on the border.

Now, the whole Western world is worried about its borders as issues of immigration and identity convulse almost every country.

Looking ahead, does anyone think Americans in 2030 are going to be more concerned about the border between North Korea and South Korea, or Turkey and Syria, or Kuwait and Iraq, or Russia and Ukraine, than about the 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico?

Does anyone think Pelosi’s position that a wall is immoral will not be regarded as absurd?

America’s southern border is eventually going to be militarized and defended or the United States, as we have known it, is going to cease to exist. And Americans will not go gentle into that good night.

Whatever one may think of the face-off Tuesday with “Chuck and Nancy,” Trump’s portrait of an unsustainable border crisis is dead on: “In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings.”

The Democrats routine retort, that native-born Americans have a higher crime rate, will not suffice as new atrocities, like those Trump related, are reported and repeated before November 2020.

What should Trump do now? Act. He cannot lose this battle with Pelosi without demoralizing his people and imperiling his presidency.

Since FDR, we have had presidential government. And when U.S. presidents have been decisive activists, history has rewarded their actions.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. On taking office, FDR declared a bank holiday. When Britain was barely hanging on in World War II, he swapped 50 destroyers for British bases. He ordered U.S. ships to chase down German submarines and lied about it. Truman fired General MacArthur.

Reagan fired the striking air controllers and ordered the military to occupy Grenada to stop Marxist thugs who had taken over in a coup from taking 500 U.S. medical students hostage.

Critics raged: Reagan had no right to invade. But the American people rewarded Reagan with a 49-state landslide.

Trump should declare a national emergency, shift funds out of the Pentagon, build his wall, open the government and charge Democrats with finding excuses not to secure our border because they have a demographic and ideological interest in changing the face of the nation.

For the larger the share of the U.S. population that requires welfare, the greater the need for more social workers, and the more voters there will be to vote to further grow the liberal welfare state.

The more multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual America becomes — the less it looks like Ronald Reagan’s America — the more dependably Democratic it will become.

The Democratic Party is hostile to white men, because the smaller the share of the U.S. population that white men become, the sooner that Democrats inherit the national estate.

The only way to greater “diversity,” the golden calf of the Democratic Party, is to increase the number of women, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, and thereby reduce the number of white men.

The decisive issues on which Trump was elected were not the old Republican litany of tax cuts, conservative judges and increased defense spending.

They were securing the borders, extricating America from foolish wars, eliminating trade deficits with NAFTA nations, the EU and China, making allies pay their fair share of the common defense, resurrecting our manufacturing base, and getting along with Russia.

“America First!” is still a winning hand.

See (“Memo to Trump: Declare an Emergency“) (emphasis added); see also (“Former Obama Border Patrol Chief: Trump Is 100% Correct, the Wall Works“) and (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

As my article above states, migrants should come here legally, or not at all.

The Democrats are on the wrong side of history. And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.


24 01 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Break Ground, Not Promises

Border wall

This is the title of an article written by political pitbull and lawyer Ann Coulter, which states:

Several months into the Trump administration, I started running a daily “Border Wall Construction Update” on Twitter, announcing how many miles of the wall had been completed that day and how many miles since the inauguration. It was always the same numbers: 0 and 0, respectively.

I was immediately attacked by people in the Trump base. You’re being unfair, he hasn’t had enough time, there’s a legislative process, he’s doing the best he can.

As days turned to weeks and weeks turned to months and months turned to years, and not 1 inch of the wall was built, the “3-D chess” crowd dwindled.

Sometimes Trump would concede he hadn’t built any part of the wall.

Sometimes he would fib and claim it was being built. There’s no way to sugarcoat it: That was a lie.

Drug dealers, drunk drivers, criminals, welfare dependents and low-wage workers driving down American wages continued to flow across our border.

We are now past the midway point of Trump’s first term, maybe his only term. If Trump couldn’t come up with a legislative fix when he controlled both houses of Congress, he’s sure not going to now that he’s lost the House.

We are headed for another failed Republican presidency.

President George H.W. Bush promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes” — then raised taxes.

President George W. Bush promised that America would not be “the world’s policeman” — then turned the United States into the world’s policeman.

Whether these promises weren’t kept out of bad faith, incompetence or changed minds is of no consequence. That will be a minor footnote for future historians to debate. All that matters is that it didn’t happen. That’s why Trump got elected.

But he still hasn’t started the wall.

By now, my erstwhile critics are getting the point. But I’m not sure the president is — a few weeks ago, he unfollowed me on Twitter.

Trump seems to be mystified about what he needs to do to maintain the support of his most devoted backers. He’s saying the right things, isn’t he? He’s holding press conferences, giving Oval Office addresses and tweeting that he wants a wall.

Here’s what you haven’t done, Mr. President: You haven’t broken ground. You want your supporters back? BREAK GROUND TODAY.

You know those caravans marching north toward our border? They’re not giving speeches about how they’re coming north. They’re not tweeting about how they’re coming north. They’re not giving Oval Office addresses about how they’re coming north.

They’re coming north.

