President

MPI Estimates 93% of DACA Enrollees Eligible for Renewal Have Re-Applied; New Brief Offers Latest U.S., State & County Estimates

WASHINGTON - Ninety-three percent of the unauthorized immigrants participating in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program who are eligible to apply for renewal have done so, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) reports in a new issue brief that examines the deferred action program as its fourth anniversary nears.

Since its launch on August 15, 2012, the DACA program has provided temporary relief from deportation and eligibility for work authorization to more than 728,000 young unauthorized immigrants, representing around half-if not more-of the he population MPI estimates is eligible to participate.

Drawing upon a unique methodology that assigns legal status to the foreign born in U.S. Census Bureau population surveys and permits analysis of key sociodemographic characteristics, DACA at Four: Participation in the Deferred Action Program and Impacts on Recipients offers the latest MPI estimates of populations potentially eligible for DACA; presents trends in application rates nationwide and by state, as well as by top countries of origin; and examines the impacts that DACA has had on its recipients.

Using the most current, 2014 Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data and aging forward those who since have reached the minimum age required to apply for DACA, MPI estimates that 1.3 million young adults ages 15 and older were immediately eligible for DACA as of 2016. This number includes about 250,000 youth who have aged into eligibility since the program’s launch. Comparing these estimates against application data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), MPI estimates that 63 percent of the immediately eligible population (those meeting all the criteria that could be modeled in the data) had applied for DACA as of March 31.

MPI estimates that an additional 398,000 unauthorized youth meet all DACA criteria except for high school completion or school enrollment. These youth can qualify if they enroll in an adult education program (a development that cannot be modeled using Census data). Adding that group to the 1.3 million immediately eligible raises the potentially eligible population to 1.7 million- and as a result lowers the initial application rate to 48 percent. MPI estimates that 228,000 children ages 7 - 14 could become eligible for DACA in the future.

The vast majority of DACA recipients are applying for renewal. MPI estimates 581,000 of the 728,000 recipients of an initial two-year DACA grant have been in the program long enough to apply for renewal, with 539,000 of them doing so to date-a 93 percent renewal rate.

“At its four-year mark, DACA is a large-scale program that has succeeded in attracting broad participation and providing life-altering benefits to many unauthorized youth-as evidenced by the fact that 93 percent of those eligible to apply for renewal have done so,” said brief co-author Faye Hipsman, an MPI policy analyst.

“Still, almost half a million DACA-eligible individuals had not applied as of March 31, 2016, and several hundred thousand more could qualify if they enroll in an adult education program, suggesting that further outreach by service providers could broaden DACA’s reach,” said Randy Capps, who is director of research for U.S. programs.

Among the other findings:

  • The DACA-eligible are concentrated in a small number of states, with California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois accounting for 59 percent of the 1.7 million who are currently potentially eligible to apply.
  • Unauthorized youth from Mexico and Central America, along with Peru, have the highest application rates by country of origin. Mexicans, for example, account for 63 percent of the immediately eligible population but 78 percent of applications as of March. Application rates are generally very low for youth born in Asia, with China not even among the top 25 countries for which USCIS reported application data.
  • The states with the highest application rates, exceeding 75 percent for the immediately eligible-Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon and Texas-are all Western states with a predominantly Mexican-born DACA-eligible population. By contrast states with the lowest application rates (below 50 percent) for the immediately eligible- Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and Florida-have more diverse unauthorized populations, with Mexicans and Central Americans in the minority.

Read the brief here.

For updated DACA data at U.S., state and county levels, as well as application rates by top countries of origin, check out these updated MPI DACA tools:

Learn more about refugee resettlement - Saturday, August 13

Alert date: 
2016-08-09
Alert body: 

MARK YOUR CALENDAR - BONUS summer meeting Saturday, August 13th at 2:00pm

OFIR appreciates how busy everyone is with family vacations, visiting relatives, camping trips and BBQ's!

But - you won't want to miss our BONUS summer meeting when we host a very special guest speaker that will answer the questions you have about refugee resettlement

Paul Nachman of Montanans for Immigration Law Enforcement will provide the information we need to understand the refugee resettlement that is happening in Oregon and across the country.  The issue of the resettlement of thousands of Syrian refugees at a time when it is impossible to vet them should trouble everyone.

Jacob Daniels, Donald Trumps Oregon campaign manager will be dropping by to share the candidate's immigration platform with us, as well.

Please join us - bring a friend along with you - Saturday, August 13 at 2:00pm at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn, 3125 Ryan Dr. SE, Salem, just across from the Salem Costco.

The upcoming election is too important - we must get educated before we vote.  Please plan to attend.  Call if you have questions 503.435.0141

Please forward this invitation to a friend.

NOTE:  OFIR will be hosting a booth at the Oregon State Fair - please stop by and say hello!
 

Obama expanding refugee program for Central Americans

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will soon expand efforts to help Central American families and children legally immigrate to the United States....

... the administration will expand in-country refugee processing for families coming from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala...

The efforts are designed in part to combat the crush of tens of thousands of families and unaccompanied children caught crossing the border illegally ...

...more than 51,100 people traveling as families and more than 43,000 unaccompanied children have been caught illegally crossing the Mexican border...

Read the full article.

Follow Alicia A. Caldwell on Twitter at www.twitter.com/acaldwellap

© 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

 
 

OFIR VP lays out Trump's path to victory in Oregon

OFIR Vice President Richard LaMountain has clearly laid out a reasonable path to an Oregon win for Donald Trump's bid for the Presidency.

Oregon has a blue reputation, but, in this particular case, it may be tenuous at best.  

Read LaMountain's VDare article and then consider helping the first presidential candidate, in decades, that has openly and meaningfully addressed the problems surrounding illegal immigration.
 

UAMs and Family Unit Border Surge Continues Undeterred

New statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveal that the surge of unaccompanied alien minors (UAMs) and family units crossing the southwest border is continuing undeterred. (See CBP Apprehension Statistics) The statistics, released last week, show that 5,669 UAMs — many coming from Central America — were apprehended crossing the southwest border in May. (MRC, June 17, 2016)

Additionally, some 6,788 family units were apprehended during the same time period. (Id.) Overall, the total number of all illegal alien apprehensions at the southwest border so far in FY 2016 is up roughly 19 percent from FY 2015 numbers during the same time period. (Id.) CBP reported catching 2,231 more illegal aliens in May than they did in April, which until last month was the record-holder for monthly apprehensions so far in FY2016. (Id.)

In a press release announcing the new statistics, CBP touted that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson recently visited Central America to reiterate that America's borders are not open to illegal migration. (See CBP Apprehension Statistics) However, the actions of the Obama administration say otherwise, as they have repeatedly refused to actually address the underlying causes of the illegal migration from Central America, notably the fact that UAMs and family units who cross the border know they will get to stay in the U.S. once they arrive.

Specifically, once Central American UAMs and family units are apprehended at the border, they receive papers setting court dates and are then released into the U.S. (FAIR Legislative Update, Dec. 1, 2015) These documents are known as "notices to appear," but illegal aliens refer to them as "permisos," or free passes, because they give permission to stay in the country while they await their appearance in already backlogged immigration courts. (Id.)

Testifying before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing late last year, Chris Cabrera of the National Border Patrol Council stated that "[these documents] are now known as the ‘notice to disappear' — 80 percent, 90 percent of those folks will not show up for that hearing." (See Cabrera Testimony, Oct. 21, 2015; FAIR Legislative Update, Oct. 27, 2015) The decisive solution to the crisis at the border, according to Cabrera, is for illegal border crossers to be "detained, adjudicated, and repatriated." (Cabrera Testimony, Oct. 21, 2015)

Deadlocked Supreme Court blocks Obama on immigration

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked President Obama's effort to protect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation Thursday, deadlocking 4-4 over a plan that had divided the nation as well as the justices.

The tie vote leaves intact lower federal court rulings that stopped the program in its tracks more than a year ago...

It was a sudden, crushing defeat for millions of parents who came to the country illegally and have lived in the shadows, often for decades. The administration had hoped that at least one of the more conservative justices -- possibly Chief Justice John Roberts -- would rule that the plan posed no financial threat to the states and therefore could not be challenged in court.

...the one-sentence opinion simply announced that the court was "equally divided" and unable to muster a majority for either side.

That's all opponents needed to block the "deferred action" program, which would have offered qualifying parents of children who were born in the United States or are legal residents the right to remain in the country...

The immigration battle was waged on two fronts before the court: The administration fought with the states as well as with the House of Representatives, which previously blocked the president's effort to confer legal status to some of the nation's more than 11 million illegal immigrants...

Obama announced the "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents," or DAPA program, in November 2014. It would extend protections to more than 4 million parents who meet the criteria, just as a 2012 program did for immigrants brought to the United States as children. More than 700,000 have qualified for that earlier program.

Once qualified, parents also could apply for work authorization, pay taxes and receive some government benefits, such as Social Security. Those with criminal backgrounds or who have arrived since 2010 would not qualify.

Texas challenged Obama's authority to implement the policy by executive action, rather than going through Congress. Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, upheld the challenge in February 2015 and blocked the program from being implemented nationwide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling last November in a 2-1 decision.

The Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case, expanding its scope to include whether Obama's action violated the Constitution's "Take Care Clause" by failing to faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.

In written briefs and oral arguments, the Justice Department contended that the policy only would make official what was happening anyway — undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records and are not priorities for deportation are generally left alone. The government only has enough funds to deport about 400,000 a year, they said.

Lawyers for Texas and the House of Representatives countered that while the president can decide not to deport individual immigrants, only Congress can defer action on a class-wide basis.

The state's injury claim focused on what it said would have been the need to spend money issuing driver's licenses to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Federal officials said that was Texas' choice, and not a ground for a lawsuit.

Supreme Court blocks Obama immigration plan

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants. 

The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency.

The 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit. 

The decision lands in the middle of a heated election season...

Democrats have, in turn, called his rhetoric racially divisive..

The case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. 

Obama decided to move forward after Republicans won control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections...

The Senate had passed a broad immigration bill with Democratic and Republican support in 2013, but the measure went nowhere in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

The states quickly went to court to block the Obama initiatives.

Their lawsuit was heard initially by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Hanen previously had criticized the administration for lax immigration enforcement. Hanen sided with the states, blocking the programs from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled for the states, and the Justice Department rushed an appeal to the high court so that it could be heard this term.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A letter from The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers to the American People

The appointment of Mark Morgan as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol is the same as President Obama sitting in that chair.

By now Americans that are paying attention realize that our way of life is under attack by this administration and our institutions have been systematically corrupted by their influence.  This message to the American people is to assist those that do care and are paying attention to connect the dots about how this administration is proceeding with their anti-American agenda to further corrupt border security.   These similarly embedded corruptive agents that remain throughout government after this administration expires will continue their agenda if permitted to do so.

We watched in disgust as the ACLU, SPLC and the Department of Justice joined hands to attack the U.S. Border Patrol for unnecessary violence which was a bogus claim.  We understood at the time those were the first major shots fired by this administration to fundamentally transform and cut the effectiveness of the U.S. Border Patrol to zero when it began. 

Unfortunately, few in Washington D.C. care about National Security and Public Safety and gleefully go along with the administrations attack program that coincides with the Central American surge and the vast un-vetted numbers coming in under the guise of Refugee Resettlement.  Silence is as effective an assent as a yea vote to these plans.

Such official D.C. chicanery gives credence to those doubting any actions by this government consider what is best for the American people.

This  "appointment" is quite obviously another glaring example at first glance. 

Zack Taylor, Chairman and Border Security Expert

NAFBPO.org

------------------------------------------------------------

From: COMMISSIONER KERLIKOWSKE
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 7:57 AM
Subject: Commissioner's Message: Commissioner Kerlikowske Announces Border Patrol Chief (Kerlikowske reports to Jeh Johnson who reports to President Obama.)

This morning I will be announcing that I have selected Mark Morgan as chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.  You will see from Mark's long career in law enforcement and the leadership positions he has held that he will fulfill at the highest level the obligations and responsibilities of leading the outstanding law enforcement organization that is the Border Patrol.  There was a national search for a chief and a professional and objective process used to select Mr. Morgan.  The pool of candidates who applied yielded an array of extremely experienced, dedicated, and professional law enforcement executives in federal law enforcement and within the Border Patrol who sought this critical position. 

I also want to address very directly the selection of someone who is not a part of the Border Patrol, (which is obviously part of the objective criteria?)   The position of a law enforcement chief at the local, state, or federal level is one that demands an exhausting commitment of time; time that must be spent analyzing its future in light of rapid changes and time charting a course from a variety of perspectives.  (NAFBPO comment, based on political objectives not related to enforcing existing law which constitutes a fundamental transformation.)  That is why almost all federal law enforcement agencies have at various times chosen someone from outside their ranks to make that assessment and chart that course.  (The border patrol did not make this choice, the Obama Administration made the choice which is the same as President Obama filling the position in person.)  The U.S. Capitol Police (Vince Foster), U.S. Park Police, Coast Guard CID, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, ATF (fast & furious), and DEA among others have done the same in addition to large local and state law enforcement organizations across the country.  None of those decisions to have a leader from outside the organization (officially) reflected negatively on the current leadership of those agencies.  In the case of the Border Patrol, the current leadership across the top, from Headquarters to the field, consists of the finest group of men and women that I have worked with in my more than 40 years in law enforcement.

I welcome Mark as an important member of President Obama's leadership team at CBP and DHS and firmly believe that his experience listed below and long and successful career in law enforcement will be of great value to the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol.  (We doubt very seriously that Mark Morgan will benefit the National Security and Public Safety of America or the American people.) 

R. Gil Kerlikowske  Commissioner

_________________________________________________

Mark Morgan

Mark Morgan joins U.S. Customs and Border Protection with a 30-year career in the military and law enforcement related to anti-terrorism and border security operations.  (Specifically, what were each and all of his contributions in fact, not in vague undefined terms?)

Mr. Morgan has a 20-year career at the Federal Bureau of Investigation where he is an Assistant Director. During his time at the FBI, which began as a special agent in 1996 assigned to the Los Angeles Field Office, Mr. Morgan served in multiple leadership positions. 

In 2008, Mr. Morgan served as the Deputy On-Scene in Baghdad, Iraq where he was responsible for all FBI personnel and operations within the Iraq Theater of Operations within the Counterterrorism Division. (Specifically, what did he do?  Did he assist in drafting the rules of engagement for U.S. Military there?  Perhaps screening information deemed not appropriate for the American public? )  

In 2010, he was named the Section Chief of the Strategic Information and Operations Center, with responsibility for leading the FBI’s global command and strategic intelligence center.  (During the phase of the rise of ISIS what specifically were all of his recommendations, published and unpublished?)

The following year,  2011, Mr. Morgan was appointed as the Special Agent in Charge of the El Paso Division, where he was responsible for leading all threat-based and intelligence driven counterterrorism, criminal, cyber, and counterintelligence operations extending from the western tip of Texas to the City of Midland.  (Was he involved in ensuring final development of the Transnational Crime Corridor from Juarez, CHIH, Mexico, into the United States by Wilderness Designations created by an Obama Executive Order in the Potrillo Mountains over the will of the people in the Southwest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7PiDPbV0z0&index=5&list=PLZgh-ICwJq-sI5BipuSRUTFqmCMPqUgGY

From 3 minutes 58 seconds to 14 minutes 8 seconds.

In 2013, as the Deputy Assistant Director, Inspection Division, Mr. Morgan directed day to day operations to ensure compliance and facilitate the improvement of performance by providing independent, evaluative oversight of all FBI investigative and administrative operations. (Specifically, did this include removing all training references to radical islamic jihad, Muslim Brotherhood and similar material from training texts and existing investigators guides ?)

In, 2014, Mr. Morgan served in a detail assignment with CBP as the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs where he planned, organized, and coordinated the complete re-design of CBP’s Use of Force Incident Response protocols. He directed operations related to the screening of potential employees for suitability, implemented internal security measures, and launched CBP’s criminal and serious administrative misconduct investigative unit. In this position, he was responsible for obtaining CBP’s new authority to investigate allegations of misconduct against CBP employees.  (Specifically, did this include commendation medals for Agents engaged in deadly force situations wherein they did not use deadly force?  Objectively speaking, what exactly did he cause to be implemented ?)

In 2015, he was appointed as Assistant Director of the FBI’s Training Division, in Quantico, Virginia, with responsibility for overseeing the delivery of training, professional development and defensive systems to the FBI workforce, and domestic national security, law enforcement, and international partners throughout the world.  (Specifically, did part of this training serve as a policy blindfold to investigators for incidents like Fort Hood, San Jose and Orlando?)

