On today’s podcast, we’re featuring an exclusive interview with Mark Morgan, who was chief of the U.S. Border Patrol under President Barack Obama. Now Morgan is speaking out in favor of President Donald Trump’s border wall. Find out why on today’s show.
Also on today’s show:
We’re celebrating Presidents Day, or what rightfully should be called George Washington’s Birthday. Listen to a timeless speech from President Ronald Reagan from Feb. 22, 1982.
Your letters to the editor. Next week your letter could be featured on our show; write us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 202-608-6205
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.
The CBS article ostensibly responded to nine questions about immigration raised by President Trump. I was asked to weigh in about the honesty and accuracy of the “Facts” published by CBS to discredit what the President had said.
I reviewed the article during the weekend that preceded that show and found that falsehoods permeated this supposed “fact-check on immigration.”
Unfortunately this sort of deceptive “reporting” is all too common.
By understanding how to unravel the tapestry of lies contained in this article will provide a methodology that can be brought to bear to critically analyze all supposed “news” articles.
To begin with, the late criminal defense attorney Johnnie Cochran remarked at the O.J. trial, “If you can’t trust the messenger, you cannot trust the message.”
Voltaire wisely said, “You should judge a man’s intelligence by the questions he asked.” The trick is to devise the incisive questions that provide you with the insight you need to determine whether the material you are reviewing is honest or propaganda.
The CBS News article quoted a number of organizations that provided the supposed “Facts” that were used to counter what President Trump said. The first issue is to find out who these sources (messengers) are. It is particularly helpful to find the organization’s website online and review its mission statement. It may be posted under “About” or “About Us” at the top of the website.
The first source quoted in the CBS article was the Center For Migration Studies. Here is how its mission statement (under “About” on its website) begins:
The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) is a think tank and an educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees and newcomers.
Simply stated, this organization is not an objective think tank but a biased advocacy group that seeks to increase the numbers of aliens admitted into the United States and is determined to quash any objections about the influx of aliens irrespective of how they enter the United States.
The CBS article used information provided by CMS to answer the question: How do most unauthorized immigrants enter the United States?
The answer provided in the CBS article was described as a “Fact”
Fact: Two-thirds of the recent unauthorized immigrant population entered the U.S. on valid visas, then stayed in the country after that visa expired.
This supposed “Fact” was provided to oppose the construction of the border wall, claiming that since so many aliens don’t run our borders, we don’t need to build the wall.
In reality, the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States is unknown. Therefore it is impossible to determine what percentage of illegal aliens entered the U.S. by evading the inspections process at ports of entry vs the number of aliens who violate their visas.
Recently Harvard and MIT conducted studies that showed that although it has been estimated by many organizations that there are about 11 million illegal aliens, the number, according to the university studies may be double that number or even higher.
No matter what the actual statistics are, given the huge number of illegal aliens present in the United States and the now routine onslaught of a human tsunami in the form of an endless succession of “caravans” of illegal aliens flowing northward from Central America to the United States, the percentage of illegal aliens who enter the U.S. without inspection is certainly great enough to be considered a true crisis that poses a threat to national security and public safety that must be effectively dealt with.
This brings us to the second question in the CBS News article, the actual number of illegal aliens who are present in the United States.
The sources quoted by CBS in response to this question were the Pew Research Center and the Migration Policy Institute. Both organizations have historically attempted to downplay the magnitude of the immigration crisis.
In point of fact, Doris Meissner, the Commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) under the Clinton administration, joined the Migration Policy Institute about a year after it was formed as a senior fellow. Meissner, as INS commissioner, was responsible for implementing a massive naturalization program known as CUSA (Citizenship USA) that sought to naturalize as many new citizens as possible and resorted to shortcuts including approving applications for citizenship before fingerprint records were consolidated with the immigration files. Under CUSA approximately 1.1 million aliens were naturalized and because of the extreme shortcuts and threats of extreme discipline against INS District Directors if quotas were not met, concerned employees of the INS contacted the Office of the Inspector General.
The eye-opening OIG report about the allegations of malfeasance of this program was published and is well worth reading.
INS Commissioner Meissner had an adversarial relationship with the special agents of the INS and was hostile towards immigration law enforcement justice.
John F. Shaw, the former Assistant Commissioner for Investigations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified at that hearing. His testimony about his frustrations with Doris Meissner provides insight into her hostility to immigration law enforcement.
Here is an excerpt from his testimony:
In its determined efforts to establish control of the border by tightening security on the perimeter, Congress has seemingly ignored the critical, complementary roles and responsibilities of Interior Enforcement . . . and these fall mainly on the shoulders of Investigations.
