Obama floods country with violent illegals, then demands more gun control
MS-13 and other violent street gangs are aggressively recruiting illegal alien youth who recently arrived in America.
The gangs, which also include the Latin Kings and the Sureños, are targeting immigrant communities in New York and elsewhere across the country for recruits under the age of 18.
“I came from… [El Salvador] to get away from them [MS-13], but the same crime is happening here,” N.Y. resident Wilfredo Serrano told Fox News Latino. “Now they’ve been going after the new arrivals… kids who are very vulnerable and have already been through the worst in life.”
In N.Y. alone the gangs are vying to recruit from a pool of over 3,000 illegals who resettled in Nassau and Suffolk counties after last year’s massive surge of illegal immigration from Central America.
“They were targeted by the Latino gangs that were already established here,” Det. Sgt. Mike Marino of the Nassau Co. Police Department said. “The gangs did try to recruit some of them.”
Many of these children were in fact previously apprehended by immigration authorities, but as Infowars discovered last year, the federal government was quickly releasing them and even buying them bus tickets to resettle anywhere in the U.S.
“What happened [at the McAllen, Texas, bus station] in particular is that the Border Patrol dropped off what they call detainees but obviously they’re not detained when they drop them off,” McAllen City Attorney Kevin Pagan said in an interview with Infowars. “Normally they have tickets or arraigned transportation to go somewhere in the interior [of the U.S.]”
In exchange for the tickets, the illegals are given a date to appear at immigration court, but the court dates are set several years in advance and 90% of the illegals never show up to court anyway.
“They know they are going to be processed and released and they are free to go wherever they want to go in the U.S. and the likelihood of them ever showing up for their court date is slim to none,” Stu Harris of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1929 told Infowars.
To sum it up, the Obama administration is importing illegal aliens into the country at taxpayer expense and many of them will ultimately join violent street gangs like MS-13.
And once the gang violence explodes across America, Obama will exploit it to advocate more gun control.
An Ohio concealed carrier prevented a tragedy Sunday, as he fired upon a man who was trying to kill a woman he got into an argument with, as well as her one year old child, and innocent bystanders.
Cincinnati’s Fox19 reports that 62-year-old Thomas McCary pulled a gun on Patrick Ewing when Ewing attempted to settle a dispute between his own sister, Jeaneta Walker, and McCary.
McCary shot at Ewing three times, according to the report, prompting Ewing to pull out his own firearm, which he has under a concealed carry license.
Ewing hit McCary in the leg, but it didn’t prevent him from returning to his house and emerging with yet more firepower.
McCary, now carrying two handguns, came out firing at anyone in sight, including Ms Walker, the child, and another man in the vicinity.
Ewing again opened fire as close to McCary as he safely could, diverting his attention, and allowing the innocents to run to safety.
McCary was eventually arrested and taken to hospital where he was treated and released into police custody. He is being held without bond in Hamilton County jail on four counts of felonious assault.
Ewing is being hailed as a local hero and will almost certainly not face charges for using his weapon, as this was a case of self defense.
As The Washington Post noted this week, Americans are increasingly viewing more responsible gun owners as a solution, rather than a problem.
A recent Pew Research poll found a nine-point rise in the number of Americans who think gun ownership could “protect people from becoming victims of crime.”
The Post reported:
The post-Newtown shift was most significant among Republicans, whose support for gun ownership in the two years since the attack rose from 63 percent to 80 percent.
The poll also marked the first time in two decades of Pew surveys that more Americans supported gun rights rather than gun control (though public opinion had been shifting that way for years).
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn Push Through Voice Vote to Fund Planned Parenthood, Protect Obama’s Iran Deal
On the floor of the U.S. Senate on Sunday evening, something remarkable—a little bit insider-y in Washington, but remarkable nonetheless—happened: The Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), his entire leadership team, and most of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate voice voted through measures to fund Planned Parenthood in its entirety and to help protect President Barack Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran.
The reason the voice vote is significant is because McConnell, especially, and his Whip Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), purposefully launched what appears to be an unprecedented effort to duck accountability for their votes—and the votes of every other GOP member who joined with them in supporting Obama’s Iran deal and funding for Planned Parenthood.
The way it went down is a little bit confusing, and procedurally awkward, but it’s truly odd—and highly unusual—for members in the United States Senate to purposefully avoid roll call votes when they are asked for one by a member of the Senate.
Here’s what happened: McConnell offered to the highway bill a non-germane amendment—which was deemed germane by his colleagues this weekend—that would reauthorize the highly controversial Export-Import Bank. In response, Sens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) offered two amendments on Sunday evening to McConnell’s non-germane-to-the-highway-bill-amendment-that-was-later-inaccurately-deemed-germane.
The reason why Cruz and Lee offered amendments to McConnell’s amendment—essentially second tier amendments, or amendments to an amendment—rather than to the highway bill itself is because McConnell engaged in a tactic made popular by his predecessor, former Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), called “filling the amendment tree.” Doing that ensures that there is no opportunity for senators to offer any extra amendments, and it is a tactic designed to stifle open and honest debate.
Cruz’s amendment would have, when it comes to President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran, kept sanctions on Iran until it recognized the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and until Iran released the four Americans it is currently holding hostage in their country. Lee’s amendment would have defunded Planned Parenthood—which has gotten lots of extra attention as of late, as new covert videos have emerged showing executives from the taxpayer-funded abortion-providing institution seeking to sell aborted baby body parts.
Cruz’s came up first,and when he offered it, it was shot down by the chair in the Senate—the presiding officer—as non-germane to McConnell’s Export Import Bank reauthorization amendment. Cruz appealed the ruling of the chair—a vote that requires just 51 Senators, or a simple majority in the Senate—and instead of actually having a recorded roll call vote, the yeas and nays, GOP leadership including McConnell and Cornyn ordered it voice voted down. Since the vote threshold to overturn the ruling of the chair is a simple majority, and there are only 46 Democrats in the Senate, it means that McConnell and Cornyn would have needed to deliver at least five Republicans to kill Cruz’s motion, assuming all the Democrats voted that way. Instead, by voice voting it down—in fact, only Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Lee seconded Cruz’s motion for a roll call vote, not a sufficient number to get a recorded vote—they kept themselves from having to make five Republicans walk the political plank to vote against something they say they support.