What you need to do today — not after the State of the Union address, not after the next GOP retreat, not after another meeting with the Democrats — is to start rolling construction trucks to the southern border.

When Obama wanted something done, he did it. After spending two years saying he didn’t have constitutional authority to amnesty Dreamers, he issued an executive order amnestying Dreamers.

Obama has a legacy — a terrible legacy, but a legacy nonetheless. We’re still living with that executive order today.

By contrast, Mr. President, you do have constitutional authority to defend the nation’s borders, as you have noted repeatedly. But you’ve chickened out. The only edifice you have built is constructed of tweets, press conferences and speeches.

Ironically, Obama was a man of action. The New York real estate tycoon is just a man of words.

Words don’t stop caravans. No one rushes to a caravan saying — WAIT! STOP! TRUMP IS ABOUT TO TWEET!

Are you sure you want to make a dangerous 700-mile journey through cartel-infested lands when you know that as soon as you get to the U.S. border, there could be a Donald Trump tweet awaiting you?

Obama assumed dictatorial powers, bypassing Congress to issue laws from the Oval Office. You would just be doing your job, Mr. President. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

The most fundamental responsibility of the U.S. president is to protect the nation’s sovereignty. It is not to ensure the safety of the Kurds or the Syrian Christians or Pakistani goat herders, but to ensure the safety and security of the American people. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

The Senate’s latest omnibus spending bill provides “not less than $15,000,000” for border security — in Pakistan. The border security of our own country has become a joke. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Yesterday people crossed our border who will kill Americans. Today there are people crossing our border who will kill Americans. And tomorrow there will be more people crossing our border who will kill Americans. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

It’s great that you met with the Clemson football team, but while you were doing that, people were crossing the border who will kill Americans. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Countless presidents and presidential candidates have vowed to stop illegal immigration. Good intentions, bad intentions — it doesn’t matter. They didn’t keep their promises. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Fifty years from now, an American family will pile into the car to see the country and, while motoring by the Texas border, will slam on the brakes. Oh look, honey, here’s a historic site! They’ll blow the dust off a small plaque on a garden trellis that will read: “On this site, President Donald Trump built the impregnable southern border wall.”

Stanley, you have to step to the left — you’re blocking the whole thing!

There will be plenty of room in the Trump Presidential Library for the entire border wall, because the library will contain only two books, “The Art of the Deal,” and Trump’s follow-up book, “Never Mind.” BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Emergency powers or no emergency powers, on tomorrow night’s news we want to see helicopters circling the trucks headed to the border. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

They have a caravan; you have a caravan. They’re heading north; you head south. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Cost: People who don’t like you will continue not to like you. Benefit: Your legacy will be — He kept Americans alive who would otherwise be dead. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

We’ve heard your speeches. We know you understand the crisis, and you know what needs to be done. But none of that will mean anything if you don’t take action — not in a month, not in a week, but today. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

See (emphasis added)

Sadly, and yes tragically, Ann is correct.


8 03 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

America’s Destruction Is At Its Doorstep {UPDATED]

America's destruction

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

In its lead editorial Wednesday, The New York Times called upon Congress to amend the National Emergency Act to “erect a wall against any President, not just Mr. Trump, who insists on creating emergencies where none exist.”

Trump “took advantage” of a “loophole” in the NEA, said The Times, to declare “a crisis at the border, contrary to all evidence.”

The Times news desk, however, apparently failed to alert the editorial page on what the top story would be that day.

“Record Numbers Crossing to U.S., Deluging Agents” was the page-one headline. The Times quoted Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection: “The system is well beyond capacity, and remains at the breaking point. … This is … a border security and a humanitarian crisis.”

Reporter Caitlin Dickerson explained what is behind CPB’s alarm: “The number of migrant families crossing the Southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago.”

She continued, “More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February, an 11-year high … newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day.”

Only if one believes in open borders is this not an emergency, not a crisis. Consider the budgetary impact alone of this invasion.

The majority of migrants breaching the border are from Mexico and Central and South America. Most do not read, write or speak our English language, are not college graduates and arrive with few skills.

Almost all will enter the half of the U.S. population that consumes more in social benefits during their lifetime than they will ever pay in taxes.

With the U.S. debt over 100 percent of gross domestic product and the deficit running at nearly 5 percent of GDP, at full employment, the burden the migrant millions are imposing upon our social welfare state will one day collapse the system. For these folks are coming to a country where education K-12 is free and where, if the Democrats take over, pre-K through college will be free.

These folks will be eligible for city, county, state and federal programs that provide free or subsidized food, rent, housing and health care.

All were enacted for the benefit of U.S. citizens. Uninvited, the Third World is coming to partake of and enjoy them.

With 328 million people here now, approaching twice the number as in 1960, how many more can we take in before government sinks under the weight of its beneficiaries?

And there is a larger issue.

If, as appears probable, President Trump is not going to be able to build his wall and all the security measures taken in this century have proved inadequate to stanch the invasion of America, how does the invasion end?