I believe that the concept of Interior Enforcement, supported by a well articulated strategy document, ought to be as familiar in the nomenclature of immigration enforcement as the concept, or term, Border Control. Although, I must admit that even in-house at INS, the Commissioner has said that Interior Enforcement is a term of usage invented by Investigations and devoid of meaning.
The CBS article also made much of how the majority of drugs are seized at ports of entry and therefore more needs to be done to prevent smuggling through ports of entry and not be concerned about the amount of drugs that are smuggled across the border between ports of entry.
The fact is that we don’t know what we don’t know. Obviously, DEA has no way of knowing the total amount of narcotics that is successfully smuggled between ports of entry. There is no shortage of heroin in the United States and therefore with all of the seizures made by CBP at ports of entry, huge quantities are still getting into the U.S. Clearly open borders must be considered as a serious threat to the integrity of our efforts to interdict smuggled drugs as well as smuggled aliens.
The article additionally asks the absurd question, “Is asylum a form of illegal immigration?”
The CBS article ignored that the majority of applications filed by aliens from Central America are denied and that immigration fraud was a key concern of the 9/11 Commission. That was the predication for my article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill-9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a key embedding tactic of terrorists.
The CBS article claimed that the majority of aliens who applied for asylum attended their hearings. They did not, however, divulge how many aliens whose applications were denied subsequently absconded and failed to depart from the United States.
The CBS article also asked (and answered):
Do illegal immigrants commit more violent crimes than legal residents?
Fact: Studies say that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than American-born citizens.
President Trump’s Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on data collection efforts. On Dec. 18, 2017, DOJ and DHS released the FY 2017 4th Quarter Alien Incarceration Report, complying with this order. The report found that more than one-in-five of all persons in Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94 percent of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present.
Here is an excerpt from the press release that provides some quick statistics and a paragraph that addresses the lack of information about aliens in city and state facilities.
A total of 58,766 known or suspected aliens were in DOJ custody at the end of FY 2017, including 39,455 persons in BOP custody and 19,311 in USMS custody. Of this total, 37,557 people had been confirmed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be aliens (i.e., non-citizens and non-nationals), while 21,209 foreign-born people were still under investigation by ICE to determine alienage and/or removability.
Among the 37,557 confirmed aliens, 35,334 people (94 percent) were unlawfully present. These numbers include a 92 percent unlawful rate among 24,476 confirmed aliens in BOP custody and a 97 percent unlawful rate among 13,081 confirmed aliens in USMS custody
This report does not include data on the foreign-born or alien populations in state prisons and local jails because state and local facilities do not routinely provide DHS or DOJ with comprehensive information about their inmates and detainees—which account for approximately 90 percent of the total U.S. incarcerated population.
The rest of the material in the CBS News article can be similarly discredited, proving that, as John Adams famously observed, “Facts are stubborn things.”
RELATED VIDEO: FAIR Discusses the Crisis on the Southern Border.
Because the Congress will not fund the southern wall, President Trump has no alternative but to declare a national emergency to obtain funding and continue construction efforts. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claims such action is unprecedented. Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tweeted it would be “a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency.” Both are wrong.
The first President to issue an emergency proclamation was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, back in 1917, to improve maritime tonnage to move resources around the United States and the world. This is back when the world was embroiled in the first World War and our allies required supplies.
In recent times, National Emergencies have been called by the president numerous times. To date, 58 emergencies have been declared, and 31 are still in effect. Here is how many recent presidents have issued:
03-President Trump 11-President Obama 13-President Bush 09-President Clinton
Many of these are concerned with blocking the property of people who violate American policy, but it has also been used for imposing sanctions and other situations. Speaker Pelosi made a veiled threat when she said, “A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well.” The reality is, Democrats have already declared emergencies, as former President Barack Obama bragged, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
In Speaker Pelosi’s view, she foresees future presidents declaring emergencies over such things as gun rights. This would inevitably trigger a Constitutional crisis as it would be violating the Second Amendment. This is not the same as in President Trump’s case where he wishes to secure our border. Nonetheless, his emergency will be challenged in court, but he will likely win as he has precedence on his side.
So why all of the fuss? The Democrats are trying to convince the public the declaration of emergency by President Trump is unlawful and unprecedented in order to build public opinion against the president. The fact is, nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply not so.
