VIDEO: Kellyanne Conway indirectly endorses Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway indirectly endorsed Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate. In the below video Conway focused on Judge Moore’s opponent calling him “doctrinaire liberal” who is weak on crime, borders and who will raise taxes. She said, “Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled.”

Below is the full interview on Fox & Friends:

Trump Administration Cites MS-13 Arrest to Push Change in Minor Immigrant Law

The Trump administration is pointing to a large federal roundup of members of the violent gang MS-13 as vindication of increased enforcement efforts and reason to change the policy on unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants.

The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security announced a joint effort that led to the arrest of 214 gang members and those involved with gang-related crime.

MS-13 is an international criminal gang that spread throughout Central America into the United States—in largely urban centers such as Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, and into Toronto, Canada. The organization’s motto is “mata, viola, controla,” which means, “kill, rape, control.”

Of the 214, just 16 were U.S. citizens while 198 were foreign nationals. Of the foreign nationals, only five were in the country legally. Among those arrested, 64 entered the country as unaccompanied alien children, but most are now adults, according to the Trump administration.

During a press conference Thursday announcing the arrests, Tom Homan, deputy director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, noted the 2008 law on unaccompanied minors does not allow them to be immediately returned to their country of origin.

“The agencies sent up a series of policy requests to the Hill to address a lot of issues to further control the border and illegal immigration,” Homan said. “Some of these policies are being exploited and used by criminal organizations. That’s why that’s one of the policy issues we asked Congress to look at and help us with.”

The multi-state, multi-federal agency program was called “Operation Raging Bull.”

The current law states that unaccompanied minors from countries other than Canada or Mexico aren’t subject to expedited removal, but the minors are promptly released into the United States upon arrival at the border. The Department of Homeland Security transfers custody to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours. That office must promptly release the minor to relatives or other sponsors, according to the White House. In some cases, the sponsors were criminals who abused law.

Of the total immigration hearings for unaccompanied minors that came to the United States between 2014 and 2016, 12,977 cases out of 31,091 completed ended in removal, according to a Congressional Research Service report in January. Out of those removals, 11,528, or 89 percent, did not show up for their hearing to make their case against removal proceedings, and often remained in the country.

Also, more than half of the unaccompanied minors that came into the United States in 2014 and 2015 were 16 or 17 years old, according to the Government Accountability Office in a February 2016 report.

Out of the 214 arrested, 93 were charged with crimes including murder, aggravated robbery, racketeering, narcotics trafficking, narcotics possession, firearms offenses, domestic violence, assault, forgery, drunken driving, and illegal entry/re-entry. The remaining 121 were arrested on administrative immigration violations, according to the Justice Department.

“With more than 10,000 members across 40 states, MS-13 is one of the most dangerous criminal organizations in the United States today,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “President Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to reduce crime and take down transnational criminal organizations, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of these objectives. That’s why I have ordered our drug trafficking task forces to use every law available to arrest, prosecute, convict, and defund MS-13. And we are getting results.”

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Victor Fuentes, 20, of West Palm Beach, making his first appearance at the Palm Beach County jail. Law enforcement says he is part of the gang MS-13 and is facing two first-degree murder and two robbery with a firearm charges. (Photo: Damon Higgins/The Palm Beach Post /Newscom)

VIDEO: Why Amnesty Should Not Be Part of any ‘Deal’ on DACA

Talk of amnesty deals are making the rounds again in Washington. Here’s what you need to know.

Apparently, the battles over tax reform, Obamacare, and the looming spending bill aren’t enough to keep Congress busy. There are increasing rumblings that some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are looking for ways to give legal status to illegal aliens currently in the United States.

When President Donald Trump was candidate Trump, he promised that if elected he would end the program known as DACA—the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that gave legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors.

The program was one of President Barack Obama’s most famous and arguably unconstitutional runs around Congress. He couldn’t get lawmakers to do what he wanted so he took it upon himself to create a new law via unilateral executive action.

Not exactly what the Framers likely had in mind if you read Articles I and II of the Constitution on the roles of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Which is why the Trump administration’s Department of Justice was absolutely right earlier this year to announce a six-month wind-down of the program with an end date next March. And because Congress, not the president, has the power to make or alter our laws, the ball is now back in its court.

Unfortunately, the only actions many in Congress seem interested in taking when it comes to immigration reform are the tried and true failed policies of the past.

Give amnesty now to those here illegally with a promise of later securing the border and doing the hard work to improve our country’s immigration system.

Democrats are threatening to shut down the government if so-called “Dreamers” aren’t given a “pathway to citizenship” in the end-of-year spending bill Congress must pass in early December.

Meanwhile, some Republicans are also considering various legislative amnesties, including a Senate proposal dubbed SUCCEED, the Solution for Undocumented Children Through Careers, Employment, Education, and Defending Our Nation Act.

Here’s the deal: Whether it’s granting amnesty outright—as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of other Democrats want to do—or whether it’s granting amnesty to those here illegally if they agree to jump through some additional loopholes, it’s still amnesty and it is still unfair to the millions of people trying to come here legally.

And, oh, by the way, it does not solve our illegal immigration problem. History and previous flawed actions by Congress prove it makes it worse.

We tried in 1986 when we gave legal status, supposedly a one-time deal, to 2.7 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Fast forward to 2017, and we have 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants now living here.

And all the border security and serious enforcement measures promised in 1986 that were going to come later? They never materialized.

More recently, there was the surge in illegal border crossings during Obama’s second term as the president handed out promises of amnesty through executive orders and his administration did little to enforce our immigration laws.

Proponents of amnesty and those who don’t want to do the hard work of real immigration reform are likely to dangle smaller and unpopular measures like getting rid of diversity visas in exchange for granting amnesty to the DACA population.

There’s no doubt that the Diversity Visa Lottery Program needs to go, but we shouldn’t trade one bad policy for another.

The same goes for debates over family, or what is popularly referred to as chain migration, workplace visa programs, sanctuary cities, border security measures, and how to improve the legal immigration process itself. All of these policies should be debated on their individual merits and whether they benefit America.

Immigration, both legal and illegal, impacts our country’s culture, economy, and security.

Some in Congress may be tempted to play “let’s make a deal” on amnesty and pretend they are doing something about our broken immigration system.

It’s time lawmakers know that game is over.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Genevieve Wood

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: .

Catholic Charities employee arrested for allegedly producing child pornography

The story is here at KOIN.com: (Hat tip: Michael)

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — FBI agents arrested a Portland man Thursday for reportedly producing child pornography after a criminal complaint filed against him alleged that he approached 2 young girls via an app.

juan-carlos-ramon

Juan “Carlos” Ramon

According to the criminal complaint, Juan “Carlos” Ramon is accused of contacting 2 Louisiana girls, ages 6 and 8, via an app called “Musical.ly.”

The complaint alleges Ramon convinced the children to send him sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves. According to the complaint, Ramon contacted multiple other minors for explicit material.

[ … ]

Due to previous jobs Ramon has held, investigators believe he may have had opportunities to be in direct contact with children over a period of years.It’s believed Ramon is currently employed by El Programa Hispano Católico (Catholic Charities) in Gresham. It’s also believed he worked for Metropolitan Family Service’s SUN school program in Gresham.

[ … ]

KOIN 6 News reached out to El Programa Hispano Católico and they provided the following statement,

This afternoon, El Programa Hispano Católico and Catholic Charities were notified that an employee was arrested by the FBI on charges related to allegations of child pornography involving two minors in Louisiana. Our organizations are fully cooperating with the FBI and law enforcement officials in this investigation.

This post is filed in RRW’s ‘crimes’ category, see a couple of thousand other posts in that category by clicking here.

Ramon’s immigration status is unknown. Gateway Pundit has a more explicit story here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

CAIR Minnesota to host scare tactic propaganda event today in St. Cloud

The Tent Foundation hires Lutheran refugee contractor to write refugee hiring guide

Another Somali stabbing, Minnesota this time (again)

Karl Lagerfeld: ‘One cannot — even if there are decades between them — kill millions of Jews so you can bring millions of their worst enemies in their place’

Thank you, Karl Lagerfeld. I’ll be wearing more Chanel solidarity.

Karl Lagerfeld said what rational Europeans are thinking but are too afraid to articulate it because they will be brought up on sharia-based hate speech charges.