Or is this the endless invasion, where the future is decided on our 1,900-mile border with Mexico and we, as the last superpower, are a pitiful, helpless giant too morally paralyzed to stop it?

The resolution and determination of Third World peoples to come to America, even if they have to break our laws to get in and stay, is proven.

And if there is no matching national will to halt the invasion, and no truly effective means that would be acceptable to our elites, the migrants are never going to stop coming. And why should they?

Politically, this invasion means the inevitable death of the national Republican Party, as peoples of color, who vote 70-90 percent Democratic in presidential elections, become the new majority of 21st-century America.

The bell will toll for the Grand Old Party when Texas votes like California in some presidential election. That is game, set, match.

What is remarkable is how our cultural elites are giddily embracing what most of the advanced world is recoiling from.

The Times that berates Trump for trying to secure the border with his wall constantly bewails the rise of ethnic nationalism, populism, tribalism and “illiberal democracies” in Europe. But the rising “isms” of the new Europe are driven by popular fear and loathing of the very future The Times cannot wait to embrace.

Japan’s population of 127 million, the second oldest on Earth, has begun to shrink. But there seems to be no desire in Japan to import millions of East or South Asians or Africans to replace the vanishing Japanese.

Does China look upon its diversity as its greatest strength?

Hardly. Beijing is repopulating Tibet with Han Chinese, and has set up “re-education camps” to de-program Uighur Muslims and Kazakhs in the west so they sever their birth attachments to their ethnicity and faith and convert into good communists.

In the U.S., the ball is now in Trump’s court.

If he cannot get a Democratic House to fund his wall and the forces now on the border are being overwhelmed by the migrants, as CPB reports, how does he propose to halt the invasion?

And if he does not stop it, who will? And what does failure mean for America’s future as one nation and one people?

See (“Can Trump Stop the Invasion?“) (emphasis added)

Why not open America’s borders to everyone, and let the world vote in our elections?

See, e.g., (“[Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives] votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting”)

Why not allow the United States to be overrun and destroyed like the Roman Empire was—with decades if not centuries of the “Goths” destroying everything that Americans hold dear, and raping women, and defiling everything else?

The Goths were a nomadic Germanic people who fought against Roman rule, helping to bring about the downfall of the Roman Empire, which had controlled much of Europe for centuries.

See, e.g., (“Goths“)

Why worry about a nation-ending EMP Attack, or China or Russia or any of our external enemies around the world, when our destruction is poised today at our southern border? The “Goths” are here for us now.

See, e.g., (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

To the contrary, America’s radical Left and its soulmates—the Democrats and the FAKE NEWS of the Left’s media—must be destroyed.

And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

See also (“Are We Moving Ever Closer To America’s Second Civil War?“)


19 03 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Finally, The Supreme Court Acts Against Illegal Immigrants [UPDATED]

Justice and the law do not mix

Stephen Dinan has written for The Washington Times:

Illegal immigrants with serious criminal records can be held without bail while awaiting deportation even if ICE didn’t immediately pick them up when they were released from prison or jail, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The 5-4 decision marked another rejection for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal panel that covers the country’s West Coast, and that has tested a number of legal theories on immigration law.

In this case, the 9th Circuit had ruled that under the law, if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement immediately arrested someone released from a federal, state or local prison, they could be held without bond in the immigration detention system. But if ICE didn’t immediately arrest them, the migrants must be given a chance to make bond.

The case turned on a phrase in the law that says the no-bail determination applies to someone picked up by ICE “when the alien is released” from prison or jail.

The lower court ruled “when” must mean the day of release.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing the majority opinion, said that could create a new loophole for sanctuary cities, which often refuse to alert ICE officers when releasing people from their local prisons and jails.

“Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that Congress made the secretary’s mandatory-detention authority vanish at the stroke of midnight after an alien’s release,” he wrote.

He said it made more sense that “when” means at some point after the release, not at the exact moment of it.

While many illegal immigrants are released while they await their immigration court proceedings and possible deportation, Congress has deemed some serious criminals to be such safety risks that they must be held by ICE while their cases proceed.

Those are the ones affected by Tuesday’s ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had represented the migrants challenging their detention, criticized the court’s decision.

“For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge,” said Cecillia Wang, the ACLU’s deputy director.

The court’s four Democratic-appointed justices dissented from Tuesday’s decision, saying if Congress had intended to require all serious criminal migrants to be denied bail, regardless of when they were arrested, it would have said that.

The case was limited to the reading of the law and what Congress intended, and did not broach bigger questions about the constitutionality of no-bail proceedings. Justice Alito said “as-applied” challenges to how the administration carries out the law can still be brought.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. They said the lower courts shouldn’t have even gotten involved in the case because Congress has specifically precluded jurisdiction over these kinds of detention decisions.

But since the court was involved, they said they generally agreed with Justice Alito’s conclusions.

See (“Supreme Court upholds ICE detention without bail for serious criminals“) (emphasis added); see also (“Why aren’t we deporting illegal aliens who already have deportation orders?“)

The 9th Circuit is a disgrace, which has been true for years.