Voice voting means a whole bunch of senators just yelled out that they didn’t support Cruz’s effort to restrain Iran from hurting Israel, because McConnell and Cornyn didn’t want evidence of which (at least) five Republican senators would join presumably all the Democrats to vote down the amendment’s chances.
The same exact process played out a few minutes later when Lee moved to do the same.
In response to this process happening on Sunday evening, in a public statement on his website, Cruz hammered McConnell.
“We’ve just seen something extraordinary on the Senate floor,” Cruz said in the statement. “The American people elected a Republican majority believing that a Republican majority would be somehow different from a Democratic majority in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, the way the current Senate operates, there is one party, the Washington party.”
Cruz hammered McConnell for working with Reid to achieve a non-Republican agenda. He said:
Senate leadership consists of the McConnell-Reid leadership team. They operate as a team. They support the same priorities. If you look at what has occurred in the United States Senate since the Republicans took a majority, we immediately returned after winning a historic majority to pass a trillion dollar ‘cromnibus’ bill filled with corporate welfare and pork. Then, the so-called Republican majority voted to fund Obamacare. Then, the so-called Republican majority voted to fund President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. Then, the so-called Republican majority voted to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general. Then, just moments ago, the so-called Republican majority voted to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, an egregious example of cronyism and corporate welfare. Every one of those is the priority of the Democratic leader Harry Reid. Every one of those is the priority of the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. They operate as a team, expanding Washington and undermining the liberty of the people.
Specifically about the voice-vote tactic, Cruz called it “unprecedented” in U.S. Senate history. He went on:
What we just saw a moment ago is unprecedented in the annals of Senate history. It consisted of the majority leader and the minority leader denying members the ability to have votes on their amendments and indeed the ability even to have a roll call vote. The denial of a second, as you just saw a moment ago, which was aggressively whipped by the majority, is an extraordinary measure designed to gag Senators and enforce the will of the McConnell-Reid leadership team. It saddens me as a Republican to see Republican leadership lead the effort to kill an amendment that would have prevented lifting sanctions on Iran unless and until Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and unless and until Iran releases American hostages. Make no mistake – granting a sufficient second for a roll call vote is done customarily in the United States Senate. Denying it is extraordinary, and it is done as a consequence of the majority leader Mitch McConnell being afraid for his members to be on record on this issue. We then, subsequently, saw Senator Mike Lee from Utah bring up his amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. We have seen in recent weeks gruesome videos of senior officials of Planned Parenthood discussing the selling of body parts of unborn children. These videos are horrifying, and yet it saddens me greatly that the Republican leader led the effort to continue the taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.
McConnell’s office and Cornyn’s office did not respond to a request for comment from Breitbart News about the matter.
But Reid’s spokesman, Adam Jentleson, said that even he has never seen actions like what McConnell engaged in against the Republican members of the Senate. Jentleson told Breitbart News in an email:
I’ll defend filling the tree as a tactic when the leader is facing an opposition determined to use every tool available to oppose everything he does. But unlike Senator Reid, that is not the situation Senator McConnell faces; he has a cooperative minority but is filling the tree to block and silence members of his own party. Senator Reid never did that. Furthermore, Senator McConnell is going beyond filling the tree to deny his own members a sufficient second, which may be entirely unprecedented.
Jentleson added that McConnell’s fecklessness and inability to solve problems within his own party—and his efforts to shut down intra-Republican debate—prove he’s not an effective leader.
“For whatever reason, Senator McConnell appears unable to resolve the concerns of his more conservative members and seems to think he has no recourse but to resort to procedural maneuvers to silence them,” Jentleson, who has worked for Reid for years, told Breitbart News. “Senator Reid filled the tree when he felt he’d reached an impasse with Republicans, but as far as I can recall he never filled the tree or denied a sufficient second to members of his own caucus.”
This theme that McConnell is more interested in working with Democrats than he is in accomplishing GOP priorities is one that is not new. A few months ago, Breitbart News broke down empirical vote data showing that McConnell as Majority Leader this year has not accomplished any GOP priorities and has not succeeded in getting any legislation through the Senate and signed by the president without overwhelming support from the Democratic conference.
Back then — something that clearly continues — Jentleson was gleeful that McConnell is acting more like a Democrat than a Republican.
“While Republicans have done nothing to create jobs and help the middle class, on other topics like passing clean funding for Homeland Security and confirming Loretta Lynch, Senator McConnell has done the right thing by bringing bills and nominations to the floor that Democrats can support,” Jentleson said back then. “Democrats hope this trend will continue.”
It clearly has. According to nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin, it will continue even longer unless McConnell resigns as Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. Levin said on his Facebook page:
It is time for Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) to resign for the good of the nation and the Republican Party. The nation and GOP are both suffering as a result of the unwillingness or inability of McConnell and Boehner to effectively defend either. Instead, these politicians are consumed with consolidating their own power on Capitol Hill and silencing opponents who dare to challenge their ironfisted rule. Sadly, they rarely act in the best interests of America’s future. Indeed, time and again they have delivered victory after victory for Obama and his radical agenda — from spending, borrowing, and Obamacare to illegal immigration, Iran and ‘trade’ power. Never before has a Congress controlled by one party been so thoroughly impotent. This is due to the disastrous leadership of McConnell and Boehner. It is time for younger, wiser, and more courageous Republican leaders — constitutional conservatives who understand the role of a statesman in perilous times — who are willing to truly lead the nation and the Republican Party based on America’s enlightened principles, advance the cause of liberty and republican government, and make the case everyday to the American people.
Of course, just a day after this effort on the Senate floor on Sunday, McConnell forced the Export-Import Bank reauthorization amendment to the unrelated highway bill through the Senate late Monday evening.
In response, Cruz issued a scathing statement:
Tonight, the McConnell-Reid leadership team pushed through another win for the Washington Cartel, and they did so at the taxpayers’ expense. By casting votes in favor of cronyism and special interests, the Senate made clear what group matters most to them… and the answer is not the American people,” Cruz said in a press release. “Worse still, the one person who had the ability to make sure the Ex-Im Bank remained expired was the majority leader. Rather than keeping the promise he made to every member of his party, he turned his back on the American people and allowed one of the worst examples of corporate welfare our nation has ever known to be resurrected from the dead.