Lagerfeld echoed what I have said it many times, Europe exterminated its six million Jews only to import 20 million Jew haters. Its exactly what they did — being a Jew in Europe today is treacherous largely due to the Muslim invasion and its accompanying Islamic Jew-hatred.

Calling Angela Merkel, “the wicked stepmother after the Greek crisis,” he attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel for opening the country’s borders to migrants.

The only people who are outraged are the conquerors and the conquered. The truth elicited howls from the left/Islamic axis like the cross the Dracula.

LAGERFELD SPARKS FURY OVER MIGRANTS HOLOCAUST COMMENTS

AFP 

Paris (AFP) – Fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld has sparked outrage by evoking the Holocaust as he attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel for opening the country’s borders to migrants.

“One cannot — even if there are decades between them — kill millions of Jews so you can bring millions of their worst enemies in their place,” he told a French television show.

“I know someone in Germany who took a young Syrian and after four days said, ‘The greatest thing Germany invented was the Holocaust,’” he added.

Who said this? The Muslim migrant Jew jater?

Or the German Nazi Jew hater? Either way – it indicts the Germans.

Several hundred people lodged official complaints about Lagerfeld’s comments, the French media regulator said Monday after he appeared on the “Salut les terriens!” (Hello Earthlings!) talkshow on the C8 channel on Saturday.

The veteran Chanel designer, who was born in Hamburg just as Adolf Hitler came to power, had earlierlambasted Merkel for taking more than one million asylum seekers since the migrant crisis of 2015.

“Merkel had already millions and millions (of immigrants) who are well integrated and who work and all is well… she had no need to take another million to improve her image as the wicked stepmother after the Greek crisis,” said Lagerfeld.

“Suddenly we see the pastor’s daughter,” he said in reference to Merkel’s father, who was a Protestant minister in the former East Germany.

Lagerfeld, who is rarely afraid of controversy, said he was going to “say something horrific” before criticising the chancellor for the “huge error” of accepting so many refugees from war-torn Syria and elsewhere.

“Look at France, the land of human rights, which has taken, I don’t know, 10,000 or 20,000,” he added.

The French TV regulator, the CSA, said it had received several hundred complaints over the weekend about Lagerfeld’s comment, and was looking at the programme.

The designer was roasted for the outburst on social media, although some users also came to his defence.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

President Trump ends Obama’s illegal Central American Minors program

Do you remember the program the Obama State Department created out of whole cloth in 2014 when it took it upon itself to write refugee law without the Congress?

It was called Central American Minors or CAM for short and was supposed to help the minors escaping poverty and gangs in Central America get into the U.S. as refugees so they wouldn’t get hurt sneaking across the border as they had been doing by the tens of thousands.

Obama’s State Department created the program so that the invading “children” wouldn’t get hurt or exploited trying to get to America on the “Beast Train” or on foot.

The program had a couple of major flaws—first is that the kids were hard-pressed to show they were legitimate refugees fearing persecution and secondly, the parent filing the application in the US had to prove they were here legally (oopsy!).

The good news is that CAM has been canned at the Dept. of State as of November 9th!

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. State Department will stop accepting new applications at midnight on Thursday for a program that allowed children fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to apply for refugee status in the United States before leaving home.

President Donald Trump’s administration told Congress in September it would phase out the Central American Minors (CAM) program during fiscal year 2018, which began on Oct. 1.

New applications will not be accepted after 11:59 p.m. EST on Thursday (0459 GMT on Friday), the State Department said in a statement on Wednesday night.

The CAM program started at the end of 2014 under former President Barack Obama as a response to tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and families from Central America who arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum in the United States.

Continue here where Reuters says that 1,500 kids got in out of 13,000 applications (imagine what that must have cost taxpayers to process 13,000 applications!).

For more, search RRW for ‘Unaccompanied minors’ or ‘Unaccompanied alien children.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

EU officials: ISIS has been wiped out in Syria, time for refugees to go home

US Bishops lambast Trump over closure of Central American Minors program

Afghan refugee charged with murder not an “unaccompanied minor” as he claimed

German teacher says Islamist ideology making teaching Muslim refugees impossible

One less swamp creature! Podesta Group closing!

So why are we interested in this latest news from CNN?

podesta group logo

One of Washington’s most prominent lobbying firms is on the verge of shuttering after becoming ensnared by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Kimberley Fritts [who had worked for Jeb Bush!—ed], the chief executive of the Podesta Group, told employees during a Thursday staff meeting that the firm would cease to exist at the end of the year, according to two sources. Employees were asked to clear out their desks and were told they may not be paid beyond November 15, multiple sources said.One of Washington’s most prominent lobbying firms is on the verge of shuttering after becoming ensnared by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

[….]

Talk of potentially closing the Podesta Group marks a dramatic downfall of one of K Street’s most iconic and well-connected firms. In its heyday, Podesta Group was the largest non-law firm lobbying organization in Washington. Tony Podesta, the firm’s founder and chairman, helped fuel the company with work for foreign governments. He and his brother, John, founded the company almost three decades ago. (John Podesta chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He left the firm in 1993.)

hans van de weerd

Hans Van De Weerd (Dutch citizen?) is the head of RCUSA as well as a VP at the International Rescue Committee.

 

Our interest (story here  from Breitbart in case you missed it) is in the fact that, for 2017, the Refugee Industry lobbying arm (Refugee Council USA) had dropped $100K on Podesta to lobby certain Senators, including prominent Republicans, for their help in assuring they would get more refugees and more money for themselves.

Targets specifically identified in the proposal included, among others, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), all on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

I would love to know whose brilliant idea it was to spend that kind of money on lobbyists in the swamp—-lobbyists who are now on a sinking ship.

Did the refugee contractors get their money’s worth?

And, I would like to know if any of the $100K was our money—taxpayer money!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

60,000 “nationalists” march in Poland

UN driving “Replacement Migration” for nearly 2 decades (of 50-year plan)

Utah: Struggling refugees now look on refugee camps in Africa with longing

Major refugee resettlement agency in meltdown?

U.S. is 20th on good countries of the world list

US top refugee processing countries shifting with Trump Administration

An ICE Agent Got Shot 3 Times in Mexico. Now, He’s Looking for Justice.

“Betrayed.”

Victor Avila is a survivor. Soft-spoken but iron-willed, he dedicated his life to law enforcement and to his country.

Yet, the feds are now fighting tooth and nail to bury the full truth about the 2011 ambush by Los Zetas drug cartel thugs in Mexico that left him gravely wounded and his partner, Special Agent Jaime Zapata, dead.

This week, two of the Mexican gangsters convicted in the horror on Highway 57 between Mexico City and Monterrey were sentenced to double life terms in prison.

“HSI Special Agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila were in Mexico to protect and serve our country when they were ambushed by these ruthless criminals, who will now spend the rest of their lives in a prison cell,” acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco announced on Monday.

“This case serves as a reminder, that if you harm a U.S. agent, the U.S. government will pursue you to the ends of the earth to ensure that you are brought to justice.”

Five others received lesser sentences of 35, 34, 30, 28, and 12 years for murder and attempted murder, which Avila on Tuesday called a “complete and utter disappointment.”

As he described in his victim impact statement, “I was shot in three places and had shrapnel and glass imbedded in my body in too many places to count. Not only did I have to undergo multiple surgeries to remove the bullets and shrapnel and stitch together my shredded muscles and skin, but I also had to learn to walk again.”

Avila’s wife, who also worked for the government, lost her job. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent’s health care costs and other bills related to the attack’s aftermath piled up, leaving the family nearly $200,000 in debt and his wife and two children traumatized.

“To this day, the government has not reimbursed my out-of-pocket expenses related to my work injuries,” he told U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth.

Another disgraceful indignity: This week, the feds refused to cover the Avilas’ $3,000 in travel and lodging costs from Texas to D.C. for the sentencing hearing, but did provide humanitarian parole for several of the Zetas’ family members from Mexico to attend the trial.

Even more disappointing, however, is the callousness of Beltway bureaucrats obstructing the Avilas’ and Zapatas’ search for answers.

The families want to know who ordered the agents to travel through Zetas-infested territory unprotected to pick up equipment from another agent; why their superiors ignored a State Department security warning banning travel by U.S. personnel on Highway 57; and what the Obama administration hid as evidence mounted that the semi-automatic weapons and handguns used in the ambush came from one of its botched gun-walking operations that echoed the infamous and deadly Operation Fast and Furious scheme.