Also, all illegal migrants must be deported, and denied bail.

Lastly, it is time for the senile Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire from the Court, and for President Trump to appoint her replacement.

See also (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“)


20 03 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Diversity A Root Cause Of Dual Loyalty?

America's destruction?

This is the title of an article by Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—who has written:

“We can’t be divided by race, religion, by tribe. We’re defined by those enduring principles in the Constitution, even though we don’t necessarily all know them.”

So Joe Biden told the firefighters union this week.

But does Joe really believe that? Or does that not sound more like a plea, a wistful hope, rather than a deep conviction?

For Biden surely had in mind the debate that exploded last week in the House Democratic caucus on how to punish Somali-American and Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for raising the specter of dual loyalty.

Rebutting accusations of anti-Semitism lodged against her, Omar had fired back: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

Omar was talking about Israel.

Republicans raged that Nancy Pelosi’s caucus must denounce Omar for anti-Semitism. Journalists described the raising of the “dual loyalty” charge as a unique and awful moment, and perhaps a harbinger of things to come.

Yet, allegations of dual loyalty against ethnic groups, even from statesmen, have a long history in American politics.

In 1915, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt, at a convention of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, bellowed: “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism . . . German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans.

“There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is a man who is an American and nothing else.”

The New York Times headline the next morning:

“Roosevelt Bars the Hyphenated.”

It continued: “No Room in This Country for Dual Nationality, He Tells Knights of Columbus. Treason to Vote as Such.”

What would Roosevelt think of the dual citizenship of many Americans today? If someone is a citizen of more than one country, how do we know where his primary allegiance lies?

Does not dual citizenship, de facto, imply dual loyalty?

Nor was the Rough Rider alone in his alarm. As America edged toward intervention in the European war, President Woodrow Wilson, too, tore into “the hyphenates”:

“The passions and intrigues of certain active groups and combinations of men amongst us who were born under foreign flags injected the poison of disloyalty into our most critical affairs. . . .

“I am the candidate of a party, but I am above all things else, an American citizen. I neither seek the favor nor fear the displeasure of that small alien element amongst us which puts loyalty to any foreign power before loyalty to the United States.”

In another address, Wilson declared:

“There is disloyalty active in the United States, and it must be absolutely crushed. It proceeds from . . . a very small minority, but a very active and subtle minority. It works underground but it shows its ugly head where we can see it, and there are those at this moment who are trying to levy a species of political blackmail, saying: ‘Do what we wish in the interest of foreign sentiment or we will wreak our vengeance at the polls.’”

What did Ilhan Omar say to compare with that?

Roosevelt and Wilson had in mind some German and Irish citizens whose affection for the lands and peoples whence they came made them adversaries of Wilson’s war, into which we would soon be dragged by a WASP elite with deep ties to Great Britain.

Our Founding Fathers, too, were ever alert to the dangers of dual loyalty. In his Farewell Address, President Washington warned against a “passionate attachment” to any foreign nation that might create the illusion of some “common interest . . . where no common interest exists.”

Did FDR fear dual loyalty? His internment of 110,000 Japanese, mostly U.S. citizens, for the duration of World War II, suggests that he did.

Did not the prosecution of American Communists under the Smith Act, begun by Truman and continued by Eisenhower, suggest that these first postwar presidents saw peril in a secret party that gave allegiance to a hostile foreign power?

Where Wilson, TR and FDR distrusted ethnic and racial minorities, Truman went after the ideological enemies within — the Communists.

What defines us, said Joe Biden, are the “enduring principles in the Constitution, even though we don’t necessarily all know them.”

But if these principles, of which many Americans are not even aware, says Joe, are what define us and hold us together, then what is it that is tearing us apart?

Is it not our differences? Is it not our diversity?

Is it not the powerful and conflicting claims of a multiplicity of races, religions, tribes, ethnicities, and nationalities, as well as clashing ideologies, irreconcilable moral codes, a culture war, and conflicting visions of America’s past — the one side seeing it as horrible and hateful, the other as great and good?

“Diversity is our greatest strength!” we are ever admonished.

But where is the evidence for what appears to be not only an inherently implausible claim but a transparently foolish and false one?

See (emphasis added)

Buchanan added:

According to Forbes, of the 18,814 deaths caused by terrorists around the world in 2017, well over half were due to the actions of four groups: Islamic State, the Taliban, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

All are Sunni Muslim; none are alt-right.

. . .

All peoples to some degree resent and resist the movement of outsiders into their space. Some migrants are more difficult than others to assimilate into Western societies. European nations that had not known mass migrations for centuries were especially susceptible to a virulent reaction, a backlash.

Americans, after all, reacted viscerally to the Irish migration of 1845-1849, and, again, to the Great Migration from Central and Eastern Europe from 1890 to 1920. Inter-ethnic violence was not uncommon.

Our leaders in the 1920s understood this and took steps to halt the migrations until those who had come could be assimilated, and, in a word, Americanized. It worked. By 1960, we were a united people.