In order to invoke the emergency, President Trump will have to demonstrate a crisis truly exists. The Democrats claim the problem is being “manufactured” by the president, but there is plenty of data to show a bona fide problem exists. Both parties are cognizant of this, so why are the Democrats adamantly opposed to it? Simple: control. There are now over 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States with more trying to come in every day, some are honest and hard working, others are criminals. Either way, the Democrats are endeavoring to grant citizenship to these people thereby turning them into voters who would presumably support their party, thereby turning the Congress and White House to liberal rule.
Let’s be clear, the Republicans and the president have no problem with legal migration, as we all should be, but there are other forces at play here trying to undermine our country.
Do we have a National Emergency? Yes, I believe we do, both at the border and in the halls of Congress.
RELATED VIDEO: FAIR Discusses the Crisis on the Southern Border.
EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce Is Right column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by TheDigitalArtist on Pixabay. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-2704264_640.jpg426640Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2019-02-15 09:46:242019-03-07 05:11:18Democrats Are Spinning A Real National Emergency
You have probably seen this news about another illegal alien killer, however I’m mentioning it because the sensational aspects of the case have made it news around the world.
The victim was beautiful and her body was stuffed in a suitcase and dumped in the woods making the news apparently more interesting to the mainstream media than the Reno, Nevada caseI reported recently where four older Americans were killed in their homes by another illegal alien creep—a story that didn’t get nearly the coverage this one is getting.
The man alleged to have murdered the young and beautiful Valerie Reyes is in the country illegally as a visa overstay.
Suspect in suitcase death in U.S. illegally, authorities say
A man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and dumping her body in a suitcase in Connecticut is a citizen of Portugal who has been in the U.S. illegally for more than a year, federal authorities said Wednesday as the victim’s loved ones gathered for her funeral.
Javier Da Silva Rojas, who had been living in New York City, was taken into custody Monday and charged with kidnapping resulting in death in the killing of 24-year-old Valerie Reyes, of New Rochelle, New York. The charge carries the possibility of the death penalty.
Da Silva, also 24, entered the U.S. on May 8, 2017, through the Visa Waiver Program and was required to leave by Aug. 5, 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement.
If you are interested in reading more about the alleged killer, simply search his name and you will see stories about the murder everywhere.
We spend a lot of time talking about “the Wall,” but the feds need to do more to round-up visa overstays and get them the heck out of the country! Why not let the President know how you feel about the need for greater enforcement!
With all of the uproar over late-term abortion, it’s easy to forget that Congress is juggling other crises — including the one on our southern border. With the clock ticking down to another government shutdown, both parties have been hunkered down, trying to cobble together an immigration bill before time runs out on Friday. Yesterday, negotiators announced that they’d finally struck a deal. But agreeing to a compromise is one thing — getting the president to support it is another.
“I can’t say I’m happy,” President Trump said this afternoon. “I can’t say I’m thrilled.” It’s no wonder. The compromise includes less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion he requested for the wall. At just $1.3 billion, the administration would have enough money for 55 miles of fencing — not the 200 it wanted. In a small concession by Democrats, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wouldn’t have to cap the number of illegal detainees it holds. But by and large, the deal doesn’t include any meaningful immigration reform — not even to the DACA program.
“I would hope that there won’t be a shutdown,” Trump said before making it clear, “I am extremely unhappy with what the Democrats have given us.” At a rally in Texas last night, the president hinted that executive actions were still on the table to finish the other 150 miles of fencing. “Just so you know,” he told the crowd in El Paso, “we’re building the wall anyway.”
That would come as relief to the dozens of sheriffs and other law enforcement who showed up on the Hill yesterday to demand better immigration enforcement. “We are at wits end on this,” said Sheriff Thomas Hodgson. “This really is a catastrophe.” Over the weekend, two national sheriffs groups delivered letters to the House and Senate warning them that if they put a limit on detainees, most of these offenders would go out “and commit more crimes.” As for cutting ICE funding — an agenda near and dear to the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — the sheriffs warned, don’t even think about it. “They put our people at risk just to take care of their political agenda,” Hodgson argued.
Elsewhere, the deal is hardly a House Freedom Caucus dream either. Democrats aren’t being “serious” about border security Chair Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) fired back. Even after hearing about the needs from people on the ground, he points out, liberals still think they know better. “Border Patrol came in to brief the conference. They gave their top-three priorities. And the conferees have said ‘zero money for those top three priorities.’ How can you be serious about securing our border if the very people that are experts on securing it say, ‘These are our top three priorities, we need money,’ and yet they’re saying, ‘zero dollars for that?'”
When it comes to a dollar figure for the wall, Meadows said there’s plenty of room for improvement. “Honestly, when you look at 0 to 5.7, somewhere in the middle would be a $2 billion to $3 billion range,” he said. “But it’s not as much just the dollar amount. It’s the flexibility in how to spend it.”