Cruz added that McConnell is doing all this while ignoring issues that matter to Americans.
“Instead of taking up issues that really matter to the American people, like defunding Planned Parenthood, standing up against Iran, passing ‘Kate’s Law’ and ending sanctuary cities, the Senate chose to satisfy the demands of big businesses with even bigger pocketbooks,” Cruz said. “Fortunately, leaders in the House have indicated this bill is dead on arrival. I hope that my colleagues in the House remain true to conservative principles and stand firm in refusing to surrender to the Washington Cartel.”
Ahh…Oligarchy tastes so good, doesn’t it, America? It seems like only yesterday (because it was) that we reported that Hillary Clinton was bankrolled by Wall Street—and now we get the
unsurprising news that Bush III is also financed by everyone’s favorite buyer of elections (sarcasm intended). Yes, Jeb Bush is currently bank-rolled by none other than Goldman Sachs, the biggest purchaser of political influence in recent times.
According to Bloomberg Business,
“More than 50 Goldman Sachs executives and employees gave the Republican more than $144,000 in the second quarter, with most of them sending $2,700, the maximum allowed, according to Federal Election Commission filings.”
I guess we know where Jebby’s alliances will lie in the event that he wins the 2016 presidential election.
However, let’s not act like the Republicans have a monopoly on Goldman Sachs money. Sure, Mitt Romney benefited most from them in 2012. But Goldman was the second largest fundraiser for Barack Obama in 2008, as well.
In fact, as I noted above, Hillary Clinton—another establishment favorite for 2016—is also benefiting greatly from the Big Banks. According to Bloomberg,
“Goldman Sachs employees sent more to Bush than to Hillary Clinton, who got less than $60,000. Even so, she received more than him from donors at JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley, where her former State Department deputy Tom Nides is vice chairman. He’s among bundlers who helped her raise at least $100,000.”
Banksters 2016, anyone? I mean, that’s basically the only choice we’re currently given by the corporate media and political establishment. From the news coverage to date, you’d think that there are only three candidates in the running for 2016: Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and racist idiot Donald Trump. But are there other options that aren’t shoe-ins for the oligarchy? Maybe.
For the corporate parties, you have Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Bernie Sanders. Both candidates talk a relatively good game, but both also make questionable statements and have suspect voting records, demonstrating they are—at least partially—in line with the rest of the political establishment. Nevertheless, both candidates have called for (and voted to bring) transparency to the Federal Reserve. They have also both shown willingness to challenge foreign policy in one way or another. Both have relatively strong track records of taking on the corrupted monetary and criminal “justice” systems—but there are even better options.
For these, we will have to step outside of the two-party duopoly.
The Green party has a great option in Jill Stein, who I’ve personally met and conversed with. She says she would reign in the financial system and would “break up the big banks and bail out the students,” repatriate the Federal Reserve to the people, end all wars, and protect the U.S. environment from Big Oil and other corporate exploits.
The Libertarian Party has a viable option in Gary Johnson, should he decide to run (he probably will “unless something catastrophic happens“). He believes in ending the Federal Reserve, reigning in out-of-control foreign policy, ending most foreign aid, instituting tax and immigration reform, and allowing young people to opt-out of entitlements like Social Security.
Both of these candidates are MUCH better than the choices being spoon-fed to us, which invariably have an (R) or a (D) next to their names. But what can we do beyond voting to actively resist oligarchy?
DOJ Attorney William Killian Threatened Americans for Speaking Out Against Islam – Now Leads Chattanooga Jihad Investigation
The Obama Department of Justice attorney who threatened Americans with prosecution and imprisonment for speaking out against Islam has been placed in the lead position of investigating Thursday’s Islamic jihad attack in Chattanooga that left at least one officer wounded and four US Marines dead.
Following his comments back in June 2013, Bill Killian, attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, held a town meeting to push his agenda in Manchester, Tennessee. Though he issued a not-so-veiled threats against non-Muslims, in violation of the protections of the First Amendment, there was a massive uprising and protest of his meeting.
Now, we find Killian in the center of leading what he calls “an act of domestic terrorism.” However, he is simply a taqiyyah advocate as he would not designate this an Islamic attack, even though the Islamic State had pointed out that it was before the attack occurred. This demonstrates, just as the Garland Texas jihad did, that the violations of the Constitution through illegal surveillance by the federal government does not prevent jihad attacks. Men with guns do stop them though.
In response to Killian being at the center of the investigation, Pamela Geller said, “How ironic that it is Bill Killian — who was the most reluctant official to speak at today’s press conference. William Killian is the Department of Justice official who vowed to criminalize social postings on Facebook and Twitter.”
“We held a protest against Mr. Killian, and thousands joined us here,” she added. “Killian should be removed from the case. He is incapable of conducting a sharia-free investigation.”
“It is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion,” Barack Obama said.
What’s more heartbreaking is that Bill Clinton made areas like the ones where the Marines were killed “Gun Free Zones,” which have left Americans defenseless against any gunman and any Islamic jihadist. Obama has kept that in place as well and seeks to make all of America a “Gun Free Zone,” except for criminals, of course.
Secretly though (Yours truly believes it openly), many Americans believe this is exactly what Barack Obama wants to happen. After all, he was mentored by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Communist Frank Marshall Davis.
The irony in all of this is that a shariah compliant attorney, working for a man who uttered the words, “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” is now in the midst of a mass murder by an Islamic jihadist.
And yes, this guy is an Islamic jihadist. When’s the last time you heard the name Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez applied to an American patriot?
Last week, Retired General Wesley Clark, who was NATO commander during the US bombing of Serbia, proposed that “disloyal Americans” be sent to internment camps for the “duration of the conflict.” Discussing the recent military base shootings in Chattanooga, TN, in which five US service members were killed, Clark recalled the internment of American citizens during World War II who were merely suspected of having Nazi sympathies. He said: “back then we didn’t say ‘that was freedom of speech,’ we put him in a camp.”