Then, without the people’s consent, the great experiment began:

America’s doors were thrown open to peoples of every religion, race, culture and creed, to create a different nation that mirrored all mankind in its diversity, in Ben Wattenberg’s phrase, a universal nation.

The problem: A universal nation is a contradiction in terms. A nation of all races, religions and tribes had never before existed.

The liberal democracies that embraced this ideology, this idea, are at war with human nature, and are losing this war to tribalism and authoritarianism.

See (“Who Spawned the Christchurch Killer?“)

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of dual loyalty in recent years involves “Israel Firsters” and “neo-cons” who propelled the United States into the Iraq War, and have sought to promote a war with Iran to serve Israel’s interests.

See, e.g., (“Anti-Semitism Is Rife In America And Worldwide“)

Dual loyalties have existed throughout America’s history, inter alia, because it is a nation of immigrants who arrived here from other countries.

See, e.g., (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life“)


20 03 2019

Every American is an immigrant, or his or her ancestors were immigrants. America is the world’s only true melting pot, with people here from every other country on the face of the earth. Indeed, that is one of its strengths. All immigrants should be subject to the same rules, or no one should be required to obey our immigration laws.

Differences among a population work as long as the existing population doesn’t feel threatened. When we live in a neighborhood and practically overnight the signage on stores is in a language we don’t know, people are dressed and conduct themselves in a manner we’re unfamiliar with, then, people feel threatened; like the life they knew is slipping through their fingers. Used to be people came to America and embraced liberty, shedding many of their old affections attached to the old country/culture. Now, they cling to them, hold them up with pride and teach them to their children. Separate. Different. Unintegrated by choice. People don’t come here now for liberty. They come for economic opportunity.


20 03 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Susan, for your thoughtful comments as always.

I grew up in Los Angeles, and understand its multi-faceted “cultures” fairly well.

What astounds me the most these days is how rapidly legal immigrants from Mexico assimilate. Growing up in Southern California, I came to love Mexican food; I was very aware of the Spanish/Mexican heritage of the region (e.g., the California Missions are exquisite; title to properties relate back to the Spanish land grants and rancheros); and I saw how hard the Mexicans worked, at multiple jobs (nights, days and weekends) to make ends meet.

Now, within about one generation, many if not most have lost their Spanish language, and are only speaking English. Having taken the beautiful Spanish language in college (and Latin in high school), I am saddened at the loss of their language.

But assimilation seems to be the norm in America, for most groups; and it is the “American way.” My heritage is German, British, Irish and Scots. My first British ancestor arrived from Bristol in 1760; my German ancestors (a husband and wife who had 16 kids) arrived from Rottweil near Stuttgart in 1849; and my Irish and Scot ancestors arrived in 1850, before Ellis Island existed as a landing destination.

My non-English-speaking male ancestor from Germany served with the Union Army in 1860, a mere 11 years after arriving; and I do not know when anyone in our family spoke German last.


13 04 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Flood The Democrats’ Sanctuaries With Illegal Immigrants? [UPDATED]

Map of sanctuary cities and counties

Starting with the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard—and the Hamptons—and moving on to each of the Democrats’ enclaves, electoral strongholds or so-called “sanctuaries,” why not dump illegal immigrants at each of them until all services are overwhelmed and crime becomes rampant and unbearable, and these “sanctuaries” collapse and become unlivable and uninhabitable?

And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

See, e.g., (“Sanctuary city“)

Richard Cowan has reported for Reuters:

President Donald Trump said on Friday he was considering sending illegal immigrants in the country to so-called sanctuary cities, prompting U.S. mayors to accept such an offer as the battle over border security raged.

Frustrated by rising numbers of undocumented immigrants arriving at the southern border and a failure to get Congress to fully fund a U.S.-Mexico border wall, Trump taunted Democrats by dangling the possibility of an influx of illegal immigrants into their communities.

“Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney responded in a statement: “While the Trump administration’s proposal shows their disdain to basic human dignity, the City (Philadelphia) would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades.”

In February, a federal appeals court said the Trump administration could not terminate federal grants to Philadelphia for its refusal to cooperate with immigration agents seeking to deport immigrants.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said in a statement “We would welcome these migrants with open arms, just as we welcomed Syrian refugees, just as we welcomed Puerto Ricans displaced by Hurricane Maria and just as we welcome Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar.”

Sanctuary cities are local jurisdictions that generally give undocumented immigrants safe harbor by refusing to use their resources to help enforce federal immigration laws that could lead to deportations.

Those localities argue that it is not their responsibility to get involved in federal enforcement and that doing so could hinder policing efforts within communities.

The Washington Post first reported on Thursday that the White House has been considering a plan for transporting immigrants in detention and releasing them into sanctuary cities that are Democratic strongholds.

The newspaper reported there was resistance from some high-level Department of Homeland Security officials concerned about several aspects of such a plan, including the potential costs.

Nevertheless, Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, said of sanctuary cities, “We can give them an unlimited supply” of immigrants.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said these would be “illegal aliens that are already set for release,” which likely would include families with children.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is another sanctuary city.