“The significant importance here,” Avila explained on an upcoming episode of my CRTV.com show, “Michelle Malkin Investigates,” is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “had identified the arms traffickers, had them under surveillance, and had the opportunity to arrest them months before, and did nothing. They still allowed these individuals … the Osorio brothers, to continue trafficking in arms, and allowing the weapons to be walked south into Mexico. Once the weapons went south into Mexico, there is no trace of them. They were long gone. They were lost.”

While the feds have paid lip service to Zapata’s sacrifice and Avila’s courage, their actions have administered a collective slap in the face. The families’ public records requests have been stymied every step of the way.

Not a single Justice Department official has been punished for President Barack Obama’s deadly gun-walking failures. Instead, Avila was ostracized, transferred against his will, and issued a “3R” letter to “resign, retire, or relocate.”

As Avila’s wife, Claudia, told my program:

He had to give up his passion … he loved his job. And the government ended that. I think more than anything we feel betrayed. We feel like complete outcasts … Very unfair. If you didn’t know any better, you would think that Victor was this criminal person that did something very wrong in his line of duty and is being punished for it. I mean, we’re outraged. We’re very disheartened. The government has most definitely turned their back on us. And not only us but the Zapata family. I mean, they lost their son. They’re still trying to find answers; they are overwhelmed.

Where is Congress? Where is President Donald Trump? True justice for the Avila and Zapata families requires full accountability and real consequences—not just for the triggermen but for the crapweasels who enabled them.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the senior editor of Conservative Review. She is a New York Times best-selling author and a FOX News Channel contributor. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Diversity Visa Lottery: A Game of ‘Russian Roulette’

American sovereignty and security dismantled under the guise of “diversity.”

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 New York City suffered a deadly terror attack on a well-known and heavily used bike path in lower Manhattan, just blocks from what, in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, had come to be known as “Ground Zero.”

The perpetrator of this heinous savage attack is a 29-year-old citizen of Uzbekistan, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, who reportedly legally immigrated to the United States in 2010 subsequent to winning the Diversity Visa Lottery.

Consequently, attention immediately turned to the Diversity Visa Program that annually enables approximately 50,000 aliens annually to enter the United States as lawful immigrants.

Aliens who participate in this visa lottery are citizens of countries that send the United States the smallest number of lawful immigrants.  These aliens do not need to possess any special skills or abilities and do not need to have any family ties to the United States.

There is no application fee for this category of immigrant visa. Under this program apparently being “diverse” is all that matters. This does absolutely nothing to benefit America or Americans and therefore must be terminated.

The State Department provides a table for Fiscal Years 2007-2016 for “Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and Adjustments of Status in the Diversity Immigrant Category.”

Clearly, more than 16 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the “All Clear” has not sounded and the “War on Terror” continues on as more innocent victims are slaughtered.  Nevertheless, there are members of Congress who have recently questioned the legal authority known as AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) being used by President Trump to deploy members of the U.S. Armed Forces to wage war against ISIS, Al Qaeda and related deadly terrorist organizations. AUMF was passed by Congress just days after the attacks of 9/11.

Ironically, the latest deadly terror attack in New York City was carried out even as some members of Congress were publicly questioning AUMF, incredibly complaining that it gives President Trump too much discretion to deploy our armed forces to fight terrorist organizations that seek to kill as many Americans as possible, especially within our own borders.

Those politicians must not have gotten the memo that wars and armed conflicts do not end because leaders unilaterally wish that the wars or conflicts would end.  Wars only end when both sides agree to a cease-fire or a more permanent solution is reached.  Peace can only be achieved when the aggressors are forced to cease hostile actions.  Invariably, this requires the demonstration of unwavering resolve.  This requires the use, or threat of use, of overwhelming force.

The United States has no alternative.

Under the leadership of the Trump administration Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban and other related terror organizations are facing military pressure that is forcing them out of their strongholds in Syria, but they are not laying down their arms.  Instead they are dispersing around the world determined to use terrorism as a means of continuing the battles within the borders of other countries.

The United States is the country that terrorists are most determined to attack. The borders of the United States are our first line of defense and last line of defense against these savage terrorists.

It is therefore more than a little ironic that, while the administration’s plans to construct a secure wall also the U.S./Mexican border are denounced by many political “leaders,” just two days after this latest deadly terror attack in Manhattan NBC News reported that New York City is installing barrier walls along the west side highway bike path.

That wall to protect the bike path is, however, largely cosmetic. It will do nothing to stop terrorists from ramming vehicles into pedestrians crossing intersections or walking on sidewalks throughout New York City

A wall on the border, however, would constitute a significant element of what needs to be a cohesive and coordinated strategy to prevent the entry of terrorists, criminals and contraband into the United States.

In point of fact, the 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel detailed numerous instances where terrorists made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud to enter the United States also to embed themselves in the United States.

Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Intensifying efforts to maintain so-called “sanctuary cities” hobble efforts to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and thus are Ignoring the 9/11 Commission warnings.

Additionally, President Trump’s executive order to prevent terrorists from entering the United States which has come to be referred to as the “Travel Ban” is actually known as the Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, has block the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order which parallels existing federal law, Section (f) of 8 U.S. Code § 1182, and has been invoked by prior Presidents including Carter, Bush (43) and Obama.

The war on terror has multiple fronts. To win we must fight the war on terror here, there and everywhere.

Furthermore, where the entry of international terrorists into the United States is concerned, since the attacks of 9/11 other terrorists have also entered with a variety of visas.

To mention just two of many such instances, consider the San Bernardino terror attack perpetrated by Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  Farook was an native-born American whose parents came to the United States from Pakistan.  Malik was born in Saudi Arabia, moved to Pakistan and then was granted a K-1 fiancé visa pursuant an application filed by Farook.

On December 2, 2015 they carried out a savage terror attack which resulted in the slaughter of 14 innocent victims and the wounding of 22 more victims.  It is theorized that she may have radicalized her husband.

The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, had entered the United States with their family and were subsequently granted political asylum which then enabled them to acquire lawful immigrant status. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving younger of the two brothers has been convicted for his crimes and has been sentenced to be executed.  He became a naturalized citizen shortly before the attacks.  Applicants for naturalization are supposed to undergo a Good Moral Character investigation. Clearly this vetting process failed.

Indeed, there are numerous failures of the immigration system that, although were identified by the 9/11 Commission, have yet to be effectively addressed.

Ironically, just a couple of weeks before the latest attack, my article Homeland Security Uncovers Massive Immigration Failures that focused on two DHS Inspector General reports that detailed dire immigration failures.

Clearly it can be stated that DHS Ineptitude Facilitates Terrorist Operations.

In the weeks and months after the attacks of 9/11 our leaders constantly reminded us that for the terrorists to succeed, they (the terrorists) need only “get it right” once.  On the other hand, in order to protect Americans from terror attacks, our officials needed to be right 100% of the time.

Every time an alien gains entry into the United States, either legally or illegally, terror groups are provided with an opportunity to infiltrate the United States.

In this perilous age, this is the equivalent of the deadly game of “Russian Roulette.”

Hope is not a strategy, the President must be given the resources to defend our nation and our citizens and those resources must extend well beyond our borders.

ICE agents need to have the cooperation of local and state police in enforcing our laws and to cultivate informants and cooperators within ethnic immigrant communities.  This is not a new concept, but an old one.  It was how my colleagues and I routinely operated back when I first became an INS special agent decades ago.  It not only helped to keep America and Americans safe, but especially helped to keep the immigrants in every ethnic immigrant community safe.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Democrat Who Opposes Sanctuary Cities Wins Virginia Governor’s Race

In the Virginia gubernatorial race Tuesday between Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam and Ed Gillespie, immigration was a key issue.

Northam, 58, the 40th and current lieutenant governor of Virginia, won, and had 925,203 votes or 51.8 percent of the vote with 74 percent of precincts reporting, according to The New York Times.

Gillespie, 56, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia and the Republican National Committee as well as counselor to President George W. Bush, had 869,346 votes or 46.8 percent with 76 percent of the precincts reporting, according to The New York Times.