He called for the government to identify people most likely to be radicalized so we can “cut this off at the beginning.” That sounds like “pre-crime”!
Gen. Clark ran for president in 2004 and it’s probably a good thing he didn’t win considering what seems to be his disregard for the Constitution. Unfortunately in the current presidential race Donald Trump even one-upped Clark, stating recently that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is a traitor and should be treated like one, implying that the government should kill him.
These statements and others like them most likely reflect the frustration felt in Washington over a 15 year war on terror where there has been no victory and where we actually seem worse off than when we started. The real problem is they will argue and bicker over changing tactics but their interventionist strategy remains the same.
Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, who was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, told al-Jazeera this week that US drones create more terrorists than they kill. He said: “The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.”
Still Washington pursues the same strategy while expecting different results.
It is probably almost inevitable that the warhawks will turn their anger inward, toward Americans who are sick of the endless and costly wars. The US loss of the Vietnam war is still blamed by many on the protesters at home rather than on the foolishness of the war based on a lie in the first place.
Let’s hope these threats from Clark and Trump are not a trial balloon leading to a clampdown on our liberties. There are a few reasons we should be concerned. Last week the US House passed a bill that would allow the Secretary of State to unilaterally cancel an American citizen’s passport if he determines that person has “aided” or “abetted” a terrorist organization. And as of this writing, the Senate is debating a highway funding bill that would allow the Secretary of State to cancel the passport of any American who owes too much money to the IRS.
Canceling a passport means removing the right to travel, which is a kind of virtual internment camp. The person would find his movements restricted, either being prevented from leaving or entering the United States. Neither of these measures involves any due process or possibility of appeal, and the government’s evidence supporting the action can be kept secret.
We should demand an end to these foolish wars that even the experts admit are making matters worse. Of course we need a strong defense, but we should not provoke the hatred of others through drones, bombs, or pushing regime change overseas. And we must protect our civil liberties here at home from government elites who increasingly view us as the enemy.
Patrick J. Buchanan
The American political class has failed the country, and should be fired. That is the clearest message from the summer surge of Bernie Sanders and the remarkable rise of Donald Trump.
Sanders’ candidacy can trace it roots back to the 19th-century populist party of Mary Elizabeth Lease who declaimed:
“Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master.”
“Raise less corn and more hell!” Mary admonished the farmers of Kansas.
William Jennings Bryan captured the Democratic nomination in 1896 by denouncing the gold standard beloved of the hard money men of his day: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
Sanders is in that tradition, if not in that league as an orator. His followers, largely white, $50,000-a-year folks with college degrees, call to mind more the followers of George McGovern than Jennings Bryan.
Yet the stagnation of workers’ wages as the billionaire boys club admits new members, and the hemorrhaging of U.S. jobs under trade deals done for the Davos-Doha crowd, has created a blazing issue of economic inequality that propels the Sanders campaign.
Between his issues and Trump’s there is overlap. Both denounce the trade deals that deindustrialized America and shipped millions of jobs off to Mexico, Asia and China. But Trump has connected to an even more powerful current.
That is the issue of uncontrolled and illegal immigration, the sense America’s borders are undefended, that untold millions of lawbreakers are in our country, and more are coming. While most come to work, they are taking American jobs and consuming tax dollars, and too many come to rob, rape, murder and make a living selling drugs.
Moreover, the politicians who have talked about this for decades are a pack of phonies who have done little to secure the border.
Trump boasts that he will get the job done, as he gets done all other jobs he has undertaken. And his poll ratings are one measure of how far out of touch the Republican establishment is with the Republican heartland.
When Trump ridicules his rivals as Lilliputians and mocks the celebrity media, the Republican base cheers and laughs with him.
He is boastful, brash, defiant, unapologetic, loves campaigning, and is putting on a great show with his Trump planes and 100-foot-long stretch limos. “Every man a king but no man wears a crown,” said Huey Long. “I’m gonna make America great again,” says Donald.
Compared to Trump, all the other candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, are boring. He makes politics entertaining, fun.
Trump also benefits from the perception that his rivals and the press want him out of the race and are desperately seizing upon any gaffe to drive him out. The piling on, the abandonment of Trump by the corporate elite, may have cost him a lot of money. But it also brought him support he would not otherwise have had.
For no group of Americans has been called more names than the base of the GOP. The attacks that caused the establishment to wash its hands of Trump as an embarrassment brought the base to his defense.
But can Trump win?
If his poll numbers hold, Trump will be there six months from now when the Sweet 16 is cut to the Final Four, and he will likely be in the finals. For if Trump is running at 18 or 20 percent nationally then, among Republicans, it is hard to see how two rivals beat him.
For Trump not to be in the hunt as the New Hampshire primary opens, his campaign will have to implode, as Gary Hart’s did in 1987, and Bill Clinton’s almost did in 1992.
Thus, in the next six months, Trump will have to commit some truly egregious blunder that costs him his present following. Or the dirt divers of the media and “oppo research” arms of the other campaigns will have to come up with some high-yield IEDs.
Presidential primaries are minefields for the incautious, and Trump is not a cautious man. And it is difficult to see how, in a two-man race against the favorite of the Republican establishment, he could win enough primaries, caucuses and delegates to capture 50 percent of the convention votes.
For almost all of the candidates who will have dropped out by then will have endorsed the last man standing against Trump. And should Trump be nominated, his candidacy would make Barry Goldwater look like the great uniter of the GOP.
Still, who expected Donald Trump to be in the catbird seat in the GOP nomination run before the first presidential debate? And even his TV antagonists cannot deny he has been great for ratings.
Brian C Joondeph
#BlackLivesMatter is the mantra of the modern civil rights movement, a conversation around how, “Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.” It is also a key platform of todays Democrat party, as presidential candidate Martin O’Malley learned the hard way. He was foolish enough to tell the Democrat base at the Netroots Nation conference that, “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” After being booed off stage, he groveled for forgiveness, telling the outraged audience, “That was a mistake on my part.”