In remarks to reporters on Friday, Pelosi, a Democrat, said she was not aware of the newspaper report. But she added, “it’s just another notion that is unworthy of the presidency of the United States and disrespectful of the challenges that we face, as a country, as a people, to address who we are, a nation of immigrants.”

Pelosi was in Leesburg, Virginia, where House Democrats were wrapping up a three-day retreat.

One immigration expert, who asked not to be identified, noted that undocumented immigrants in federal custody could be at one of several stages of the adjudication process and that Trump likely has the power to have them sent to different jurisdictions from where they are being held.

But the source added, “This is a stunt. It doesn’t enhance the efficiency of the process.”

Trump’s challenge to Democrats came one day after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican like Trump, told reporters that he wanted to launch bipartisan negotiations to seek solutions to the nation’s immigration woes.

In March alone, 103,492 undocumented immigrants have been taken into custody along the southern border or turned away. Many of them are from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and are seeking asylum in the United States away from high levels of violent crime and illegal drugs at home.

See (“Trump weighs sending ‘unlimited supply’ of immigrants to sanctuary cities“) (emphasis added); see also (“Trump says illegal immigrants will be bussed to sanctuary cities“)

As fanciful as such a “flooding” (or dumping) proposal might seem, I wrote in the article above—which remains true to this day:

All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

That may seem harsh to some people, but no other solution is fair and just.

Shut down our border with Mexico completely—and all trade between the two countries, if necessary—to stop the entry of illegal immigrants once and for all.


19 04 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

The Ninth Circuit Court Is A Total Disgrace And Lawless

Justice and the law do not mix

Richard Gonzalez has written for NPR—which must not receive any more federal funding:

A federal appeals panel has upheld California’s controversial “sanctuary state” law, ruling that the measure does not impede the enforcement of federal immigration laws in that state.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, found that the state law, known as SB 54, limiting cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities does not conflict with federal law.

The judges said they “have no doubt that SB 54 makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult.” But “California has the right … to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”

The decision upholds a lower court ruling issued in July 2018.

The Trump administration had sued California in March 2018, arguing the Constitution gives the federal government sweeping authority over immigration matters. The administration also had challenged two other state laws. One, AB 450, requires employers to alert employees before federal immigration inspections. The other, AB 103, gives the California attorney general the authority to inspect immigration detention facilities.

The appeals panel upheld both of those laws, although it blocked a subsection of the inspection law that gave state authorities jurisdiction to examine the circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of immigrant detainees.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra praised the ruling.

“We continue to prove in California that the rule of law not only stands for something but that people cannot act outside of it,” Becerra said in a statement.

“The people this law protects the most are the criminal aliens,” ICE said in an emailed statement. “To be clear, ICE neither expects nor wants, local law enforcement agencies to participate in immigration enforcement in the community; but as law enforcement officers, we do expect our partners to participate in protecting public safety.”

See (“Federal Appeals Panel Upholds California ‘Sanctuary State’ Law“) (emphasis added); see also (“Defund The Left’s PBS And NPR“)


2 07 2019

This is sad. We are in desperate need for the wall. Trump 2020.


2 07 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Yes, I agree completely, Sarah: in desperate need.

And yes too, Trump 2020. MAGA.


30 06 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

The World Cries . . .

[Oscar Martinez and his daughter Angie]

There are few people in this world who would not be touched—with many being moved to tears—by this photo of Oscar Martinez and his daughter Angie who drowned in the Rio Grande River, trying to reach a better life in the United States. Their story is being repeated the world over, as refugees from the Middle East and elsewhere flee to Europe, America and other lands.

See (“Widow of migrant who drowned crossing the Rio Grande River along with their daughter returns home“)

While it may seem harsh, as stated in my article above and in the comments beneath it:

All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

Either our immigration laws matter, or they do not. If they matter, and presumably they do, they must be applied equally, to everyone.

Also, Mexico is a savage state today, run at least in part by the brutal cartels, which vie for power and kill without mercy.

See, e.g., (“Who Is Next? The Murder Of A Young American And The Harvesting Of His Body Parts In Mexico“)

Lastly, do I care about the plight of migrants who are fleeing from oppression and violence? Of course I do, whether they be from Mexico or elsewhere in the Americas, or those from Syria and other war-ravaged areas of the Middle East.

Often, they are victimized by the “Coyotes” in the case of sexual and other predators who prey on them in Mexico, or those who do the same in the Middle East as people try to make their way to safety in Europe. And of course I care about those in Africa and elsewhere who have been kidnapped or otherwise brutalized by ruthless leaders and marauding gangs.

Among many others, it seems that I will never forget little Aylan And Galip Kurdi, just as I may never forget Oscar Martinez and his daughter Angie too.

See (“Aylan And Galip Kurdi Will Be Remembered“)

Aylan Kurdi
[Photograph taken by Nilufer Demir of Turkish police Sgt Mehmet Ciplak carrying the lifeless body of Aylan Kurdi on a beach near the Turkish resort of Bodrum]

. . .