For now, President Trump insists he’s “considering everything.” One thing he won’t have to worry about is the country’s support. CBS polling showed Americans solidly in the administration’s camp on this issue. Seventy-two percent who watched the State of the Union agreed with the president’s ideas on immigration. And fortunately, those ideas didn’t include political surrender.
For more on the debate, check out FRC’s Ken Blackwell on Fox Business last night.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with video and images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/021219_sheriff_770x400-e1550053482140.jpg387640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-02-13 05:24:512019-02-13 07:04:19VIDEO: Fence and Sensibility
President Trump begins his 2020 campaign with his first rally of the year in El Paso, Texas. Trump is expected to reiterate his demand for a border wall as Democrat Beto O’Rourke leads a protest against it at the same time.
ABOUT FOX NEWS CHANNEL
FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 16 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-2023751_640.jpg455640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-02-12 05:56:462019-03-07 05:24:37VIDEO: President Trump's Rally in El Paso Texas
Judicial Watch presents “The Sun City Cell” – a stunning investigative documentary detailing the Narco-Terrorist Cell operating out of El Paso, Texas!
Featuring Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell, “The Sun City Cell” exposes a chilling narco-terror plot that government officials deny.
In this 40-minute expose, you follow the trail of corruption. You see the actual court documentation. You listen up close and personal to the confidential informants. And with Chris Farrell as your guide, you follow the four-year investigation and meet the sources inside the law enforcement and government who risk their lives to get the truth to the American people.
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch documentary with images and video is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sun-city-center.jpg361640Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2019-02-11 16:38:472019-02-11 16:38:48VIDEO: The Sun City Cell – Investigative Documentary by Judicial Watch
I guess Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York was too busy cozying up to Governor Andrew Cuomo for money for itsPro Bono legal services in defense of illegal aliens to bother pushing too hard to save late term aborted babies!
New website connects pro-bono lawyers with immigrants in need of help
After relating stories about several illegal aliens (oops! “undocumented”)….
These undocumented immigrants are all in need of pro-bono legal help and their cases are being advertised on a new web portal run by the state’s Liberty Defense Project and Catholic Charities to connect them with volunteer immigration attorneys.
The new websitefunded by the state brings attention to Catholic Charities, which has placed 105 pro bono cases with more than 230 volunteer attorneys throughout New York. Every volunteer receives expert legal training to file applications for asylum-seekers, crime victims, juveniles or individuals trying to reunite with family members.
The new website is funded by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Liberty Defense Project, launched in 2017, which provides free legal help to immigrants across the state through Office for New Americans locations.
The program has provided more than 25,000 services to immigrants, according to a press release. A quarter of the immigrants in detention who received representation under the program have been released and reunited with their families.
Again, thatnew website that seeks to link free lawyers to illegal aliens (aka New Americans) in need of help to stay in the country is being funded by New York state taxpayers! See Liberty Defense Project!
What can you do? If you live in New York and especially if you are Catholic, you must letCatholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York know what you think!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pro-bono-project-catholic-charities.jpg360640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-02-11 10:33:282019-02-11 10:54:28New York: Are “Vulnerable” Immigrants more Important to Catholic Charities than Vulnerable Babies?
It is not clear whether President Trump plans to declare a national emergency in order to build a physical barrier along our border with Mexico, in order to protect Americans from illegal aliens, drug traffickers, gun runners, human smugglers and other assorted criminal border jumpers.
The mainstream media has repeatedly asserted that the president does not have the authority to declare a border emergency and take the action necessary to defend the American public.
However, the media pundits would appear to be mistaken. Below, FAIR sets out the facts on the National Emergencies Act and related statutory provisions that would enable the president to accomplish what congress refuses to – place the interests of law-abiding Americans above those of law-breaking foreign nationals.
1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA) 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651: This legislation specifies the manner in which the president may declare a national emergency. It also gives congress the authority to terminate a national emergency by joint resolution of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
58 national emergencies have been declared since the act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
31 of those national emergencies remain in effect.
An emergency declaration pursuant to the NEA does not provide any specific emergency authority on its own. Rather, it allows the president to exercise emergency authorities set forth in other statutes.
There are currently 123 distinct statutes granting the president emergency authority to respond to a wide variety of situations.
None of those statutes explicitly reference immigration. However, many of them would allow the present to implement an emergency response to migration crises involving threats to national security, public safety or public health.
As part of the emergency declaration process the president must specify which emergency authority he is invoking.