“Clearly immigration has played a significant role in the campaign,” Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan immigration research organization, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

Don’t take my word for it, ask Ralph Northam. He was first boasting about having cast the deciding vote to kill an anti-sanctuary bill in the Legislature when he was lieutenant governor.

After Gillespie aired an ad that claimed that Northam cast a deciding vote on Feb. 22 in favor of sanctuary cities, Krikorian said Northam’s stance on immigration changed.

[Since] Gillespie’s ads criticizing MS-13 and sanctuary cities, Northam has now flipped and said that if some city did declare it a sanctuary, he would act to stop it if he were governor.

In an article published Nov. 1, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported:

In an interview Wednesday with the Norfolk TV station WAVY, Northam said for the first time that, under certain circumstances, he would sign a bill similar to the one he voted against this year, a vote that spawned a wave of ominous ads from the Gillespie campaign linking Northam to the Latino gang MS-13.

‘If that bill comes to by desk … I sure will. I’ve always been opposed to sanctuary cities. He knows that,’ Northam said of Gillespie …

The Center for Immigration Studies lists Arlington County and Chesterfield County in Virginia as sanctuary cities.

Northam’s position on sanctuary cities drew criticism from some on the left. Progressive group Democracy for America’s executive director Charles Chamberlain released this statement last week:

Ralph Northam’s gutless, politically senseless, and morally debased decision yesterday to openly backtrack on his commitment to standing up for immigrant families is a picture-perfect example of why Democracy for America never endorsed him in the primary … It’s also why, today, we’re announcing that we will no longer do any work to directly aid Northam’s gubernatorial efforts.

Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, which describes itself as having a “mission … to fuel a progressive grassroots network of local groups to resist the Trump agenda,” tweeted this about Northam’s position:

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, agrees the immigration issue was influential in the Old Dominion’s 2017 governor’s race.

“Given the fact that Virginians are concerned about sanctuary cities like Virginia Beach and with recent reports of noncitizens voting in Virginia elections, there’s no question that immigration was probably a factor in how Virginians voted,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in an interview.

President Donald Trump made his support of Gillespie no secret on social media.

Trump also participated in a robo call for Gillespie on Tuesday.

“Ed will protect your family from crime, drugs, and violence—something Northam will never do. And Ed loves the vets, loves the military, and loves your Second Amendment,” Trump said during the call.

Ken Cuccinelli, the 46th attorney general of Virginia from 2010-2014, told The Daily Signal in an interview that Democrats worked to make the gubernatorial race about race and immigration. Gillespie’s focus on MS-13, a gang with ties to illegal immigrants, drew criticism from some.

“The other side tried to turn it into a race-baiting thing,” Cuccinelli said, adding:

The problem is, it wasn’t race-baiting, it was fact-telling, and you know, they don’t deal well with the truth, and so it began an interesting back and forth, [but] they overreacted so badly that it really played into Gillespie’s hands to then push again the factual subject, [that] Northam had a vote where he supported sanctuary cities, arguably, and then Northam flip-flopped on it.

The former Virginia attorney general said an ad that came out by the Latino Victory Project in opposition to Gillespie further illustrated how the left distorted Gillespie’s stance on immigration.

“It falls in the category of the left just going overboard … the other side has done it with some of their over-the-top, basically false bigotry charges, and that ad was the granddaddy of them all on that front,” Cuccinelli said.

Logan Churchwell, communications and research director at Public Interest Legal Foundation, a law firm centered on election integrity, told The Daily Signal in an interview that the truck ad illustrated how liberals framed the immigration discussion.

“That truck ad was despicable, and I think it puts in video form how some political interests are comfortable leveraging and exploiting first generation immigrant populations to basically generate a political outcome in the elections that they are hoping for,” Churchwell said.

The ad was taken down Oct. 31, and Cristóbal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Fund, said in a statement posted on Twitter that the ad “held a mirror up to the Republican Party, and they don’t like what they see.”

New Jersey choose Democrat Phil Murphy over Republican Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno as its next governor Tuesday night.

The Center for Immigration Studies lists Middlesex County, Newark, Ocean County, and Union County as sanctuary cities in New Jersey.

The issue is not going away anytime soon, said Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Continual attention to immigration enforcement as an anti-gang tool is going to be essential, and Northern Virginia is going to have a very direct interest in national immigration policy trying to limit the influx of central American illegal immigrants, because this area is, after Los Angeles, the No. 2 location in the country for Central Americans and … their communities inevitably serve as cover and incubators for these kinds of national criminal gangs, MS-13 [being] just the most notorious of them.

Portrait of Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Canada falling for the aging population scam, will admit 1 million immigrants by 2020

The idea that in order for growth (why is that a good thing?) to continue, an aging population in western countries must be replaced by younger, mostly Muslim migrants, is what has destroyed France, Germany, Belgium etc.

Now Canada is falling for it. 

Does anyone really think that the migrants from the Middle East and Africa are going to work hard, pay taxes, and lovingly pay to care for us in nursing homes in the west in a couple of decades?  I don’t.

You probably saw the news already.  It is from last week.

From CBC News:

Canada will welcome nearly one million immigrants over the next three years, according to the multi-year strategy tabled by the Liberal government today in what it calls “the most ambitious immigration levels in recent history.”

canadian-immigration-levels-by-year

The number of economic migrants, family reunifications and refugees will climb to 310,000 in 2018, up from 300,000 this year. That number will rise to 330,000 in 2019 then 340,000 in 2020.

The targets for economic migrants, refugees and family members was tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday afternoon.

Hussen said the new targets will bring Canada’s immigration to nearly one per cent of the population by 2020, which will help offset an aging demographic. He called it a historic and responsible plan and “the most ambitious” in recent history.

“Our government believes that newcomers play a vital role in our society,” Hussen said. “Five million Canadians are set to retire by 2035 and we have fewer people working to support seniors and retirees.”

So they think that there will be enough workers to support Canadian citizen seniors and the new impoverished migrants on welfare too!

Continue reading here.

Trump migration…..

If they are looking for so many immigrants why has Trudeau been squawking about all those ‘refugees’ flooding in to Canada from the US.  Don’t they count toward the 300,000 for 2017?

See my Canada category here.  What happens when Canada is overloaded?  You guessed it, there will be migration southward!

RELATED ARTICLE: Australian Prime Minister turns down New Zealand offer to take some detainees. Why? Says they are going to the US!

Refugee lobbying consortium hired Podesta Group

The Refugee Council USA, a group of ‘non-profits’, it is revealed, paid Podesta $100,000 to influence Congress.  Was that your taxpayer dollars they used?

RCUSA the lobbying arm of the nine federal resettlement contractors*** and the same group that marched for CAIR in Washington recently hired the lobbying firm—Podesta Group-–to influence certain Senators to continue their advocacy for refugee resettlement/immigration reform and to get Congress to give them more payola!

For all of the members of RCUSA see this post.

Senate Holds Hearing On Extending Term Of FBI Director Mueller

Rubio and Graham, two of the Senators the Podesta Group was hired to keep on the Open Borders (more refugees!) bandwagon by supplying them with talking points.

This news is a shocker and an indication that the refugee industry is much sleazier than I dreamed even after ten years of following their maneuvers to change America by changing the people.

Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart has uncovered an internal agreement (between the group that carries the name of Clinton’s campaign manager and also includes someone in its leadership that came from the Jeb Bush team) that is simply stunning.

For those of you working (on your own dime and your own time) in small ‘pockets of resistance’ in your local communities, look what you are up against!

But take heart! Things may be unraveling and maybe the swamp is starting to be drained after all! 

(If you missed it, check out giant foreign meat-packer paying the Lutherans for help with supplying cheap and compliant refugee labor, here.)

Here are Leahy’s opening paragraphs:

The lobbying arm of the refugee resettlement industry hired the Podesta Group earlier this year to deliver “talking points” that provide “cover” to Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and other pro-amnesty Republican members of Congress when discussing the issue of refugee resettlement with the media and other Republicans.

The Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), the “trade organization” of refugee resettlement agencies who receive almost all of their funding from the federal government, paid the Podesta Group $100,000 to lobby Congress in 2017, according to Open Secrets.

RCUSA describes itself as “a coalition of 25 U.S.-based non-governmental organizations . . . dedicated to refugee protection, welcome, and excellence in the U.S. refugee resettlement program.”

The Podesta Group “can help RCUSA develop messaging that concedes the political dynamic that gave rise to the [Trump Executive Order reducing refugee arrivals and increasing vetting], that acknowledges the felt security risk, and that reframes its core asks in a way that does not alienate Republicans but gives them an incentive to collaborate,” the proposal submitted by the Podesta Group in March of this year to the RCUSA for the engagement stated….. (See Breitbart for those snips.)

Leahy continues:

“Our primary targets will be Republicans–and some key Democrats who work well across the aisle–who sit on committees of jurisdiction and whose responsibilities include refugee and asylum policies,” the proposal added.

[….]

Targets specifically identified in the proposal included, among others, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), all on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Now check out the proposal from Podesta.  This (screenshot) paragraph interested me. Gotta keep the federal money flowing to the refugee contractors (that is why the focus on the Appropriations Committee):

Screenshot (1038)

RCUSA has a rotating chair, recently it was headed by Anastasia Brown then with the USCCB, earlier Melanie Nezer of HIAS.  I always assumed the funding came from each member group. This paragraph suggests that RCUSA (a special interest lobbying group) gets money directly from the US Treasury via the Appropriations process. Could that be true?

Continue reading here, this is so juicy!

I can’t emphasize this enough!  Rather than being discouraged by the money and power lining up against you (as this news shows), in ‘Pockets of Resistance’ you are making great headway in educating your fellow citizens about this secretive and sleazy process called refugee resettlement!  Don’t give up now!

With a slowdown in refugee arrivals and thus a slowdown in payments from the Treasury to these contractors, the system (keep fingers crossed!) may be on the verge of self-destructing.

***These are the nine federal refugee contractors that make-up the core of the Refugee Council USA.  We have written about RCUSA often, click here.  In addition to their march for CAIR and more Muslim migration to America recently, here is another recent mention.  As I reported just two days ago, they alerted the contractors to NOT give out R & P Abstracts (plans for resettlement to your towns and cities) to taxpaying citizens.

RELATED ARTICLE: Former refugee contractor CEO: America needs refugees to teach us how to love one another

October refugee numbers extremely low, refugee industry worried

Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart did some number crunching yesterday and the conclusion is that if the Trump Administration continues to admit refugees at this historically low level, our refugee admissions this year will be way below the CEILING Trump set in September for this fiscal year (45,000).

George W. Bush still holds the record for the two lowest admission years in 2002 and 2003.  Why so low? Fear of terrorists getting in to the U.S. in the wake of 9/11/2001.

But….

Will President Donald Trump beat George W. Bush’s record?

Here is Leahy:

The number of refugees admitted into the country during the first month of FY 2018 by the Trump administration plummeted to 1,242 – an 87 percent decline from the 9,945 admitted during the first month of FY 2017 by the Obama administration.

The percentage of refugees admitted who are Muslim declined dramatically as well, from 45 percent in October 2016 to 23 percent in October 2017, according to the State Department interactive website.

Of particular note is the precipitous drop in the number of refugees admitted from the seven countries whose citizens were temporarily banned from traveling to the United States under the first travel ban, Executive Order 13679, issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017.

In October 2017, the first month of FY 2018, only 275 refugees from these seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudian, Syria, and Yemen — were admitted to the United States under the Refugee Admissions Program.

In contrast, in October 2016, the first month of FY 2017, a total of 4,581 refugees from these seven countries were admitted into the United States under the Refugee Admissions Program (1,352 from Somalia, 1,323 from Iraq, 1,297 from Syria, 414 from Iran, and none from either Libya or Yemen.)

This would beat the Bush record!

Should refugee admissions continue at this same pace for the remaining eleven months of FY 2018, the total number of refugees admitted for the entire fiscal year would be less than 15,000, which is 30,000 below the 45,000 cap for refugees set forward in the Trump administration’s presidential determination announced in September.

If it should be 15,000 that would be the lowest number admitted since the creation of the present system of admitting refugees.  However, anything above George W. Bush’s two lowest years of 27,070 (2002) and 28,117 (2003) would not set any records. In both those years the CEILING was set at 70,000 (so much for ceilings having any meaning!).

Leahy continues:

The refugee resettlement industry — which receives almost all of its estimated $1 billion annual funding from the federal government — is already feeling the budget pinch resulting from the diminished number of new arrivals. [And, that is why you are seeing so many refugee ‘forums’ in various states seeking to gin-up negative media publicity against Trump—ed]

[….]

The harsh political reality now facing the refugee resettlement industry is that neither the Trump administration nor Congress have much inclination to meet that 45,000 annual refugee ceiling.

Continue reading here.

Want to see where the refugees went in the first month of FY18.  Here is a map from Wrapsnet (October 1-31, 2017).  Top ‘welcoming’ states were Texas, Ohio, California, New York and Washington.

NOTE: Alaska welcomed 9 and Hawaii (the state begging for more diversity) again got zero!

For more on numbers, see my ‘refugee statistics’ category here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Do Arkansas college students understand that refugees are there to supply Tyson Foods with cheap labor?

Pew produces handy summary of where refugees have been placed since FY02

‘Gladiator’ star Russell Crowe says he wants a refugee of his own

Nebraska Lutherans moan: it is as bad as it can get….

Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship

The elimination of words leads to the elimination of thoughts, which leads to the elimination of freedom.

We often hear that we are living in a “Politically Correct” era. This is treated as an annoyance when, in reality, the ever-accelerating widespread effort to expunge words and terminology from the vernacular should sound alarm bells.

“Political Correctness” has been viewed as a well intentioned way of combating bigotry by eliminating words of hatred and politely expunging words that are defamatory, insulting, humiliating, or denigrating. Certainly the desire to be compassionate, fair, and considerate is laudable.

It is important to be clear, the true “curse words” are words that insult or humiliate other people. Decent and compassionate people want to be considerate and respectful in their interactions with others. Reasonable individuals avoid hurtful language to describe other people. It has been said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Too many decent people have fallen victim to con artists who swindle them out of their life savings, or otherwise take advantage by gaining their confidence. Multiple scams run by pundits, pollsters, and politicians have produced the current immigration crisis. When it comes to immigration, consider how effectively scammers with malevolent motives have cynically played the “compassion card.” They see vulnerabilities to exploit in the compassionate and charitable characteristics of Americans, turning virtues into veritable weapons to be used against Americans. Never forget that Political Correctness is a form of censorship. It can be benign or as dangerous as a weapon, depending on those who are doing the censoring
and what motivates them.

Humans generally construct thoughts with words. Eliminate words and the thoughts those words represent are eliminated. Control of language, therefore, results in control of thought.

This is why “The road to tyranny is paved with words (and thoughts) lost to censorship.” The desire of the majority of people to be fair and polite has been perverted to obfuscate important issues. On border security, immigration, and sovereignty, globalists and other profiteers have resorted to this tactic. When rebels overthrow a government they first seize control of the medium of mass communications and take control of the flow of information to the masses:
television stations, radio stations, and newspapers. Since the human thought process is dependent upon words, censorship is an important tool of totalitarian regimes to maintain control of their citizens.

The Founding Fathers understood the nexus between freedom of speech and all of the other freedoms. This is precisely why the Founders considered Freedom of Speech important enough to enshrine as a protected right in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Control of language (censorship) is the first step along the path to the destruction of the First Amendment, and subsequently all other freedoms. Without free speech no other freedoms are possible. Left unchecked, an attack on words may bring us to the precipice of totalitarianism.

Political Correctness, either by design or by exploitation of those who saw that “golden opportunity” to exploit political correctness, has morphed into censorship to alter perceptions about broader issues. This is not unlike the device of “Newspeak,” a central component of 1984, George Orwell’s 1949 novel about a dystopian state.

“Newspeak” was the term Orwell used to describe a language that was created by the government to slowly but inexorably expunge ever more words from the vernacular of its hapless citizens. Essentially Newspeak was censorship on steroids, based on the idea that control of language would lead to control of thought. Control of language, coupled with extreme surveillance of its citizens that included the installation of telescreens (television monitoring devices) in the citizens’ homes that broadcast a constant barrage of programming from the omnipresent “Big Brother” created the ultimate police state.

A detailed explanation of Newspeak is found in this paragraph from the Appendix to Orwell’s novel, under the title, The Principles of Newspeak:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialist Party) but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Today the elimination of words has certainly been expedited by the use of social media, such as Twitter, which limits the number of characters that can be transmitted. America has gone from having a highly literate population to a country where most people are unwilling to read more than the headlines of articles. College campuses which used to be the bastions of free speech and debate now provide “Safe Spaces” to keep the ears and minds of the students from hearing alternative perspectives and, perish the thought, the Truth.

Certainly Democracy is anything but safe when “Safe Spaces” are imposed on college campuses. Further undermining public access to facts and truth are the 24-hour news programs that generally spend no more than three or four minutes on important news reports that do little to truly inform the viewers. This is further exacerbated by “debates” between guests who are not real subject matter experts but are all too often willing to spout a position on important issues without any real background or understanding about the subject that they are discussing, often turning their discussions into “food fights” that don’t inform the viewers but actually obfuscate the truth.

Such debates and discussion could be helpful to educate the viewing audience and enable them to formulate worthwhile fact-based opinions, only if the on-air participants in those segments were true experts. Real expertise would mean that these participants would qualify as expert witnesses in court proceedings about the issue of the debate they are participating in, the broadcast “court of public opinion.”

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, having testified before numerous congressional hearings, I was invited to participate in hundreds of news programs to discuss immigration-related issues, especially where immigration policies impacted national security and public safety.

In the beginning I was called by television news program producers who would simply call me up or send me an e-mail about the topic they planned to discuss on air, and ask if I was available and was interested in participating in the on-air discussion.

Over time, in addition to being asked if I was available to appear on the program, some producers subjected me to a “pre-interview.” If I expressed an opinion that did not march lockstep with the narrative that the producers of the program wanted to create, my invitation would be unceremoniously withdrawn, with the producer telling me that they were going to go in a “different direction” or made some other comparable excuse.

The phrase “going in another direction” was invoked by some news program producers if, for example, I drew a nexus between immigration failures and the findings of the 9/11 Commission, or otherwise raised issues that were clearly supposed to be off limits, including the way that “comprehensive immigration reform” would undermine the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

This is an insidious form of censorship because the viewers of that program have no idea that a true expert guest was prevented from appearing on the program to provide a viewpoint that went against that program’s contrived narrative.

Over time, discussions about immigration have come to involve fewer and fewer true subject-matter experts. Often those who do discuss immigration on camera have no direct knowledge or experience with immigration law enforcement.

Today, while news programs still call upon real experts to discuss certain issues, such as military officers and commandos to discuss military matters, retired police officers to discuss homicide patterns and other crime trends, or former astronauts to discuss the space program, immigration-related issues are generally discussed by pollsters, pundits, and political consultants with an occasional radio talk show host thrown in for good measure.

Furthermore, the audience may not be given any meaningful information about the true backgrounds of these “talking heads,” including how they may personally benefit from the position that they take on the issue they are debating.

In such cases the “news” program simply becomes an outlet for propaganda.

All too often the parent company of the news program may also have a vested interest in the issues being discussed. Consider, for example, how broadcast networks that have second language subsidiaries benefit from the increase in viewers who are literate in that other language. Broadcasting is a business. Airtime is expensive, and the amount of money that advertisers pay for airtime is directly proportionate to the size of the viewing audience.

What network executives would want immigration laws enforced if this could lead to a reduction in the size of the viewing audience upon which they base their charges for air time for advertisers? This could easily impact the editorial policies of the networks they run, yet this is never publicly discussed. Many viewers have no idea what constitutes objective and fair reporting.

In totalitarian regimes, political leaders and “journalists,” who are actually thinly disguised propagandists, become the arbiters of acceptable language, not only by the crime of commission, by reporting on false “facts,” controlling the language that the citizens of their countries use, but by the crime of omission, by expunging words from the public lexicon. Today this practice is becoming all too commonplace in the U.S. Leading the charge are journalists.

You are probably familiar with the rhetorical question that asks, “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to witness its fall, does that tree make a sound?”

Perhaps the more appropriate question that should be asked is, “If a tree falls in the forest, will anyone know about it if reporters don’t report about it?” That question has a clear and obvious and resounding answer: “No!”

This is a matter of common sense. However, what happens when those decisions are not based on honest pragmatism but on political bias? What happens when journalists decide to use language that is based on their prejudice, bias, or political orientation? I am concerned that all reporters have been coerced, in one way or another, to use language that is anything but balanced and/or objective.

In Orwell’s 1984 the “Ministry of Truth” was empowered to erase problematic words from the public lexicon, deciding what words should be expunged and, in some cases, what words or terms should be created. There is a similar arbiter of language control today. This contrivance actually exists today and it reaches into all newsrooms for broadcasters and newspapers alike. It has a firm grip on the publishing industry and on language used on college classrooms across the U.S. It even reaches into corporate boardrooms and corporate and governmental headquarters across our nation. Today control of language is implemented via a number of mechanisms. One of them is the highly influential Associated Press (AP) Stylebook that is widely used in all of the above-noted venues and even more. AP actually describes its stylebook as “The Journalist’s Bible.” It could have been published by the Ministry of Truth. Stylebooks are reference books that lay out how
written words are to be punctuated and how, for example, footnotes are to be used to reference sources quoted in books and articles.

The use of stylebooks is not new, and in fact many colleges require that students use those stylebooks as a sort of “Bible” to make certain that reports and articles they write adhere to certain standards.


The AP Stylebook on ‘Illegal Immigrants’

Anyone following the immigration debate over the years has noticed the mass media’s increased usage of “undocumented workers” in reference to illegal aliens. TSC contributor Michael Cutler draws attention to the influence of political correctness on language and rhetoric when it comes to the topic of illegal immigration.

Accuracy in language usage and the stifling impact of euphemistic uniformity are legitimate concerns. The Associate Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law* is the standard reference guide for journalists. It contains useful information on capitalization, abbreviation, spelling, numerals and usage, punctuation, privacy, access to government information, defamation, and libel.

The AP Stylebook uses the term “illegal immigrant” (not “illegal alien” or “undocumented worker”). It states that illegal immigrant is “used to describe someone who has entered the country illegally or who resides in the country illegally. It is the preferred term, not illegal alien or undocumented worker. Do not use the shortened term an illegal or illegals.”

Immigration and ethnic activists have pushed sympathetic journalists to use “undocumented worker” in their reportage over the years. In December 2010, on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” Washington Post columnist Esther Cepeda, mentioned the negative reaction that engulfed one newspaper in California when it used “illegal immigrant.”

“The Fresno Bee in California wrote this eight-day series, this beautifully reported series about all the issues surrounding illegal immigration in California’s Central Valley. And they’re talking about it from an economic perspective, a personal perspective, a bureaucratic perspective, political perspective. And yet what garnered the headlines is that some of the people reading the pieces were just inflamed because the newspaper took the Associated Press Stylebook’s standard of calling illegal immigrants illegal immigrants. And they were just inflamed. It was like the entire conversation went off of how this issue affects a particular community. And it became all about language.”

Truth and factual accuracy should be the benchmark standard when it comes to the use of language, not political pressure from organized interest groups.


Today that widely used reference book has become the guide to censorship in that it also instructs writers about what words are acceptable and what words are not acceptable. Furthermore, the AP Stylebook itself is a “work in progress,” where words may be added or removed at the whim of its faceless editors, who receive their marching orders from others.

What is not known is who those “others” are. There is a total lack of transparency and accountability in this process that has such a profound impact on our First Amendment rights and hence our freedoms. Here is an excerpt from the online version of the AP Stylebook* that should send shivers up your spine and cause our nation’s Founding Fathers to spin in their graves:

At more than 600 pages, the AP Stylebook is widely used as a writing and editing reference in newsrooms, classrooms and corporate offices worldwide. Updated regularly since its initial publication in 1953, the AP Stylebook is a must-have reference for writers, editors, students and professionals. It provides fundamental guidelines for spelling, language, punctuation, usage and journalistic style. It is the definitive resource for journalists.

Let’s focus on how this is playing out in regard to the issue of immigration. Elimination of certain words, such as “alien,” under the guise of being “Politically Correct,” is actually Orwellian in its nature and purpose. Words are being excised from the current language in much the way that Newspeak, the language that Orwell invented for 1984, excised or replaced words to control the thoughts of the masses.

President Jimmy Carter took the first steps to start America on its journey to the implementation of Newspeak, at least when discussing immigration. Carter ordered all INS employees, under penalty of severe adverse action by the agency, to eliminate the term “illegal alien” and instead use the preferred term “Undocumented Immigrant.”

At that time I was a special agent of the INS and shared my colleagues’ rage at this edict. I began referring to illegal aliens as “Pre-Citizens.” Soon many other INS employees adopted my nomenclature. One day a Border Patrol agent called to tell me that he had arrested a “PreCitizen” who was attempting to enter the U.S. without inspection. That alien had been previously arrested and deported from New York City and his Alien File was located in the file room of the NYC District Office. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the all-encompassing body of immigration laws enforced by the DHS, the term “Alien” is described simply as “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.” There is absolutely no insult in that definition or that term. This is certainly not the equivalent of the “N-Word.”

The elimination of “alien” from the vernacular has had an overwhelming impact on the immigration debate. Because of the elimination of that one word, over time Americans have been utterly misled about the entire issue of immigration In the decades that followed, this bit of Orwellian semantics has created a massive deception, convincing millions of Americans to believe that calls for immigration law enforcement and secure borders are based on racism and bigotry, even though our immigration laws have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, ethnicity, or other such factors.

The deceptions and lies that have been woven around Carter’s tactics distort the immigration debate to this very day. Carter’s goal to manipulate the immigration system for political purposes did not end with his censoring the language of INS employees. Carter also ordered INS agents not to arrest illegal aliens during the Census. The word from INS Headquarters was that all people needed to be counted during the Census, irrespective of their immigration status. This was done in an effort to gerrymander Congressional Districts and votes in the Electoral College. Most illegal aliens lived in cities that tended to support Democratic Party candidates. By increasing the number of residents of those districts by encouraging illegal aliens to be counted during the Census, Democratic Party strongholds would likely gain representatives in the wake of the Census.

Consequently illegal aliens were provided with political representation even though their mere presence in the U.S. was a violation of some of our nation’s most fundamental laws.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 created a massive amnesty program for more than 3.5 million illegal aliens during the Reagan administration; however, the idea of an amnesty program began during the Carter administration.

That ill-conceived program was supposedly balanced by including in that revision of the immigration laws a provision that, for the very first time, created “employer sanctions,” a series of penalties, including criminal penalties, for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

This was a typical Washington “compromise.” It created the illusion that all of the issues were being addressed. However, while it had been estimated that roughly one million illegal aliens would “emerge from the shadows” (how often do we hear that phrase today?), in reality more than 3.5 million aliens acquired lawful immigrant status.

It was widely known that a lack of resources was a major factor in the growth of the illegal alien population. Yet few additional INS agents were hired, not only to deter illegal immigration but to enforce what were referred to as employer sanctions laws that were part of IRCA, even as that new enforcement imperative requires many agents to enforce those laws. Nature’s laws are immutable. The speed of light is determined by the laws of physics and hence need not be enforced by a police officer wielding a radar gun and summons book. The speed laws that govern motor vehicle speed on our nation’s roads, however, certainly require such law enforcement efforts, if those speed laws are to be meaningful.

The same pragmatic approach needs to be applied to all legislated laws. Laws that are unenforced may as well be erased from the law books if violators of those laws are not identified, apprehended, and face consequences. The Border Patrol has always been seen as the key to immigration law enforcement efforts. While it is essential that our borders are as secure as possible, of at least equal if not greater concern is the ability to effectively enforce U.S. immigration laws.

This is the third leg of what I have come to refer to as the “immigration law enforcement tripod,” in which the Border Patrol enforces our immigration laws along our nation’s borders between ports of entry, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors enforce our immigration laws at ports of entry, and the Special Agents and other enforcement personnel enforce our immigration laws within the interior of the U.S. However, politicians and the media portray effective immigration law enforcement as simply a matter of beefing up the Border Patrol, especially along the U.S./Mexico border, and preventing the endless entry of illegal aliens.

Over the years, all of this has convinced many people that our immigration laws are primarily designed to keep out citizens of Mexico. The U.S./Mexico border is roughly two thousand miles long and is unique in that it separates a Third World country from the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth, the U.S., thereby creating huge economic pressure and a push/pull effect that attracts poverty-stricken Mexicans to enter the U.S. by any means possible.

The widespread official corruption and extreme violence perpetrated by the Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) exacerbates this already volatile situation that resulted in Mexico becoming the source country for the greatest number of illegal aliens. However, what is almost never discussed is that illegal aliens also enter the U.S. without inspection along the much longer U.S./Canadian border, stow away on ships, and then leave those ships covertly or come ashore, without detection along America’s 95,000 miles of coastline.

Furthermore, nearly half of all illegal aliens enter through America’s 325 ports of entry, perhaps by committing visa fraud or by lying to the CBP inspector about their intentions, and then, in one way or another, violate the terms of their admissions determined by the category of visas under which they were admitted. I compare the interior enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws to the necessity of outfielders in a baseball game who chase down balls in the outfield.

The following examples will inevitably occur: first, a given percentage of aliens will successfully evade detection by entering the U.S. without inspection; second, a given percentage of aliens who are lawfully admitted into the country will violate the terms of admission; third, some aliens, prior to their entry, will be convicted of serious crimes; fourth, some aliens will commit fraud in applying for various immigration benefits, such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status, and even U.S. citizenship.

Not unlike the outfielders of baseball who shag balls that are hit over the infielders’ heads or run down line drives that also wind up in the outfield, ICE enforcement personnel need to be able to address the aliens I have described above and conduct vital field investigations. Such investigations are needed to imbue the immigration system with meaningful integrity to prevent aliens from getting away with violating our laws, and also to deter even more aspiring illegal aliens and
fraudsters from attempting to violate the law.

I refer to this as “deterrence through enforcement.” For decades the entire enforcement mission has been all but ignored. President Donald Trump, with able assistance and insight from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has called for hiring more than ten thousand additional enforcement personnel for the vital mission of enforcing our immigration laws. The vulnerability of the immigration system to incursions was clearly identified by the 9/11 Commission, yet it has been essentially ignored until President Trump took office.

The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel detailed numerous examples of instances where terrorists made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud, including political asylum fraud, to enter and embed themselves in the U.S. See this excerpt from page 54 of the Report, “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot”:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack. Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

It is remarkable that the blatantly bogus argument that immigration enforcement is about Latinos in general, and Mexican citizens in particular, persists to this very day.

By referring to all aliens as “immigrants,” as Carter demanded, it became easier to accuse anyone of being “anti-immigrant” who suggests that illegals should be arrested or that our borders should be secured against the entry of “immigrants.”

If proponents of immigration law enforcement and secure borders were to be labeled “anti-immigrant,” it would follow that their opponents should be referred to as “pro-immigrant.”

Over time this has gathered momentum and acceptance, so that today the very word “alien” causes most people to wince, not because the term “alien” is a pejorative, but because of the concerted effort of globalists to condition Americans to believe that it is a pejorative.

This is Pavlovian conditioning at its worst. Over time, perceptions become reality. The term “alien” is problematic for open-borders immigration anarchists because it provides clarity to the immigration issue, and thus runs contrary to the goals of the globalists to eradicate the distinction between not only lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, but ultimately between citizens and aliens.

This is of critical significance because under our nation’s immigration laws, U.S. citizens may never, ever, for any reason whatsoever, be prevented from entering their country. Aliens, on the other hand, have no inherent right to enter the U.S.

By eliminating this critically important distinction, a huge step has been taken to dismantle our borders, which are, in point of fact, America’s first and last line of defense. However, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a long, long list of other organizations that represent a wide variety of industries and special interest groups, our borders are not viewed as our first and last line of defense, but as impediments to greatly increasing their wealth and power, no matter the cost to the vast majority of Americans.

Criminal aliens and violent transnational gangs from across the planet have entered the U.S. and set up shop in small towns and major cities. Terrorists have been able to enter undetected and carry out deadly attacks.

Foreign workers who take the economic bottom rung jobs have displaced American workers, particularly among America’s minority communities, preventing young Americans from ever setting foot on the economic ladder that is essential to become successful. This crisis is particularly acute among members of America’s minority communities.

This influx of Third World workers has also driven down wages. Labor is a commodity. Flooding the marketplace with any commodity generally depresses the value of that commodity.

Politicians who have accepted the thinly disguised bribes known as “campaign contributions” are quick to say that these aliens are “taking the jobs Americans won’t do,” leaving out, of course, the second part of the sentence — for the wages and working conditions that desperate illegal aliens are willing to accept.

High-tech jobs that highly educated and highly experienced Americans had been doing for decades are now being done by foreign workers, who have replaced their American counterparts through such programs as the infamous H-1B visa program, which the Trump administration is seeking to curtail to favor American and lawful immigrant workers.

Meanwhile politicians ignore the truth and claim that America has a shortage of high-tech workers, even as hundreds of thousands of American workers who have been successfully doing these jobs for years, sometimes decades, are fired and replaced by foreign workers, whom they are ordered to train if they want their severance packages.

Continuing failures to secure our borders and combat fraud in the visa process and immigration benefits program leave America vulnerable to future attacks, but for those supremely wealthy and powerful individuals, organizations, and special interest groups who benefit from these failures, those vulnerabilities are the “price of doing business.”

They are far more concerned with “head counts” to fill airliners, sports stadiums, cruise ships, universities, and work sites than body counts at the morgue. They have employed a strategy that can be thought of as a massive marketing campaign, aided and abetted by politicians who have been “bought and paid for.” Advertising campaigns involve repetition of simple slogans of usually fewer than ten words. Another tactic involves the “branding” or labeling of people who take a position that runs contrary to the narrative created by the politicians and/or “journalists.”

Today nearly every news program or publication refers to advocates for fair and effective immigration law enforcement and for secure borders as being “anti-immigrant.” On the other hand, anyone who calls for massive amnesty programs for illegal aliens, including foreign criminals, is rewarded by being referred to as “pro-immigrant.” There is, however, one unique situation where the term “Alien” is an entirely acceptable term. When the DREAM Act failed to be approved by Congress, President Obama bemoaned “the failure of the Congress to act” when it voted against terrible legislation.

In reality, Congress did act; it just did not act the way that Mr. Obama wanted it to act. Consequently he cobbled together the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program to provide hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who claimed that they entered the U.S. before their 16th birthdays with temporary lawful status. They had until age 31 to file their applications. With no resources and no desire to uncover immigration fraud (the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a threat to national security) there were no interviews of applicants for this immigration nor field investigations conducted of hundreds of thousands of applications.

Today such illegal aliens are commonly referred to as “DREAMERS” because they would have been the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.) The urge to somehow link a massive amnesty program to the “American Dream” was so strong that its proponents apparently decided that no one would notice the hypocrisy in this acronym, and for the most part they were completely correct.

Immigration law enforcement officers are vilified by politicians who have created “Sanctuary Cities,” openly boasting that they will not cooperate with federal agents.The use of the term “Sanctuary” to describe cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities, whose job is to secure America’s borders against illegal entry, while these cities commit violations of immigration laws is an incredible example of Newspeak. As a noun, “Sanctuary” is defined as a “place of
refuge or safety where…people automatically sought a sanctuary in time of trouble.”

How safe are the residents of a city or town that protects illegal aliens whose identities, backgrounds, and intentions are unknown and unknowable? How safe are the jobs of lawful immigrants and U.S. citizen workers, who have to compete with illegal alien workers, and who will settle for substandard wages under substandard, indeed, illegally dangerous working conditions?

One of the key sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which guides our decisions about the admissibility of aliens seeking entry, is Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182, which enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens are those who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, and spies are to be excluded, as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment — thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed — and aliens who would likely become public charges.

Note that our current immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape, or form as to the race, religion, or ethnicity of any alien who seeks entry into or is present in the U.S.

Those who utter the overused phrase that “the U.S. is a nation of immigrants” to justify attacks on those who support effective immigration law enforcement need to be told that the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a house-guest and a burglar. America is most certainly not a nation of trespassers. Finally, much has been made in the news of President Trump’s Executive Orders that were issued shortly after he took office to keep his campaign promises to protect America and Americans from international terrorists and criminal aliens. Trump’s Executive Order regarding eligibility of immigrants for admission to the U.S. is entirely consistent with the provision of Section (f) of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 — Inadmissible aliens. This statute has been used by previous presidents to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Terrorists
certainly fall into that category. Here is the relevant paragraph:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

President Trump’s Executive Order, because of the news reports, became widely known as the “Travel Ban” for citizens of “Muslim majority countries.” The Executive Order was not a travel ban and it certainly did not contain a single word about the religion of any aliens who would be impacted. In fact, Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population but its citizens were not impacted by that Executive Order. Citizens of other Muslim majority countries were similarly
not impacted by the Executive Order.

By comparison, when President Obama issued his immigration Executive Order known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the title of that order was faithfully reported in the media. In point of fact, most Americans have never seen the actual name of the Trump Executive Order that was promulgated to protect America and Americans. The media apparently refused to provide it, perhaps, because publishing the actual name of that Executive Order would end that manufactured controversy that, because of recent court rulings, including the ruling of the Supreme Court, has weakened national security immeasurably and created a legal precedent that will hobble every future U.S. president.

“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the U.S.” is the actual name of President Trump’s supposedly controversial Executive Order. Today “journalists” are not just content to expunge words they deem troublesome from the public lexicon. Now entire sentences such as the title of a Presidential Executive Order are to be excised, lest the public reject and oppose the globalist agenda being ever more aggressively marketed to the American public.

Back when I attended high school, too many decades ago, George Orwell’s important novel, 1984, was required reading. Today few schools require their students to read that prescient novel.

Whether you have never read 1984 or perhaps read it many years ago, I strongly suggest that you read Orwell’s classic tale of totalitarian control. It will open your eyes to the subversive tactics that are whittling away at our freedoms, thereby undermining our democratic republic.

Americans must always have access to the truth, and the truth begins with honest and clear and uncensored language. Anything less undermines the First Amendment and, with that, the very foundation of our cherished democracy.

Perhaps signs should be posted that read, “Newspeak not spoken here!”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Fall 2017 edition of The Social Contract.

Most Aussies want immigration curtailed, 48% want Muslim ban

More than half surveyed said Australia felt like a foreign country!

And, the upshot of this news story is a warning that if the nationalists can mount a  countrywide political campaign they could become the power in Australia.

Rejecting the usual excuse that migrants stimulate economic growth, economics are not a major concern—loss of culture and quality of life is driving the worry.  (Hint! Although it isn’t politically correct, don’t be afraid to bring up those concerns!)

From Perth Now:

THREE quarters of Australians believe the country doesn’t need any more people and nearly half support a partial ban on Muslim immigrants.

Nauru refugees

An Australian Population Research Institute survey of more than 2000 people also found 54 per cent want a reduction in the annual migrant intake.

The independent organisation believes the results are driven by quality of life concerns and rapid changes in Australia’s ethnic and religious make-up.

“Australian voters’ concern about immigration levels and ethnic diversity does not derive from economic adversity,” academics Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell wrote in a report based on the survey.

“Rather, it stems from the increasingly obvious impact of population growth on their quality of life and the rapid change in Australia’s ethnic and religious make-up.”

[….]

… 74 per cent of those surveyed believe Australia is “already full”, with most pointing to roads congestion, hospitals capacity, affordable housing and fewer jobs as evidence.

Some 54 per cent want Australia to cut its annual immigrant intake of about 190,000 people and 48 per cent backed a partial ban on Muslim immigration.

[….]

The strongest support for the partial ban came from One Nation voters (89 per cent), with more than 50 per cent of Liberal voters agreeing and just over a third of Labor supporters.

“The willingness to take a tough, discriminating stance on Muslim immigration is not limited to a small minority, but extends to almost half of all voters,” the report said.

More than half of those surveyed feared Australia risked losing its culture and identity, with a similar number saying it had changed beyond recognition and sometimes “felt like a foreign country”.

More here.

For those of you wondering, there is no fresh news about the possibly 1,250 Australian rejected asylum seekers coming to America after the first 50 or so we reported here last month.

And we have an entire category on news from Australia, click here to learn more.

By the way, RRW gets readers daily from over 100 countries, but Australia is always in the top 3 for sending readers my way.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The US Chamber of Commerce wants laborers, no concern for you, as they tell Trump to extend ‘temporary’ refugee program

Hungary investigating Soros network, we should be as well