Andrew Sullivan has written for the New York Magazine:

There is now a photograph [of Oscar Martinez and his daughter Angie] that sums up everything wrong about America’s broken and overwhelmed immigration system. You’ve seen it, and it is hard to let it leave the mind or the conscience. Together with the accounts of horrifying abuse of children in detention — and “abuse” is not hyperbole — we can see the crisis as it is. We can no longer look away.

The starkness of the crisis is a good thing, though. Until now, many have denied that any crisis existed at all. They have, in fact, denied that the highest levels of mass immigration since the Bush years are an issue at all. As Byron York has noted, Speaker Pelosi called the arrival of close to a million asylum seekers “a fake crisis”; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that hundreds of thousands of men, women, and many children, overwhelming any attempt to process them with the current resources, was “a crisis that does not exist.” This included many Never-Trumpers, like Bill Kristol (“a fake crisis”), and Max Boot (“a faux crisis”). The editors of the Washington Post denied the facts reported by their own Nick Miroff, claiming it was “a make-believe crisis.”

None of these people will admit they were gravely mistaken, or that their denial and delay in acting clearly exacerbated the situation. But now that we’re on the same page, the question is: Where do we go with this now?

Yesterday was a sign of real bipartisan progress. The House passed a Senate bill to spend $4.6 billion to relieve the humanitarian crisis and tackle some of the structural inadequacies of the current failed system. The left wing of the Democratic caucus wanted to insist on various restrictions on the use of the $4.6 billion, primarily to ensure that none of it is earmarked (God forbid) for enforcement of the law. The problem with waging a longer fight would be that Congress would break for its July 4 recess having done nothing to help. Pelosi put children before politics, and it’s hard not to admire her humane pragmatism.

So it’s a start. What’s next? The good news is that the Democrats are finally beginning to announce policy plans that offer some solid ideas. A new bill for an overhaul of the entire system called the Northern Triangle and Border Stabilization Act has been introduced in the House. It proposes increased U.S. aid to Central American countries, to tackle the problem at its roots; a big investment in border facilities to ensure far more humane treatment of asylum seekers; a much stricter monitoring system to keep track of them after processing to make sure they turn up for their court hearings; many more immigration judges to reduce the massive backlog of cases; and it allows for asylum claims to be made in home countries, rather than at the border.

These are all good ideas and certainly worth trying. But what they don’t address is the larger problem of how to reduce levels of mass immigration. The Democrats want to raise the cap on refugees from Central America to 100,000 a year and propose no tightening of asylum law. But it’s the asylum law that needs to change. Since 2014, there has been a 240 percent increase in asylum cases. As Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, the number of asylum cases from Honduras, Guatemala, and Venezuela has soared at the same time as the crime rate in those countries was being cut in half.

Take the tragic tale of Oscar Ramirez and his young daughter Valeria [or Angie], the father and daughter captured in death in that heartbreaking photograph. Ramirez’s widow explained to the Washington Post why her husband wanted to move to America: He wanted “a better future for their girl.” This is an admirable goal, but it is classic economic immigration, and it would appear, based on what we know, that it has absolutely nothing to do with asylum. Here again is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services definition: “Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”

But somehow the courts have decided that you qualify for asylum if there is simply widespread crime or violence where you live, and Ramirez was also going to use that argument as well. A government need not persecute you; you just have to experience an unsafe environment that your government is failing to suppress. This so expands the idea of asylum, in my view, as to render it meaningless.

Courts have also expanded asylum to include domestic violence, determining that women in abusive relationships are a “particular social group” and thereby qualify. In other words, every woman on the planet who has experienced domestic abuse can now come to America and claim asylum. Also everyone on the planet who doesn’t live in a stable, orderly, low-crime society. Literally billions of human beings now have the right to asylum in America. As climate change worsens, more will rush to claim it. All they have to do is show up.

Last month alone, 144,000 people were detained at the border making an asylum claim. This year, about a million Central Americans will have relocated to the U.S. on those grounds. To add to this, a big majority of the candidates in the Democratic debates also want to remove the grounds for detention at all, by repealing the 1929 law that made illegal entry a criminal offense and turning it into a civil one. And almost all of them said that if illegal immigrants do not commit a crime once they’re in the U.S., they should be allowed to become citizens.

How, I ask, is that not practically open borders? The answer I usually get is that all these millions will have to, at some point, go to court hearings and have their asylum cases adjudicated. The trouble with that argument is that only 44 percent actually turn up for their hearings; and those who do show up and whose claims nonetheless fail can simply walk out of the court and know they probably won’t be deported in the foreseeable future.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement forcibly removed 256,086 people in 2018, 57 percent of whom had committed crimes since they arrived in the U.S. So that’s an annual removal rate of 2 percent of the total undocumented population of around 12 million. That means that for 98 percent of undocumented aliens, in any given year, no consequences will follow for crossing the border without papers. At the debates this week, many Democratic candidates argued that the 43 percent of deportees who had no criminal record in America should not have been expelled at all and been put instead on a path to citizenship. So that would reduce the annual removal rate of illegal immigrants to a little more than 1 percent per year. In terms of enforcement of the immigration laws, this is a joke. It renders the distinction between a citizen and a noncitizen close to meaningless.