The statutes the president is most likely to invoke, upon declaring an immigration-related national emergency, are:
10 U.S. Code § 2808 – Construction Authority in the Event of A Declaration of War or National Emergency: This statute provides that, upon the President’s declaration of a national emergency, “that requires use of the armed forces,” the Secretary of Defense may “without regard to any other provision of law . . .undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”
33 U.S.C. § 2293 – Reprogramming During National Emergencies: This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Army to terminate or defer Army civil works projects that are “not essential to the national defense” upon the declaration of a national emergency. The Secretary of the Army can then use the funds otherwise allocated to those projects for “authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”
According to the Congressional Research Service there are also two statutes which may allow the president to begin construction on a border wall without declaring a national emergency or obtaining congressional authorization:
10 U.S.C. § 2803 – Emergency Construction: This legislation provides that the Secretary of Defense “may carry out a military construction project not otherwise authorized by law” after determining the following: (1) “the project is vital to the national security or to the protection of health, safety, or the quality of the environment,” and (2) “the requirement for the project is so urgent that” deferring the project “would be inconsistent with national security or the protection of health, safety, or environmental quality.”
10 U.S.C. § 284 – Support for Counterdrug Activities and Activities to Counter Transnational Organized Crime: This legislation provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counter drug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” of any law enforcement agency, including through the “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.”Should the president choose to declare an immigration-related national emergency and invoke his powers under one of the aforementioned statutes, he is sure to be challenged in court – most likely in the radical Ninth Federal Circuit – by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and its network of open-borders, pro-illegal-alien agitators.However, outside the Ninth Circuit, he is likely to prevail. Many prior presidents have declared national emergencies and invoked extraordinary powers in response to “crises” that were significantly less threatening than the near failure of our southern border.For now, those of us who are concerned about the integrity of America’s borders can only wait, watch and hope that our elected leaders will do the right thing and put the interests of everyday Americans above those of un-vetted border-jumpers who may present a significant threat to our country.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/flag-3889781_640.jpg360640Federation for American Immigration Reformhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFederation for American Immigration Reform2019-02-10 16:51:372019-03-07 05:31:17Fact Sheet: National Emergencies, Military Construction Authority and the Border Barrier
Earlier this week, 2ndVote’s founder and chairman sent a letter to AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart calling for these companies to stop funding UnidosUS, a liberal organization formerly known as La Raza. Thousands of concerned consumers have signed our petition to tell these companies to stop using their money to support leftist immigration policies, and oppose needed border security measures.
AT&T scores a 1 on the immigration issue because of their direct contributions to organizations such as LULAC, National Urban League, and of course, UnidosUS. All of these organizations advocate for sanctuary cities which gives illegal immigrants a safe haven for violating immigration laws, which is why we are telling AT&T to stop funding groups that support unsafe immigration policies.
Not only does AT&T score a 1 on immigration, but they also receive a 1 on all seven issues 2ndVote scores companies on. AT&T funds numerous organizations that support abortion, sponsor groups that are against national concealed carry laws, and partner with organizations that oppose religious liberty. If you want to see exactly why AT&T scores a 1 on every issue, here is a link to their company score page. And if you would like to join the thousands who oppose AT&T funding UnidosUS and other organizations, check out this article and sign the petition!
Here at 2ndVote, we don’t like to always focus on the bad actors, but also give our readers some better alternatives. A great alternative to AT&T is Patriot Mobile, who has long been an ally to 2ndVote. Patriot Mobile scores a 5 on all 7 issues, and offers a conservative choice for consumers looking to step away from AT&T. Rather than funding liberal organizations, Patriot Mobile takes a portion of their profits and donates them to Conservative organizations that stand for traditional family values, 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, and the right to life. So if you do decide to switch to Patriot Mobile, tell them that 2ndVote sent you.
At least two illegal workers formerly employed by Trump businesses will be in the House gallery for the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. That’s two more good reasons for Mr. Trump and Congress to insist on a mandatory E-Verify employment screening law.
Courtesy of Democrats eager to make hay over illegal aliens on the payroll at Trump’s National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., Victorina Morales and Sandra Diaz got reserved seats for the president’s speech.
The Washington Times reported last month that just five of the 565 companies in the Trump Organization were signed up for the government’s E-Verify online vetting system.
Attempting to improve the optics, the Trump companies announced they will start using E-Verify to weed out workers who are in the country illegally.
“We are actively engaged in uniforming this process across our properties and will institute E-Verify at any property not currently utilizing this system,” said Eric Trump, executive vice president of the Trump Organization.
Trump’s son blamed illegal aliens for submitting bogus paperwork that enabled them to be hired in the first place.