Meanwhile two videos were released showing Planned Parenthood senior medical officers discussing their chop shop for aborted baby parts. The medical directors, over a lunch of non-GMO, gluten-free, vegan salad, casually negotiated prices of baby liver and brain. They described the optimal way to deliver these parts, using forceps to “crush below” the monetized organs and other “less crunchy” abortion techniques.
#BlackLivesMatter did not come up in conversation with the baby parts merchants, yet perhaps it should have.
Planned Parenthood dates its inception to 1916 when Margaret Sanger opened America’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. Less well known is that Sanger was a racist and eugenicist who considered many Americans unworthy of life. #ManyLivesDon’tMatter would have been her hashtag.
In the 1930s and 1940s, her eugenics views lead to compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states, ridding the population of “people she considered feeble-minded, idiots and morons.” She addressed a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926. “That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks.” The KKK hashtag would have been #BlackLivesDon’tMatter.
In a letter Sanger wrote in 1939, she admitted, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” Given the popularity of Planned Parenthood among the left, word didn’t get out.
Flash forward to 2009 when Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award. Hillary remarked, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” Hillary went further, “I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life.” Do those lessons include Sanger’s Negro Project, dedicated to “the elimination of human waste”? #BlackLivesAreWaste? How would Netroots Nation respond? Will Jake Tapper grill Mrs. Clinton about her remarks with the same enthusiasm that he went after Carly Fiorina over her abortion views? Don’t hold your breath.
President Obama, in 2013, awarded 16 honorees with the Presidential Medal of Freedom which is “presented to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” One of the recipients was feminist Gloria Steinem, who accepted the honor hoping that it would reflect “the work of Margaret Sanger.” Neither she nor President Obama was asked which Sanger works were being celebrated. The Negro Project? Forced sterilization? Weeding out the unfit? #OnlyCertainLivesMatter.
Let’s not dwell in the past. Margaret Sanger is ancient history. Just as decades ago esteemed Democrat Robert Byrd was an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. And Bull Conner was a Democrat, not a Republican. That’s not the Democrat party of today. Or is it? Where does #BlackLivesMatter fit into the modern day Democrat party supported Planned Parenthood?
Seems Black lives do matter very much to Planned Parenthood. Where do they place their clinics? “The primary consideration in making this determination is not poverty but the percentage of blacks in the area.” “Population control centers” are disproportionately “located in ZIP codes with higher percentages of blacks and/or Hispanics than the state’s overall percentage.” And who is getting abortions? “Though they make up less than 13% of the female population, black women have about 37% of the abortions,” according to a paper reviewing racial targeting and population control. Indeed, #BlackLivesMatter to Planned Parenthood, but not in the way Netroots Nation believes.
Planned Parenthood, with annual revenues exceeding $1.3 billion, performs over 1000 abortions a day, assuming their religious sensibilities dictate taking Sundays off. New York City leads the way in abortions with 76,000 annual abortions. While Blacks make up 25 percent of the NYC population, 46 percent of abortions were Black babies. Shockingly more Black babies were killed by abortion in NYC than were born alive. By contrast, Whites make up 44 percent of the NYC population but only account for 12 percent of abortions. Margaret Sanger’s dreams are being realized. Where is the outrage in The Big Apple over #BlackLivesMatter?
Do #BlackLivesMatter to leading civil rights organizations? These groups should be up in arms over the above statistics, yet the National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the NAACP are all allied with Planned Parenthood, financially and philosophically. These are the same groups pushing #BlackLivesMatter over #AllLivesMatter.
Martin Luther King once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” What matters? #BlackLivesMatter. #WhiteLivesMatter. #AllLivesMatter. Martin O’Malley was right. Every life is precious. Yet racial and identity politics are worse than ever, despite the country electing a Black president, not once but twice. The inconvenient truth behind the Planned Parenthood videos matter.
Martin Luther King also told us, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” It’s the fools who are choosing hashtags over reality.
A remarkable transformation is underway in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The birthplace and final resting place of George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson—and once one of the most reliably-red of red states—is being rapidly turned into a progressive stronghold.
These changes are not the result of an inside agency, or a natural evolution in political thinking, but rather the result of one of the most impactful yet least-discussed policies of the federal government.
Each year the federal government prints millions of visas and distributes these admission tickets to the poorest and least-developed nations in the world.
A middle-aged person living in parts of Virginia today will have witnessed more demographic change in the span of her life than many societies have experienced in millennia.
A census study entitled “Immigrants in Virginia,” released by University of Virginia (UVA) researchers, documented the phenomenon: “Until 1970, only 1 in 100 Virginians was born outside of the United States; by 2012, 1 in every 9 Virginians is foreign-born.”
Fairfax Connection, a community newspaper, offered more detail:
In the span of one generation, Fairfax County has seen an explosion in its immigrant population. In 1970, more than 93 percent of Fairfax County’s population was white and middle-class. In the fall of 1970, a white 6-year-old child beginning elementary school in one of the county’s developing towns… could look to his left, or look to his right, and see a classroom full of children who, at least 90 percent of the time, looked like him and who spoke English. By 2010, a child entering elementary school in Fairfax County would almost certainly encounter a classmate who did not speak English as a primary language, and whose parents or grandparents immigrated from places such as Vietnam, India, Korea or a country in Africa.
UVA’s report explains that more than three out of four of Virginia immigrants (77 percent) are coming from either Latin America or Asia—immigration from Europe, the report writes, “lag[s] far behind” representing only 10 percent of Virginia’s immigrant population. This is consistent with trends nationwide. According to the 2013 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration Yearbook, only 8.7 percent of green cards issued by the federal government went to immigrants born in Europe, a product of immigration changes pushed through by Ted Kennedy in 1965.
DHS’ yearbook, however, does not provide information on parental nativity– in other words, it doesn’t say whether an immigrant from the United Kingdom may be the child of Saudi parents.
Additionally, according to DHS, of those refugees issued admissions slips into the United States, 75 percent came from four countries– Iraq, Burma, Somalia and Bhutan– while another 15 percent came from Iran, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Dominican Republic.
Large numbers of these settlers handpicked by the federal government have come to Virginia. A 2011 article from The Washington Post explains: “Soaring number of Hispanics and Asians pushed Virginia’s population over 8 million in the past decade.”
“Statewide the number of Hispanics almost doubled to 632,000. Hispanics now make up 8 percent of Virginia residents.” The Post continues, “The state’s Asian population also took off, climbing by 68 percent in 10 years.”
The Post notes that, “as recently as 1990, non-Hispanic whites made up 76 percent of the state’s residents. A decade later, their numbers had fallen to 70 percent, and [in 2010], they accounted for less than two-thirds of the state’s residents.”
Because these newcomers to Virginia have largely been invited into the country with green cards or other visas, they can collect public benefits, fill any job, rely on federal retirement programs, and become naturalized voting citizens.
Year after year, the United States continues its annual dispensation of one million plus new green cards, the admission of one million foreign workers, refugees and dependents, and the importation of half a million foreign youths sought by college administrators.
One in four U.S. residents is either an immigrant himself or has immigrant parents. The Census Bureau projects that the U.S. will add another 14 million immigrants over the following ten years if green card programs aren’t slashed, pushing the U.S. past all documented historical immigration records in terms of immigrant to population ratio. When a high point was hit last century, then-President Calvin Coolidge hit the pause button for roughly fifty years– producing an era of explosive wage growth. That pause continued until Ted Kennedy ushered in legislation that granted millions of immigration visas to the entire world.
The steady gusher of visas happens silently and with little media recognition, yet its effects are more permanent and transformative than many of the most far-reaching foreign policy accords.
In 2012, the Richmond Times Dispatch highlighted the political effects of issuing visas to so many migrants from outside the Western World: “The population shift, most notably in Northern Virginia, is changing the state’s educational, political and social landscape.”
The Times Dispatch continues, “Virginia’s demographic changes have also transformed political leanings in the state that, before President Barack Obama’s win of electoral votes in 2008, had not backed a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964.”
The blue-ing of Virginia brought about by continued immigration is not calculated only by measuring the voting habits of immigrants themselves, but is multiplied outward through the voting habits of immigrants’ children and grandchildren. As the Times Dispatch notes: “Not all minority voters are foreign-born, of course, but many have participated in the changing political landscape.” The increase in the minority vote share stems from immigration itself: “Many immigrants come to the U.S. between the ages of 25 and 44, during the prime of their careers, and are more likely to have families here.” The results, per the Times Dispatch, are striking: “During the 2012 presidential election, when 71 percent of the state’s voters went to the polls, two-thirds of Hispanic and Asian voters backed Obama. Obama carried 93 percent of the black vote, 64 percent of the Hispanic vote and 66 percent of the Asian vote, according to exit polls reported by The New York Times.”
Under current U.S. policy, any child born to an immigrant is guaranteed U.S. citizenship and voting rights. UVA researchers found that, “among children of immigrants, 96 percent are U.S. citizens, either by birth or through naturalization.” In today’s Virginia, “almost a fifth of native-born children under the age of 18 have at least one foreign-born parent.”
As Reuters reported in a recent article on U.S. visa policies: “Immigrants favor Democratic candidates and liberal policies by a wide margin, surveys show, and they have moved formerly competitive states like Illinois firmly into the Democratic column and could turn Republican strongholds like Georgia and Texas into battlegrounds in the years to come.”
A 2014 report authored by University of Maryland professor James Gimpel, similarly found that, “the enormous flow of legal immigrants in to the country — 29.5 million 1980 to 2012 — has remade and continues to remake the nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.”
The report cites a 2012 study conducted by YouGov that, “gauged the partisan preferences of over 2,900 naturalized immigrants, finding 62.5 percent to be Democratic identifiers, 24.6 percent Republican, and 12.9 percent independent.”
Examining the data in this study led Washington Examiner columnist Byron York to conclude: “The bottom line is that more immigration favors Democrats; there is no prediction of Democratic electoral ascendancy that doesn’t rely on demographic factors as the main engine of the party’s dominance.”
Yet the effects, national and local media have observed, are not limited to electoral patterns.
Crime patterns have changed markedly as well.
Today, according to the Migration Policy Institute, “about one-fifth of the total population of El Salvador” resides in the United States. The Associated Press reports that, “El Salvador is the top country of birth for immigrants to Virginia.” Indeed, the Migration Policy Institute found that from 2000 to 2008 Virginia saw its Salvadorian immigrant population grow by 13,000 persons. With it, this migration has brought the arrival of the feared Salvadorian gang, Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13.
As The Washington Post reported in 2011: “Controlled by ringleaders or ‘big homies’ imprisoned in El Salvador or at large in Central America or Mexico, MS-13 ‘cliques’ with such names as the Sailors, Normandy, Peajes, Uniones and Fultons collaborate across the District, Maryland and Virginia.”
The Post explains that presence of the Salvadorian gang has become so problematic in the Commonwealth that federal officials have been forced to engage in “a targeted, sustained effort to dismantle MS-13 and other violent gangs that threaten our neighborhoods.” Describing one of the gangland slayings, The Post documents how, “Victims included a 14-year-old boy, Giovanni Sanchez, who was stabbed to death and left in the street.”
Last year, The Washington Post reported: “[A]rmed with two machetes and a sawed-off shotgun, MS-13 gang members allegedly set off in a car… to carry out an assassination at a location as brazen as it was chilling: a Prince William County school.”
Virginia has become a study in contrasts. The attempted assassination at Prince William County school is only a two-and-a-half hour drive from Colonial Williamsburg, where themed actors create a living museum to throngs of tourists.
Each year, the U.S. issues more green cards than the collective population of the 13 colonies the year Virginia’s Patrick Henry was born. In a single year, the U.S. will issue five times more green cards than there are members of Daughters of the American Revolution.
America’s visa programs have also impacted the fiscal landscape as well.
As Manhattan Institute Scholar Heather Mac Donald observed in 2005: “The foreign-born Hispanic welfare rate was nearly three times that of native-born whites.” This trend continues for the children of immigrants as well: “Native-born Hispanics collected welfare at over twice the rate as native-born whites.” Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson reported that from 1990 to 2004: “The number of Hispanics with incomes below the government’s poverty line [rose] 52 percent; that [represents] almost all (92 percent) of the increase in poor people… Among children, disparities are greater. Over the same period, Hispanic children in poverty [rose] 43 percent; meanwhile, the numbers of black and non-Hispanic white children in poverty declined 16.9 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively.”
The federal government’s policy of resettling poor foreign populations in U.S. communities has presented substantial challenges for educators as well. As the Washington Post reported in 2012 about Fairfax County, “31,5000 students are projected to enroll in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), representing 17 percent of the total county student population and an increase of nearly one-third from last year . Those numbers have profound implications for the schools system… with 7,652 new students in ESOL this year, that represents an additional $25.3 million.”
A Washington Post article from last year examining Fairfax county kindergarteners noted, “The white student population is receding and is being replaced with fast-growing numbers of poor students and children of immigrants for whom English is a second language… The demographic changes in Fairfax are likely to have long-term implications for the school system… Schools officials believe that the challenges that come with a less-affluent and less-prepared population will exacerbate the system’s struggles with a widening achievement gap for minorities and ballooning class sizes.”
The Post notes that these changes extend into neighboring Maryland as well: “School systems across the region have experienced rapid increases in the number of Hispanic students as well as the number of pupils who qualify for subsidized meals. In Montgomery County, more than 35 percent of students receive free or reduced-priced meals, compared with 22 percent in 2000. Poor students now account for 68 percent of the kindergarten class in Prince George’s County, and 3 in 10 kindergartners this year received additional English instruction.”
The Post continues: “Elementary school teachers say they spend an increasing amount of their time on remedial education… Grace Choi, a kindergarten language teacher at London Towne [Elementary], said children from poor families often arrive for the first day of school not knowing the alphabet, a standard lesson in preschool. Many cannot differentiate animal words such as cat, lion and cheetah or food words such as potato, eggs and tomato. ‘The things you think are a given, they don’t know,’ Choi said.”
As one school board member told The Post, “We are required to educate their children, and we want to. But there is a cost… There is a cost to having these children in the system.”
Economist Christine Chmura told the Richmond Times Dispatch that, “some members of Virginia’s increasing immigrant population come from a culture in which college education is not encouraged. ‘In particular, I’m referring to the Hispanic population’ [Chmura] said. ‘From this perspective, an increase in immigrants in the state could decrease our educational attainment levels, which has been one of our competitive advantages over other states.’”
A 2011 study examining education attainment in the United States found that of Hispanic immigrants (aged 25 to 34), only nine percent obtain a Bachelor’s degree. For second generation Hispanic immigrants of that same age group, that number increases only slightly: 19 percent obtain a Bachelor’s degree. Amongst the third generation, however, the number recedes: only 16 percent obtain a Bachelor’s degree.
In this sense, the ongoing dispensations of green cards, refugee admittances, and foreign worker visas to developing nations exacerbates income inequality in two ways: it increases job competition for the current minority population while also straining educational resources in these communities. While this income inequality is helpful to large political donors whose financial enterprises gain profit from reduced wages, it adds substantially to the challenges facing dedicated educators and social workers.
In order to remedy the difference in educational outcomes produced by historic amounts of immigration, many university boards adopt affirmative action policies, which may award or subtract points based on a candidate’s ancestry. A 2012 Washington Post article on affirmative action explained that, “College leaders in the Washington region and across the country are hoping to preserve their power to use race and ethnicity as factors in admissions.”
Cash-strapped schools are also looking to increase spending in response to the educational hardships created by immigration. As the Fairfax Times reports, “In 2014, Hispanic and black students posted pass rates 25 percentage points fewer than white and Asian students on math assessments, and 24 percentage points fewer on reading assessments. The results mirror achievement gaps in school districts across the state… Many of the board members pointed to expanding preschool programs as an accepted tool for boosting minority achievement… [Yet] lack of funds thwarts school officials’ desire to add more preschool classes, just as it hampers other endeavours that could help close the achievement gap.”
While the influence of conservative voters in the Commonwealth continues to diminish, it is ironically Republican officials in Virginia who have led the push to resettle even larger numbers of immigrants inside the state. Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, for instance, in the months before his titanic fall from power, engineered the effort to provide more labor to Virginia employers through foreign worker visas.
Former-executive director of the Virginia Republican Party, Shaun Kenney, described conservatives who wanted to trim the ongoing resettlement efforts as “nativists” who “have no home in the modern Republican Party,” thundering, “drive ‘em out.” Ironically, Kenney’s immigration policies are having that exact effect.
Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has proposed two bills that would add substantially to the millions of foreign visas already annually distributed by the United States. One of those bills, the SKILLS Visa Act, would increase foreign worker visas for technology corporations. The other bill, the Agricultural Guestworker “AG” Act, would increase foreign worker visas issued to food manufacturers who wield substantial influence within the modern Republican Party. Since Goodlatte’s foreign workers would arrive on visas, Republican donors who own businesses would be able to legally replace Americans workers with these newcomers.
The Washington Post reports the effects of the visas policies supported by Goodlatte in his own district: “Immigrants are a fast-growing part of the landscape and workforce—from the Mexicans who pick apples and process poultry to the Indians who work in high-tech and medical fields… Leader’s of the state’s $3.8 billion poultry industry say they favor immigration reform”. “Immigration reform,” as used by The Washington Post in this context, refers to adding greater and greater numbers of foreign workers to the labor pool in a manner employers hope will reduce wages.
As political scientist Steve Farnsworth told the Richmond Times Dispatch, “burgeoning employment opportunities in Virginia” are not necessarily going to the states current residents but “waves of foreign-born workers and foreign-born college graduates looking for jobs.”
UVA researchers found that more than one in seven people in Virginia’s workforce are foreign-born, and positions in the workforce are more likely to go to them than those born in the state:
Labor force participation for natives is at about 65 percent in comparison to more than 73 percent for the foreign-born… A large number of foreign-born workers are employed as computer software engineers, managers, cashiers, accountants and auditors, and retail salespersons, making these highly common occupations for immigrants.
The impact mass visa admissions has had on job opportunities for Virginia workers is representative of nationwide trends. For instance, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, all net jobs created in the United States from 2000-2014 went to immigrants.
But the flood of new immigrants also threatens the job prospects of past immigrants. As Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry wrote in their joint op-ed opposing the Schumer-Rubio plan to triple green card admissions as part of the Gang of Eight bill:
The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers.
A poll from Kellyanne Conway found that minorities overwhelmingly support visa reductions. By a greater than 6:1 margin, Hispanic voters believe that jobs should go to those already living inside the United States instead of importing new workers from foreign countries. Black voters believe the same, by an extraordinary ratio of almost 30:1. Both groups suffer every day from the federal government’s policy of adding millions of new competitors to the labor pool.
In a state where recent races have been decided by razor-thin margins, and where Democrats have relied heavily on pulling huge numbers from the black vote, the addition of so many new voters from post-1970 immigration was keenly felt in the recent governor’s race. Following Democratic Gov. Terry McAullife’s rise to oldest occupied Executive Mansion in the country, The Atlantic wrote:
Terry McAuliffe’s narrow win Tuesday to become governor of Virginia was the result of the changing and growing population of Northern Virginia. It was also the product of an electorate just as diverse—though not as large—as the ones that twice elected Barack Obama… McAuliffe won even though 56 percent of white non-Hispanic voters voted for Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, according to exit polls, thanks to the strength of McAuliffe’s support among Latinos and Asians. Together, those two demographic groups contributed more than 50,000 more votes to McAuliffe than to Cuccinelli… That’s enormously significant, considering that McAuliffe only won by 55,220 votes.
The Atlantic continued, “With McAuliffe’s victory, Virginia can now be looked at as ‘sort of a purple state leaning blue,’ said [Ruy] Teixeira, co-author of 2002’s The Emerging Democratic Majority. That book predicted that changes in the demographics of the electorate would ultimately swing red states into the blue column; those shifts took some time to show up, but now that they are here they show little sign of abating.”
In 1988, at a campaign rally for George H.W. Bush in Los Angeles, Ronald Reagan addressed the crowd: “So, here’s my last request to you. Put California in the Republican column this November. Send Pete Wilson back to the Senate. Send George Bush to the White House. And yes, I know I’m copying something that was just said here once before, but I don’t mind saying it again: Go out and win one last one for the Gipper!”
California Republicans went out did just that– delivered “one last one for the Gipper.” It would be the last time California would ever send a Republican to the Senate or to the White House.
In 1988, few other than the most ardent observers of immigration would have believed that the state that launched Nixon into the Senate, Vice-Presidency and White House, that launched Reagan into the Governor’s Mansion and the Executive Mansion, and that launched Reagan’s Vice President into the Oval Office, would have turned a deep and permanent shade of blue— never to revert again. Conservatives will of course still be able to win in Virginia for the time being, but as the visa gusher continues, it will become a steeper and steeper climb.
Today, the only reason Republican presidential campaigns go to California is not to rally voters but to meet with Los Angeles donors and Silicon Valley tycoons.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter illustrated: “In 1980, Reagan won the biggest electoral landslide in history against an incumbent president, Jimmy Carter. Without the last 40 years of immigration, in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did. He got more of the ‘Reagan coalition’ than Reagan did.”
In a separate article, Byron York explained that Romney’s problem was not so much his inability to make inroads with Hispanic voters, but paradoxically his inability to appeal to white, blue-collar workers:
Romney would have had to win 73 percent of the Hispanic vote to prevail in 2012. Which suggests that Romney, and Republicans, had bigger problems than Hispanic voters. The most serious of those problems was that Romney was not able to connect with white voters who were so turned off by the campaign that they abandoned the GOP and in many cases stayed away from the polls altogether. Recent reports suggest as many as 5 million white voters simply stayed home on Election Day. If they had voted at the same rate they did in 2004, even with the demographic changes since then, Romney would have won…an improvement of 4 points [amongst the white vote] would have won the race for Romney.
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly published a report last year about the impact of green cards and concluded: “Limit immigration or watch conservative efforts become irrelevant.” In her work, Schlafly emphasized that these changes were less about whether the two-party system would survive, but more about whether the Republican Party could continue on as a party of limited government with an immigration policy that was bringing in millions of big-government voters. Echoing Schlafly, immigration activist Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) threatened to convert green cards into Democratic votes on the House floor only days ago.
Nonetheless, as the tidal flood of green cards remakes the electoral map, Republican officeholders continue to bow to donors’ demands for ever-more foreign visas. None of the top polling GOP candidates– except for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker– has even suggested a willingness to reduce the number of visas issued each year by the federal government. Polling shows that a call for such reductions would present a winning populist issues for Republican candidates.
In fact, Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a favorite politician of both media and donors, partnered with Arizona’s Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and New York’s Chuck Schumer on their proposal to triple green cards. There are currently more than 30 million permanent immigrants inside the U.S who are here on green cards or have already converted their green cards into citizenship: the Gang of Eight’s program would have added another 30 million green card holders in the span of one decade. In interviews, Rubio described these immigration expansions euphemistically. He told Rush Limbaugh in 2013 that “our legal immigration system needs to be reformed.” He told Mark Levin in 2013 that “legal immigration is good for America.” He told Sean Hannity in 2014 that he wanted to “modernize our immigration system.” Rubio did not tell Limbaugh, Levin, or Hannity that he wanted to permanently resettle more than 30 million foreign citizens inside the United States within one decade. Rubio was not asked why waves of unskilled immigration from poor countries like El Salvador would be “good for America” as long as these intending migrants were printed green cards on their way into the United States.
Federal government spending is also “legal,” but most conservatives would like to see much of it reduced or eliminated entirely.
Rubio has never wavered or altered his stand for exploding net immigration levels. In fact, Rubio recently introduced legislation known as the Immigration Innovation Act – or I-Squared – which would triple wage-depressing H-1B visas and remove university green card caps. The latter Rubio policy would take the current existing policy of importing 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East, and grow it significantly.
The media has already coined a term to describe the different landscape emerging as a result of immigration. The National Journal news site, for instance, has created a vertical entitled, “The Next America,” which the site describes as an “initiative” intended to document “the political, economic and social impacts of profound racial and cultural change facing our nation.” The White House has named its naturalization initiative “The New Americans Project”.
Or, to borrow Senator Rubio’s campaign slogan, “A New American Century.”