None of this reality was allowed to intervene in the Democratic debates this week. At one point, one moderator tellingly spoke about Obama’s record of deporting ” 3 million Americans.” In that bubble, there were no negatives to mass immigration at all, and no concern for existing American citizens’ interests in not having their wages suppressed through this competition. There was no concession that child separation and “metering” at the border to slow the crush were both innovated by Obama, trying to manage an overwhelmed system. Candidates vied with each other to speak in Spanish. Every single one proposed amnesty for all those currently undocumented in the U.S., except for criminals. Every single one opposes a wall. There was unanimous support for providing undocumented immigrants immediately with free health care. There was no admission that Congress needed to tighten asylum law. There was no concern that the Flores decision had massively incentivized bringing children to game the system, leaving so many vulnerable to untold horrors on a journey no child should ever be forced to make.

What emerged was their core message to the world: Get here without papers and you’ll receive humane treatment while you’re processed, you’ll never be detained, you’ll get work permits immediately, and you’ll have access to publicly funded health care and a path to citizenship if you don’t commit a crime. This amounts to an open invitation to anyone on the planet to just show up and cross the border. The worst that can happen is you get denied asylum by a judge, in which case you can just disappear and there’s a 1 percent chance that you’ll be caught in a given year. Who wouldn’t take those odds?

This is in a new century when the U.S. is trying to absorb the largest wave of new immigrants in our entire history, and when the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is also near a historic peak. It is also a time when mass immigration from the developing world has destabilized liberal democracies across the West, is bringing illiberal, anti-immigration regimes to power across Europe, and was the single biggest reason why Donald Trump is president.

I’m told that, as a legal immigrant, I’m shutting the door behind me now that I’ve finally made it to citizenship. I’m not. I favor solid continuing legal immigration, but also a reduction in numbers and a new focus on skills in an economy where unskilled labor is increasingly a path to nowhere. It is not strange that legal immigrants — who have often spent years and thousands of dollars to play by the rules — might be opposed to others’ jumping the line. It is not strange that a hefty proportion of Latino legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration — they are often the most directly affected by new, illegal competition, which drives down their wages.

I’m told that I’m a white supremacist for believing in borders, nation-states, and a reduction in legal immigration to slow the pace of this country’s demographic revolution. But I support this because I want a more successful integration and Americanization of immigrants, a better future for skilled immigrants, and I want to weaken the populist and indeed racist movements that have taken the West by storm in the past few years. It’s because I loathe white supremacy that I favor moderation in this area.

When I’m told only white racists favor restrictionism, I note how the Mexican people are more opposed to illegal immigration than Americans: In a new poll, 61.5 percent of Mexicans oppose the entry of undocumented migrants, period; 44 percent believe that Mexico should remove any undocumented alien immediately. Are Mexicans now white supremacists too? That hostility to illegal immigration may even explain why Trump’s threat to put tariffs on Mexico if it didn’t crack down may well have worked. Since Trump’s bluster, the numbers have measurably declined — and the crackdown is popular in Mexico. I can also note that most countries outside Western Europe have strict immigration control and feel no need to apologize for it. Are the Japanese and Chinese “white supremacists”? Please. Do they want to sustain their own culture and national identity? Sure. Is that now the equivalent of the KKK?

The Democrats’ good ideas need to be put in contact with this bigger question if they are to win wider support. In the U.S. in the 21st century, should anyone who enters without papers and doesn’t commit a crime be given a path to citizenship? Should all adversely affected by climate change be offered a path to citizenship if they make it to the border? Should every human living in violent, crime-ridden neighborhoods or countries be granted asylum in America? Is there any limiting principle at all?

I suspect that the Democrats’ new position — everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime — is political suicide. I think the courts’ expansion of the meaning of asylum would strike most Americans as excessively broad. I think many Americans will have watched these debates on immigration and concluded that the Democrats want more immigration, not less, that they support an effective amnesty of 12 million undocumented aliens as part of loosening border enforcement and weakening criteria for citizenship. And the viewers will have realized that their simple beliefs that borders should be enforced and that immigration needs to slow down a bit are viewed by Democrats as unthinkable bigotry.

Advantage Trump.

See (“Democrats Are in a Bubble on Immigration“) (emphasis added)

It would seem that Sullivan is correct when he states that “the Democrats’ new position — everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime — is political suicide.” This may be evident in the 2020 American elections.

It is estimated that there are between 22-30 million illegal immigrants in the United States today, according to Fox’s Lou Dobbs; and the Democrats have zero interest in deporting them, because they view the illegals as potential voters who will change the face of America forever.

And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.


9 10 2021
Timothy D. Naegele

See (“Mexican cartel fires a MACHINE GUN across the border into the US with bullets zipping above a National Guard observation post as migrants flood in”)

Neither Brain Dead Joe nor Willie Brown’s ho Kamala will go near our southern border.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: