Congress

Trump team seeks agency records on border barriers, surveillance

...President-elect Donald Trump's transition team asked the Department of Homeland Security last month to assess all assets available for border wall and barrier construction.

The team also asked about the department's capacity for expanding immigrant detention and about an aerial surveillance program...

The requests were made in a Dec. 5 meeting between Trump's transition team and Department of Homeland Security officials...  for securing the U.S. borders and reversing polices put in place by the Obama administration. 

Trump's transition team did not comment in response to Reuters inquiries. A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to comment.

In response to the transition team request, U.S. Customs and Border Protection staffers identified more than 400 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border, and about the same distance along the U.S.-Canada border, where new fencing could be erected, according to a document seen by Reuters.

Reuters could not determine whether the Trump team is considering a northern border barrier. During the campaign, Trump pledged to build a wall and expand fencing on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border but said he sees no need to build a wall on the border with Canada.

One program the transition team asked about, according to the email summary, was Operation Phalanx, an aerial surveillance program that authorizes 1,200 Army National Guard airmen to monitor the southern border for drug trafficking and illegal migration.

The program once deployed 6,000 airmen under President George W. Bush but was downsized by Barack Obama...

POLICY SHIFT

The transition team also asked for copies of every executive order and directive sent to immigration agents since Obama took office in 2009, according to the memo summarizing the meeting.

Trump has said he intends to undo Obama's executive actions on immigration, including a 2012 order to allow children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents to remain in the country on temporary authorizations that allow them to attend college and work.

The program, known as DACA, collected information including participants' addresses that could theoretically be used to locate and deport them if the policy is reversed. Another request of the transition team was for information about whether any migrant records have been changed for any reason, including for civil rights or civil liberties concerns, according to the internal memo seen by Reuters.

A Department of Homeland Security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the agency interpreted the request to mean the transition team wanted to make sure that federal workers were not tampering with information to protect DACA recipients and other migrants from deportation.

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to deport more undocumented immigrants...

The internal memo summarizing the meeting between Trump's transition team and U.S. Customs and Border protection said the team had requested a comprehensive picture of border security as well as resources available for walls and barriers...

Reuters reviewed a copy of the report, which estimated the cost of building fencing along the northern border fence would be $3.3 billion and cover 452 miles along border of Canada and the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

Adding 413 miles of fencing on the southwest border would be more expensive, according to the estimate of $11.37 billion, because it would be aimed at keeping pedestrians as well as vehicles from crossing.

Pedestrian fences require more staff and would cost $11.2 million per mile versus $4.1 million per mile to build to build, according to the report.

In fiscal year 2015, the latest year for which data is available, border patrol agents apprehended 2,626 illegal migrants on the U.S.-Canada border compared to 331,333 apprehended on the U.S.-Mexico border.

True test for sanctuary yet to come

Some of the dust has started to settle from the rush late last year for various local entities to declare their jurisdictions as sanctuaries.

In short order after the election of Donald Trump, Oregon State University, Benton County, the city of Corvallis and the Corvallis School District all adopted resolutions or issued statements in which they embraced, at least to some extent, the idea that they will not assist with federal government efforts to deport people who are not U.S. citizens.

We don't mean to underestimate the importance of these declarations, especially as they recognize and try to ease the fears among some people that they might be targeted by the actions of a Trump administration. That in itself makes these declarations worthwhile.

But let's not fool ourselves: We are hard-pressed to find, in any of the declarations, anything that wasn't already a matter of policy in these governmental jurisdictions, although the declarations might serve a useful purpose by clarifying existing policies.

Again, there is importance in that, especially if the goal is to quell fear and, even better, to reassure immigrants that they won't have to stand alone through uncertain times.

But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that these sanctuary declarations, in this community, at this time, are acts of great courage. And let's remember this: It might be unwise to assume that approving the declarations marks the end of the story.

As The Atlantic noted in a recent story on sanctuary campuses, Trump promised on the campaign trail that sanctuary cities (and, presumably, other entities that receive federal money) would "not receive taxpayer dollars."

So, potentially what's at stake here are the millions of federal dollars that flow to entities such as OSU, the city, the county and the school district.

In theory at least, Trump can't do that by himself. It would require approval from Congress, and it could very well be that the entire pool of federal funds is not at risk: The Atlantic story noted that the reason for withholding federal funds from governments likely would have to be somehow linked to the proposed use for the money.

In the past, Democrats have stopped attempts by Republicans to strip away federal funding, but guess what: Republicans are running Congress these days, and the early indications are that GOP senators and representatives are going to give Trump wide sway, at least initially.

Now, that could change as members of Congress get bombarded by calls of protest from cities, counties and universities in their district that stand to lose millions in funding. Members of Congress, regardless of political affiliation, like to be able to bring federal bucks back to their districts, and that could prove more potent than even a series of nasty tweets from the president.

It also could be that there's safety in numbers: For example, some 400 universities, including OSU, have signed onto a petition supporting the idea of sanctuary campuses. And other communities in Oregon and across the nation have embraced the notion of sanctuary.

It could also be that Trump didn't mean what he said during the campaign about immigration. But that seems like a long shot.

So it's not at all out of the question that the administration, with assistance from a compliant Congress, will start to push on this issue. It could be, in fact, that local entities have put millions of dollars at risk by taking this stand.

In short, the time for great courage on the issue of sanctuary may yet come. It's worth asking these questions now: If that time comes, where we will stand — and what are we prepared to sacrifice? (mm)

How Attorney General Jeff Sessions could make it easier to deport immigrants

The Department of Justice hired 59 immigration judges in 2016.

There are more immigration judges now – 296 – than at any point in the agency’s history. Given the 500,000-case backlog in the immigration court system, that current hiring spree is not expected to change.

But something that is expected to change is the person who decides who future immigration judges will be. Immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice and, as head of that agency, the incoming attorney general will have a say in who is hired.

“Whoever is ultimately confirmed to head the Department of Justice is hugely significant,” said Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, law professor at the University of Denver who runs a website that follows developments in immigration law and detainment policies.

For attorney general, President-Elect Donald Trump plans to nominate Jeff Sessions, a Republican Senator from Alabama who has made a name for himself as one of the most anti-immigrant voices in Washington.

The National Review, a conservative news magazine, credited Sessions with single-handedly destroying immigration reform attempts in 2004 and 2014. He is strongly opposed to illegal immigration and is also in favor of limiting legal immigration because he believes it harms domestic workers.

Sessions, or whoever the head of the Department of Justice is, can hire judges who will decide deportation, asylum and all immigration cases over the next four years.

During 2016's hiring spree, immigration judges were hired at courts throughout the country. However, since January 2015, the court in Imperial County has not had a sitting judge. It is the only immigration court in the country to have a vacant bench.

The case backlog in Imperial County is so large that hearings are being scheduled for 2019 and 2020.

Julio Cesar Mendez, 42, has been fighting a deportation case in Imperial County since 2009.

“I’ve been waiting all those years,” he said. “It is very difficult, very stressful and frustrating. I don’t have a criminal charge.”

Mendez hasn’t had a court hearing since 2009. His next hearing is currently scheduled for Dec. 2017 but Mendez suspects that it will get pushed back.

While he waits, Mendez can stay in the country and pay $600 each year to apply for an annual work permit. He would like to buy a house, but the bank wants him to pay 30 percent upfront because of his status, which he cannot afford from the money he makes installing and repairing air conditioning units.

Mendez, who has one son at UCLA and another in high school who has been accepted to California State University, Fullerton, has thought of trying to move the case to immigration courts in San Diego or Los Angeles, but the motion costs $1,000 to file and there is no guarantee a judge will grant it.

Sessions could push current immigration judges, who do not share his politics, into early retirement by transferring them to undesirable locations like the Imperial courthouse.

“Short of firing, life can be made difficult or unpleasant for employees,” Garcia Hernandez said. “Superiors can increase workloads or transfer them to unattractive locations. These are highly qualified professionals with deep ties to a particular community so the prospect of being transferred may be enough for them to say, 'You know what, I might just do something else.'”

There is precedent for attorney generals pushing people out of the Department of Justice.

In 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft asked five members of the Board of Immigration Appeals – a panel that reviews the decisions of immigration judges – to find new jobs. Critics saw it as a purge of their most pro-immigration members while the Department of Justice defended the move as a way to streamline the appeals process, according to media reports at the time.

If confirmed by Congress, Sessions will play a key role in realizing Trump’s campaign promises of deporting millions of immigrants and securing the U.S. borders.

As attorney general, he would not only be in charge of who he hires but also how immigration judges are trained. One way he could influence what kind of judges are hired is by prioritizing those with previous experience as prosecutors for the Department of Homeland Security who work deportation cases, Garcia Hernandez said.

“Immigration judges are employees of the justice department,” Garcia Hernandez said. “Just like any other employee of the Justice Department, they answer to the AG.”

Fix Immigration. It’s What Voters Want.

An excellent opinion piece by Republican Senator from Arkansas - Tom Cotton

New York Times

Donald J. Trump smashed many orthodoxies on his way to victory, but immigration was the defining issue separating him from his primary opponents and Hillary Clinton. President-elect Trump now has a clear mandate not only to stop illegal immigration, but also to finally cut the generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrants that undermines American workers.

Yet many powerful industries benefit from such immigration. They’re arguing that immigration controls are creating a low-skilled labor shortage.

“We’re pretty much begging for workers,” Tom Nassif, the chief executive of Western Growers, a trade organization that represents farmers, said on CNN. A fast-food chain founder warned, “Our industry can’t survive without Mexican workers.”

These same industries contend that stricter immigration enforcement will further shrink the pool of workers and raise their wages. They argue that closing our borders to inexpensive foreign labor will force employers to add benefits and improve workplace conditions to attract and keep workers already here.

I have an answer to these charges: Exactly.

Higher wages, better benefits and more security for American workers are features, not bugs, of sound immigration reform...

Photo

 

A day laborer from Honduras waiting for work in Kansas City. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times

It’s been a quarter-century since Congress substantially reformed the immigration system. In that time, the population of people who are in this country illegally has nearly tripled...

Some people contend that low-skilled immigration doesn’t depress wages. In his final State of the Union address, President Obama argued that immigrants aren’t the “principal reason wages haven’t gone up; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns.” Yet those decisions are possible only in the context of a labor surplus caused by low-skilled immigration. In a tight labor market, bosses cannot set low wages and still attract workers.

After all, the law of supply and demand is not magically suspended in the labor market. As immigrant labor has flooded the country, working-class wages have collapsed...

No doubt automation and globalization have also affected wages, but mass immigration accelerates these trends with surplus labor, which of course decreases wages. Little wonder, then, that these Americans voted for the candidate who promised higher wages and less immigration...

America has always offered a basic deal: If you’re willing to work hard and play by the rules, you can make a better life for yourself and your kids. But without good wages, this deal seems impossible...

Yet, as if Mr. Trump’s campaign never happened, companies in labor-intensive industries want to sustain or even increase current immigration flows....

Our country, like any country, needs borders and must decide who and how many can cross those borders...

This policy would resemble the immigration systems of Canada and Australia, countries with similar advanced economies. While our system gives priority to reuniting extended families and low-skilled labor, their systems prize nuclear-family reunification and attributes like language skills, education and work experience. A similar system here would allow in immigrants like doctors to work in rural areas while not pushing down working-class wages.

In some quarters, proposals like these invoke cries of “nativism” and “xenophobia.” But recent immigrants are the very Americans who have to compete with new immigrants for jobs. Far from being anti-immigrant, this proposal would give recent arrivals a better shot at higher wages, stable work and assimilation.

We have an immigration policy today that few Americans support or voted for. It’s allowed legal and illegal immigration at levels divorced from what our economy needs. That has undermined the earning power of those Americans least able to afford it.

But in this election, Americans finally demanded an end to this unthinking immigration system. President-elect Trump and Congress should take that mandate and act on it promptly in the new year.

Read the New York Times full article and comments here.

 

Berlin Terror Attack and Immigration Law Violations

On Monday, December 19th Berlin was rocked by a deadly terror attack that killed 12 innocent victims and injured 48.  A December 21, 2016 CNN report, “Berlin attack: Police hunt Tunisian suspect after finding ID papers” named 24 year-old Tunisian, Anis Amri as the prime suspect who drove a stolen truck into pedestrians visiting a Berlin Christmas market.

The body of the truck’s driver was found in the truck.  He was shot and stabbed, likely by Amri...

According to the CNN report, Amri had entered Italy without documentation and was subsequently convicted of committing violent crimes in Italy and spent four years on prison.

Italian authorities attempted to deport him back to Tunisia but Tunisia refused to accept him...

He is then believed to have entered Germany illegally...

Here is an excerpt from the CNN news report:

Before Amri was publicly named, Ralf Jaeger, interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, told reporters the suspect was known to German security services as someone in contact with radical Islamist groups, and had been assessed as posing a risk...

However, while Germany refused Amri’s asylum application because of known terror ties, they permitted him to remain at large where he continued to pose a threat, a threat that became all too clear when he mowed down his victims...

To everyone’s relief, Amri was killed in a shootout with police as reported on December 24th by the New York Times, “Berlin Attack Suspect Is Killed by Police Near Milan.”

Amri fled to Italy in an attempt to evade law enforcement....   Unsecured borders facilitates this movement of criminals and terrorists so that they can carry out attacks and/or crimes or flee from such actions after the fact.

That shootout occurred during a “routine” police ID check as described in this excerpt from the beginning of the N.Y. Times article:

SESTO SAN GIOVANNI, Italy — It was a routine identity check, the kind Italy has relied more on to stem the flow of illegal migration deeper into Europe. But the man stopped by two police officers around 3 a.m. Friday outside the northern city of Milan was anything but an ordinary drifter.

He turned out to be perhaps Europe’s most wanted man, Anis Amri, the chief suspect in the deadly terrorist attack on a Christmas market in Berlin...

One of my earliest and most important lessons as a federal agent is that there is no such thing as a “routine” stop in law enforcement....

We don’t know what we don’t know.

The notion of only deporting aliens who have serious criminal histories is a dangerous strategy.  While criminals should certainly garner the greatest attention by law enforcement, arresting immigration law violators who have not immediately discernible criminal histories is important to maintain the integrity of the immigration system and to also potentially interrupt criminal and terrorist operations.

Criminal and terror watch lists are important but are of limited value.  Successful terrorists attempt to keep low profiles and often have no criminal histories...

Globalist national leaders refuse to see in those attacks lessons from which to learn how to prevent future horrific terror attacks.

Obama’s refusal to accept the nexus between border security / immigration law enforcement and national security, is paralleled by Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel who has admitted hundreds of thousands of refugees who cannot be vetted.

Obama has ignored clear warnings voiced by members of his own administration and national security experts.  On February 12, 2015 ABC News reported, “U.S. Officials Admit Concern Over Syrian Refugee Effort.”

Merkel has similarly ignored indisputable facts.  For example, the Taiba mosque in Hamburg, Germany, believed to have been the meeting place for some of the 9/11 hijacker/terrorists, was according to a report published by the BBC, shuttered in 2010 because it was continuing to be used by radical Islamic jihadists...

About a year ago I wrote an extensive analysis comparing the findings and recommendations and findings of the 9/11 Commission with the policies of the Obama administration, citing in my analysis numerous examples of the nexus between immigration and national security including the November 20, 2013 ABC News report, “Exclusive: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees”  and the July 13, 2011 Washington Times article, “Visas reviewed to find those who overstayed / Aim is to find any would-be terrorists.”

I began my paper with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill contained in his eloquent speech he delivered before the House of Commons on May 2, 1935, in which he voiced his frustrations and consternation about missed opportunities and failures to learn from history, as the storm clouds of war were gathering on the horizon:

“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

The famed playwright, George Bernard Shaw's lament more succinctly parallels Churchill's perspectives:

“We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”...

Obama’s refusal to secure our borders also provides criminals and terrorists with a means of entering the United States not only without vetting, but without detection. Indeed, Entry Without Inspection = Entry Without Vetting.

While President-Elect Trump certainly understands this issue, incredibly, mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” ignore this very obvious nexus between Terrorism, Enclaves And Sanctuary Cities and how sanctuary cities facilitate the growth of terror enclaves in America.

Memo to mayors of Sanctuary Cities: insanity has been defined as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different outcome.

Read the full article here.

Foreign Student Visas: Educating America’s Adversaries

Frontpage Magazine

Foreign Student Visas: Educating America’s Adversaries

Guess who Obama’s State Department issues hundreds of thousands of student visas to?

December 22, 2016

It has been said that if you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime.  This simple saying illustrates how important training/education is.

Incredibly, the United States’ immigration policies formulated by the Obama administration welcome hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students into our nation’s premier universities while it is clear that China demonstrates hostility to the United States acting not as a partner, but rather as an adversary.

Chinese computer hackers attack computers in the United States as a matter of routine. The obvious question is how many of those Chinese computer hackers may have been trained and educated in the United States.

China’s recent theft of a U.S. Navy drone in the South China Sea underscores this hostility as do the arrest of numerous spies operating on behalf of China to steal America’s military and industrial secrets.

Not surprisingly, China has offered to return the drone while President-Elect Donald Trump has been quoted as saying that China can keep that drone.

China may have had two reasons for its illegal action.  It is clearly attempting to demonstrate that it has unilateral control over the strategically important South China Sea although this claim is not based on law or fact.  Additionally, China has an obvious interest in America's military technology.  By now China’s engineers have had ample opportunity to study the design of the drone and, perhaps, has managed to embed technology within the drone that would continue to provide intelligence about the use of that drone.

The U.S. Navy’s underwater drones seem to have drawn particular interest by China’s military.  In fact, on April 22, 2016 Newsweek reported, “Chines Spy In Florida Sent Drone Parts To China For Military."

On April 14, 2016 Newsweek published a report about a naturalized United States citizen, Edward Lin, who had joined the U.S. Navy only, allegedly, to be able to spy on the Navy.  I cannot help but wonder if his application for citizenship had been more effectively scrutinized if his alleged disloyalty to the United States could have been uncovered sooner.

That report, “Accused Navy Spy Edward Lin Had Friends In Sensitive Places" began with the following:

Edward Lin, the U.S. Navy officer suspected of spying for China and Taiwan, had scores of friends in sensitive places, if the number of contacts who “endorsed” him for military and security “skills” on LinkedIn, the professional networking site, is any guide.

Among those who endorsed Lin, a Taiwan-born officer assigned to a highly classified naval air reconnaissance unit in Hawaii until his secret arrest last year, are senior Taiwanese military officers and a Beijing-based venture capitalist specializing in “mobile internet applications and mobile games,” according to their LinkedIn bios. His American endorsers on the site include the second in command at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Guantanamo; the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s senior political-military analyst on Southeast Asia; a Navy congressional liaison officer; and fellow former aviators in his reconnaissance squad, including one now working at the Northrop Grumman Electromagnetic Systems Laboratory in Sacramento, California.

Lin also served as a congressional liaison for the assistant secretary of the Navy for finance management and comptroller from 2012 to 2014, a position that presumably gave him access to highly classified strategic weapons planning and put him in regular contact with senior members of the House and Senate armed services and military appropriations committees.

Lin’s assignments and the relationships that he developed positioned him perfectly to have access to extremely sensitive information.

Chinese citizens are not only allegedly spying on our military.  On May 19, 2016 Reuters reported, “U.S. charges six Chinese nationals with economic espionage."

On December 8, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) released a press release that provided the latest statistics concerning foreign students who are present in the United States.

This press release began by noting that there are currently 1.23 million foreign students who have been admitted with F (academic visas) or M (vocational visas) studying at 8,697 schools scattered across the United States.

Consider this excerpt from that press release:

Nearly 42 percent of all F and M students pursued studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. This marks a 10.1 percent increase in international students pursuing STEM studies compared to November 2015.

Out of the nearly 514,000 international students pursuing STEM studies, almost 450,000 were from Asia, with the majority of all STEM students from India and China.

Concerns about foreign students with malevolent goals is not limited to students from China.

On February 24, 1998, two days short of the fifth anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, “

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265186/foreign-student-visas-educating-a...

Corvallis Police: 'We're not in the business of immigration enforcement'

The Corvallis Police Department has decided what it will do about immigration and citizenship enforcement: Nothing.

In the three weeks following the presidential election, the department has received several questions from citizens concerned about immigration enforcement. Police Chief Jon Sassaman said it was time to clarify the department's policies.

Currently, Corvallis Police Department policy prohibits any form of discrimination, which includes discrimination based on a person’s citizenship status. Oregon law also prohibits law enforcement agencies from “detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship.”

Sassaman said the department would not participate in any immigration enforcement, even if Oregon law allowed for it.

“Not only do we not do it, we’re not going to do it,” Sassaman said Thursday. “We’re not in the business of immigration enforcement.”

While federal laws could change, Sassaman said he has no plans to change department policy....

“I don’t want people to be afraid,” Sassaman said...

“How people define sanctuary city might be different across the country,” Sassaman said. “So we wanted to reaffirm to the community that we’re not in the business of immigration enforcement and be as clear as possible.”

Some have speculated that cities or agencies who take exception to possible changes to federal immigration laws could jeopardize federal funding and grants. But Sassaman said he is not concerned the announcement will affect any future federal funding for the department.

“We will remain consistent with grant applications we apply for. And I guess we’ll know if we get denied,” he said. “We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.”

A must read: Open Letter to the NY Times on Its Epic Failure in the Presidential Election

Open Letter to the NY Times on Its Epic Failure in the Presidential Election
 
By Jerry Kammer, November 17, 2016

I am writing in response to the epic failure of your coverage of the presidential election. I write as a former immigration reporter whose respect for the Times has long been diminished by the ideological bias that pervades much of your immigration coverage and commentary.

I believe that bias explains your inability to appreciate the public frustration with immigration that was a significant factor in the victory of Donald Trump. Your work on immigration exemplifies the liberal bias...

I point first to the banner headline across the top of page one on Wednesday, November 9, the day after the election. With a solipsistic slant more appropriate to a journal of social psychology, it declared: "DEMOCRATS, STUDENTS, AND FOREIGN ALLIES FACE THE REALITY OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY". It was a headline that will live in journalism infamy.

Bloomberg editor Mark Halperin explained why. Said Halperin, "This is the day after a surprising, underdog, sweeping victory, and their headline is not 'Disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House' or 'The country votes for fundamental change.' The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what's happened." Halperin observed that the headline was like a self-parody of the clueless editorial elite. "I mean, it's amazing!" he exclaimed. "I mean, it's The Onion!"

The Times' reporting and editorializing on illegal immigration have long been marred by a lack of interest in how the story — especially the recent decades of mass illegal immigration — plays out in the lives of ordinary Americans....

Back then, the Times was attuned to the political complexity and moral ambiguity in which immigration policy is steeped. An editorial observed, "For reasons of vitality, humanity and history, America wants and needs immigrants. What it does not need is such an uncontrollable flood of illegal migrants..".

In recent years, led by publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the paper has adopted an ideology of multiculturalism...

Said Sulzberger, "You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it's the rights of immigrants to start a new life; or the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose." Predicting that fateful decisions lay before the graduates, he said: "You will choose at each point whether to be bold or hesitant, inclusive or elitist, generous or stingy."

Inclusiveness has become the most sacred value at our country's most influential newspaper. The Times editorial board demands full inclusion for illegal immigrants, whom it embraces as "Americans in waiting"....

Consider your choice of the two reporters you have placed in Arizona since 2010, when the state replaced California as the epicenter of the national immigration debate. Both Marc Lacey and Fernanda Santos are talented journalists. But both were far more attuned to illegal immigrants' struggle for inclusion than to the insistence of most Arizonans that the federal government enforce immigration laws that, by definition, set standards for inclusion and prescribe penalties for those who defied the law.

Lacey, for example, had chronicled the struggle for gay rights in such countries as Cuba, Jamaica, Argentina, and Mexico. Santos, herself an immigrant from Brazil, co-authored "Latinos in the United States: A Resource Guide for Journalists". Neither reporter showed much interest in the anxieties of Arizonans like the woman who wrote this eloquent plea in a letter to the editor of the Mesa Tribune:

Why am I a racist because I am scared? The media say, "But they only want to work to feed their families." I also want to work to feed my family, but most important to me is that my family is safe. I think those who can make over $40,000 a year don't realize how much it affects the working poor. My husband is a construction worker. He goes to a job site to work and has to compete with a person who will accept $6 an hour. My husband now has to work two jobs. ... I am frustrated by the system and I know that the government at all levels (local and federal) has failed the American people. If I am a racist for feeling this way, then so be it, I'm a racist.

It was a passionate, defiant cry from the heart that is incomprehensible at the New York Times, whose reporters are committed to the Times' narrative that illegal immigrants are noble strivers opposed only by snarling nativists. Perhaps the most notorious example was longtime immigration reporter Nina Bernstein, whose monotone preoccupation with the migrants' side of the story prompted journalist Mickey Kaus to write in 2007 that Bernstein was "the most tendentious and biased reporter on the paper — that would be the famed liberal bias — and she's almost certain to weave a cocoon that will help restrict Times readers to utter marginal irrelevance as debate proceeds."

Now the Times' national immigration reporter is Julia Preston. While Preston's reporting is less tendentious than Bernstein's, she continues the tradition of inattention to immigration's effects on the job prospects of Americans at the lower end of our job markets. Preston has provided admirable coverage of the displacement of American tech workers. But she has done little to inform Times readers of the lesser-skilled workers who are displaced by illegal immigrants...

Finally, I point to a 2015 interview that Times reporter Liz Robbins conducted for C-SPAN with Dan-el Padilla Peralta, whose book Undocumented chronicled his journey from his native Dominican Republic.

Padilla Peralta's pages seethe with contempt for opponents of illegal immigration. He describes them as "anti-immigrant zealots who invoked the law as cover for their xenophobia", as "haters", racists, and "the chauvinistically minded few". He heaps scorn and ridicule on a former classmate Princeton, calling her an "immigrant-hater chick".

Robbins' interview was a protracted swoon, an all-in-for-inclusiveness abdication of the journalistic duty to conduct skeptical inquiry. As I watched on TV, I waited in vain for probing questions. Did Padilla Peralta see no justifiable reason for the United States to limit immigration? When did U.S. policy toward him and his family become reprehensible? Was it when his parents defied immigration law by overstaying their visas? Was it a few years later when his father had returned to the Dominican Republic and his mother was receiving government support for housing and food? Did Padilla Peralta understand why Americans are infuriated by his claim, asserted on behalf of immigrants whether legal or not, that, "We are in the ascendant. America is ours." What was this if not arrogant mockery of the democratic society that has allowed it to happen?

Robinson was so rapturous in Padilla Peralta's presence that she felt no need to ask him to explain the strutting, arrogant taunt at the very end of his book: "And so to the haters, a final word: Demography is a bitch. Holla at me if you want me to break it down for you."

What we heard on November 8 was a primal scream from tens of millions of Americans who feel betrayed by political, social, and journalistic elites whose post-national religion of inclusiveness demands the glorification of illegal immigration and the demonization of those who protest our government's failure to stop it.

You could start by directing your reporters to spend a few hours learning the views of Barbara Jordan, the late civil rights champion who in 1995 reported to Congress as chair of the federal Commission on Immigration Reform. Typical of Jordan's concern for her fellow Americans was her insistence that "it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest."

Read the full article.

Donald Trump wins!

Alert date: 
2016-11-13
Alert body: 

The map below shows state and county voting results for the 2016 election (as of November 11, 2016):


 

Map of 2016 election results by county

 

The above map is available as an interactive map showing US presidential election results by county, 1952-2016 - see the article A country divided by counties, The Economist, November 11, 2016.

 

Key states in the 2016 election (as of November 10, 2016):

Key states in the 2016 election as of November 10, 2016

The above chart is from the New York Times - see the article Live Presidential Forecast, New York Times.

 

Opinion: How employers could stop illegal immigration in seconds

Published by:  MarketWatch Nov. 4, 2016

Written by:  Mark Krikorian - Center for Immigration Studies

Government’s free E-Verify takes just seconds to determine if a worker is here illegally, so why isn’t it mandatory?

Whatever you think of Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border, there’s another wall we can complete right now: E-Verify.

That’s the name of the free online system that enables employers to check whether the people they hire are telling the truth about who they are. By entering the name, Social Security number, and date of birth of the new hire — something employers already have to collect — they get an answer in seconds about whether the person is an illegal immigrant or not.

This matters because jobs are the main reason foreigners sneak into the United States (or overstay visitor visas). And the large majority of the estimated 11 million illegals work on the books. So the harder it is for an illegal immigrant to get a job, especially an on-the-books job, the less appealing it will be to sneak in or overstay.

Read the complete article.

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Congress