His concern is legitimate. Counterfeit and stolen documents are widely used by illegal aliens to secure employment under false pretenses. This makes the case for E-Verify even stronger, and Trump & Co. should have put this tool to use long before now.
“Much embarrassment for businesses and hardship for workers could be avoided if E-Verify were mandatory and only legal workers employed by all employers,” notes Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA.
Research points to E-Verify’s effectiveness, with one study finding steep declines in illegal alien populations where the program was mandated.
Indeed, E-Verify is key for any serious negotiations on immigration and border security. So it’s time for politicians on both side of the aisle to stop grandstanding and put E-Verify to work. Shut off the illegal jobs magnet, and illegal immigration will wane while American workers gain.
Bob Dane, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)’s Executive Director, has been with FAIR since 2006. His deep belief is that immigration is the most transformational determinant of where we are heading as a nation and that our policies must be reformed in the public interest. Over many years on thousands of radio, TV and print interviews, Bob has made the case that unless immigration is regulated and sensibly reduced, it will be difficult for America to reduce unemployment, increase wages, improve health care and education and heighten national security. Prior to joining FAIR, Bob spent twenty years in network radio, marketing and communications after an earlier career in policy and budgeting within the Reagan Administration. Bob has a degree from George Mason University in Public Administration and Management.
RELATED VIDEO: Ocasio-Cortez Claims The U.S. Is A “Native Land” For Latinos.
EDITORS NOTE: This column by FAIR with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/E-verify-702x459-e1549712670554.png418640Federation for American Immigration Reformhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFederation for American Immigration Reform2019-02-09 06:44:422019-02-09 06:58:07A State Of The Union Stunt Makes The Case For E-Verify
I must admit I’ve become disenchanted with the State of The Union Address. I guess it began with Obama’s presidency. I found him so repulsive and dishonest that I couldn’t stand to listen.
When President Trump took office, naturally, my enthusiasm over the State of the Union Address blossomed once again. But even still, I can’t get over the fact that the Address has become a recitation of a long list of projects a particular President wishes to accomplish interlaced with pre-contrived talking points and moments of self-adulation. The State of the Union report is constitutionally prescribed, but not the Address.
However, there is one major, unanticipated plus to the State of the Union Address: observing the opposing party’s reactions to the President. Tuesday night’s was a glaring example of just how revealing this can be as millions of Americans were struck with what the Democrats did not stand for. And given this lengthy and ugly list, perhaps it is best if Democrats remain seated and stay out of the way while the rest of us choose greatness.
Here is the appalling list Democrats did not stand for:
1. Wages are rising.Specifically, they are growing for blue-collar workers. The Democrats did not stand. I was confused here. Does that mean that they don’t like blue-collar workers, or is it the improvement in their wages that Democrats oppose?
2. Five million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. The Democrats did not stand. Again. Confused. Five million people are no longer getting food stamps. That means that they are doing better. They are providing for themselves, probably because they have jobs now. Is that not a good thing?
3. The U.S. economy is growing twice as fast today as when President Trump took office. The Democrats did not stand. Do the Democrats not like that the economy is growing, or is it the implicit shaming of Obama they resent?
4. Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century. The Democrats did not stand. That’s a good thing, right? According to the Democrats, probably not — at least if they cannot take credit for it, which they cannot.
5. Asian, African American, and Hispanic unemployment rate at lowest level ever recorded. The Democrats did not stand. Neither did Speaker Pelosi. I thought the Democrats were all about the racial divide and correcting the injustices being purposefully perpetrated against minorities in this country. Shouldn’t we therefore be celebrating an improvement in the economic standing of members of minority groups? Nope, say the Democrats.
6. Americans with disabilities unemployment rate at an all-time low. The Democrats did not stand. Who doesn’t cheer accomplishments by disabled Americans? Oh yeah, Democrats.
7. More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country. The Democrats did not stand. Is people having jobs not a good thing?
8. Right to try. The Democrats did not stand. Okay. This one has to be bipartisan. The Right to Try law allows people with fatal conditions to try certain curative treatments despite not being approved by the FDA. It’s the legalization of the Hail Mary Pass in pharmacology. Surely, everyone is in favor of cutting through the bureaucratic nonsense to save a life, right? Apparently not the Democrats.
9. Companies are coming back in historic numbers. The Democrats did not stand. I got nothing.
10. The U.S. is the number one producer of oil and natural as in the world. The Democrats did not stand — except one, Sen. Manchin from West Virginia. They can’t stand this one! The President of the United States just exalted the destruction of the planet through the greater production of lethal green gases. Gases that will kill the earth! Never mind that those products keep our homes warm, help us cook our meals, or keep our biodegradable products cold so they won’t rot. On the other hand, who cares? According to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the planet is ending in 12 years anyway.
11. The U.S. is now a net exporter of energy. The Democrats did not stand. But what’s this? Pelosi clapped!?!? Perhaps just a confused moment. Otherwise see #10.
12. America is again winning each and every day. The Democrats did not stand. Of course. The Democrats will perpetually root for anyone against the Patriots, and they’re still sore from their defeat in the Super Bowl at the hands of a Trump-loving quarterback against a team that, by its very name, celebrates patriotism.
13. The state of our union is strong. The Democrats did not stand, of course, and Pelosi smugly shook her head. I understand that we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the direction we believe the country should be headed, but to deny that the state of the union is strong, particularly when the economy is buzzing, the unemployment rate is down, and (let’s face it) people are risking life and limb merely to be a part of us, is disingenuous to say the least. We should be celebrating the state of our union today, not dismissing it. And yes, always fighting for better.
14. Another 304,000 jobs were added in the latest job numbers, almost double the number expected. The Democrats did not stand. All I can say is that they didn’t stand for this because a strong work force is a threat to the future of the Democratic Party.
15. And the granddaddy of them all, America will never be a socialist country! The Democrats did not stand. A telling testament to the true intent of this crop of Democrats. They want to dismiss our foundational principles, destroy everything we’ve accomplished, and take us in the same direction as other nations with consistently calamitous results.
Given this atrocious behavior and what it foretells in policies, it actually would be best if Democrats stay seated and brood. The rest of us will continue to protect our freedoms and strive for greatness.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/stadium-165406_640.jpg480640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2019-02-08 04:09:002019-02-08 04:09:02Democrats SHOULD Remain Seated; The Rest Of Us Will Choose Greatness
Sanctuary policies tie the hands of law enforcement and other government officials by prohibiting or restricting their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, dangerously allowing criminal aliens to live and work freely in communities.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/florida-153392_640.png428640Federation for American Immigration Reformhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFederation for American Immigration Reform2019-02-07 18:17:512019-02-07 18:19:09Tell FL Senators on Judiciary Committee to prohibit dangerous sanctuary policies!
How many times have you heard it from the mainstream media—Americans are criminals at a higher rate than immigrants, so those new American wannabes flooding our border pose no threat!
Well, that is fake news!
In case you missedthe new reportat the Federation for American Immigration Reform, John Binder writing at Breitbarthas the numbers.
Study: Illegal Aliens Up to 5X More Likely To Be in Prison Than Americans
Illegal aliens concentrated in ten U.S. states are up to more than five times as likely to be in prison for crimes than American citizens and legal immigrants, a new study reveals.
Research by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)analyzed states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens — including Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington — debunking claims by the big business interests and open borders lobby that the illegal alien population is generally harmless to Americans.
For example, the FAIR study found that in New Jersey, which has a generally small prison population, illegal aliens are about 5.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than American citizens and legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News has extensively reported, criminal foreigners in federal prison cost American taxpayers about $1.4 billion every year.Likewise, mass immigration to the U.S. from primarily Central America has led to a booming foreign incarcerated population from the region.
Between Fiscal Year 2011 and 2016, about 91 percent of all criminal illegal and legal immigrants in federal U.S. prisons were nationals from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Guatemala, Breitbart News reported.
What can you do? You should bookmark the FAIR report or Binder’s piece and the next time you see news from, for instance, some Leftwing politician, that Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than “new Americans,” take time to let the media outlet or the elected official know that they are wrong.
Better still don’t wait and write a letter to the editor for your local paper with the statistics!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mma-2282013_640.jpg426640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-02-07 06:48:272019-03-07 05:34:34Number of Illegal Aliens Behind Bars in U.S. Higher than Media Wants us to Believe
The ABC/AP report noted that the Trump administration was sending those members of the armed forces to the U.S./Mexican border to bring the total number of active-duty troops to 4,350. The Pentagon said that the soldiers would be installing 150 miles of concertina barbed wire and assist with surveilling the border, but not have direct contact with any illegal aliens or aid in their arrest by the Border Patrol. Reportedly, however, the soldiers will be able to help defend Border Patrol agents who come under fire.
The news report included this excerpt:
The announcement is in line with what Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan had said on Tuesday when he provided estimates for the next phase of a military mission that has grown in size and length. Critics have derided it as a political ploy by the White House as President Donald Trump seeks billions to build a border wall.
It is astonishing that anyone would actually believe that protecting America and Americans from the entry of uninspected aliens and cargo is a “political ploy.”
Is the oath of office the President, Vice President or members of Congress take a political ploy?
In point of fact, the political foes of the border wall are playing politics with national security, public safety, public health and the livelihoods of American and lawful immigrant workers.
Even though prior administrations, including those of George W. Bush and Barak Obama, have sent military units to back up the Border Patrol, the fact that President Trump would take this action incites the knee-jerk deprecatory reactions of his foes.
Let us make a point that needs to be made when considering cooperation between the valiant men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol and those of the U.S. Armed Forces.
While it makes headlines that the U.S. military is being called upon to back up the Border Patrol, in reality the Border Patrol, the Inspectors of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE agents (INS agents prior to the creation of DHS) have always backed up the United States military.
This is a point that is never made in the media but should be: the primary and shared mission of the five branches of the armed forces is to keep the enemies of the United States as far from our shores as possible.
Up close, however, that critical mission falls to the U.S. Border Patrol and to the inspectors at ports of entry who have the responsibility for determining whether or not to admit aliens into the United States.
Finally, ICE agents back up both the Border Patrol and the CBP Inspectors and are charged with, among other missions, locating and apprehending aliens who violate our immigration laws.
This critical nature of immigration law enforcement provided the incentive to move the enforcement and administration of our immigration laws from the Labor Department to the Justice Department at the beginning of World War II when it was realized that spies, saboteurs and enemy combatants were seeking to enter the United States to act against America.
Nevertheless, the ABC News article went on to report:
Members of Congress have question whether the border mission is distracting troops from their main work of fighting extremists abroad and training for combat. The first active-duty troops were sent to the border on about Oct. 30 for a mission that was to end Dec. 15. It has since been extended twice.
“What impact does it have to readiness to send several thousand troops down to the Southern border? It interrupts their training. It interrupts their dwell time,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said at a hearing on Tuesday.
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019, the same day that the House Armed Services Committee conducted its hearing, the Senate Intelligence Committee also conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats. The Senate hearing was predicated on the release of a “World-Wide Threat Assessment” detailing the major threats that confront America and Americans that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.
Perhaps the esteemed members of our Congress should be given a required reading list and an exam after they complete their assignment. (NOTE: their staffers cannot do the reading or take the exams for them!)
This latter report focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States, and ultimately embed themselves here as they went about their deadly preparations and carried out an attack. The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
The short version of that paragraph for our intellectually challenged “representatives” is simply the commonsense phrase, “Border security is national security.”
In the days, weeks and months after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, our leaders told us we needed to fight the terrorists overseas so that we would not need to fight them here.
The harsh and unavoidable reality is that we are fighting them “over here” each and every day.
This is why we undergo incredibly intrusive searches before we board airliners and have to submit to searches to enter government office buildings.
This is why the Patriot Act was enacted which all but shredded the Fourth Amendment, in the name of the “War on Terror.”
Nevertheless, this mantra about fighting the terrorists “over there” so that we won’t have to fight them “over here” was frequently repeated by globalist politicians from both political parties, even as it ignored the obvious: the terror attacks of 9/11 did not happen “over there,” they occurred “over here” in lower Manhattan, in Washington, D.C., and in a previously quiet field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
More terror attacks have since been carried out within the borders of the United States by aliens who, in one way or another, managed to enter the country. Some of those attacks killed and injured innocent victims while others thankfully failed.
Beyond the threats posed by foreign terrorists, the United States is also under siege from transnational criminal organizations and drug cartels that, in recent years in particular, have partnered with terrorist organizations such as Iran’s Hezbollah.
Here are a few of my recent commentaries that Mr. Smith and his colleagues should read to understand that which he clearly does not understand, given the questions he raised in the ABC News report:
Simply stated, dead is dead. Whether the death of innocent victims is the result of a terror attack perpetrated by aliens who violated our immigration laws or a crime of violence committed by an illegal alien, the victims are no less dead. Neither are those who fall victim to narcotics smuggled into the United States and die of a drug overdose.
Illegal immigration is not a “victimless crime” but creates an obvious crisis for America and Americans.
Decent, moral leaders would never put political goals ahead of innocent lives. To politicize national security and public safety takes a very special sort of miscreant. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of such individuals who, it would seem, see dead bodies as speed bumps on their road to political objectives.
It is beyond belief that they could obstruct commonsense measures to protect national security and public safety in this particularly perilous era, and then sleep at night.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mnb-e1549539243801.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2019-02-07 06:34:142019-02-07 06:34:16Military On The Border: Appropriate Response To A Crisis