Mr. Morgan was an active-duty member and reservist in the U.S. Marine Corps.  Before joining the FBI, he served as a deputy sheriff in Platte County, Missouri and as an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from Central Missouri State University and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City.  (Major Hassan was on active duty with the U.S. Army.  Mateen was a security guard for Wackenhut before he became front page in Orlando.  Whatever else are Morgan's qualifications we can be assured his main qualification is carrying out the Obama administrations policies as being levied against law enforcement agencies nationwide and further avoids protecting National Security and Public Safety through strict enforcement of existing Immigration Law

Gov. Brown should tell feds: no more Syrian refugees to Oregon

Will some of the Syrian refugees the Obama administration is hustling through a truncated vetting process make their way to Oregon?

In early April, the Associated Press’ Khetam Malkawi reported, “the first Syrian family to be resettled in the U.S. under a speeded-up ‘surge operation’ for refugees left Jordan” for Kansas City, Mo. “While the resettlement process usually takes 18 to 24 months,” Malkawi wrote, “the surge operation will reduce the time to three months.” Its purpose? To help President Barack Obama meet his goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Between the start of the fiscal year last October and April 1, the State Department reports, 17 Syrian refugees had been resettled in Oregon. Obama’s surge could increase that number suddenly and dramatically — to the detriment, as we’ll see, of many Oregonians. First, however, let’s look at what 10,000 Syrian refugees could mean for the nation as a whole.

In regard to their country of origin, FBI counter-terrorist official Michael Steinbach told Congress last year, “We don’t have systems in place on the ground to collect information to vet ... The dataset, the police, the intel services that normally you would (consult) to seek information” about refugees don’t exist. Consequently, even under the more comprehensive pre-surge vetting, terrorists from Syria could and did slip through the cracks. One prominent example: Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, a Syrian admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2012, returned to his home country and fought for the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam in late 2013 and early 2014. Afterward, eluding State Department screening yet again, he returned to the United States. Under Obama’s dramatically-shortened vetting process, even more Al-Jayabs likely will be able to enter our country.

Granted, not all Syrian refugees would be terrorists. But to the communities in which they settle and to Americans as a whole, they would constitute a significant fiscal burden. “More than 90 percent of recent Mideast refugees draw food stamps and about 70 percent receive free health care and cash welfare,” noted Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector estimates that the 10,000 Syrian refugees the administration aims to resettle here, over the course of their lifetimes, likely would cost U.S. taxpayers $6.5 billion.

And now, to Oregon.

Late last year, Gov. Kate Brown said our state “will ... open the doors of opportunity” to Syrian refugees. If she makes good on that, however, she may shut those same doors on some of our most vulnerable fellow citizens.

According to the Oregon Employment Department, some 200,000 Oregon residents are unemployed or underemployed. Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated recently, more than 16 percent of Oregonians live in poverty. The city of Portland, OPB reported late last year, has a shortage of some 24,000 housing units “affordable to the lowest-income renters” (those available for $750 a month or less); the Washington County housing market, said the county’s Housing Services Department, has recently suffered “a shortage of affordable housing for extremely low-income and low-income households.” And Oregon’s $7.4 billion K-12 school fund for the 2015-17 biennium, a state legislative committee determined last year, was almost $1.8 billion short of the amount needed “to reach the state’s educational goals.” Clearly, some of Oregon’s youngest and poorest would be harmed by an influx of refugees who would compete against them for already-insufficient jobs, shelter and education dollars.

What then, should Brown do?

Federal law 8 U.S.C. 1522 states that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is charged with resettling refugees, “shall consult” with state governments “concerning ... the intended distribution of refugees among the states and localities before their placement.” Among the criteria for such placement: “the availability of (an area’s) employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources (including educational, health care, and mental health services.)” The law further directs HHS, “to the maximum extent possible,” to “take into account recommendations of the state(s).”

Citing this law, Brown should contact HHS and explain how an influx of Syrian refugees would harm some of her state’s most vulnerable residents. Coming from a Democrat friendly to the president’s overall agenda, her argument could sway the department’s chief refugee-resettlement officials.

Though the governor’s compassion toward refugees is laudable, it is to her fellow Oregonians — those she was elected to serve — that she owes her foremost responsibility. Immediately, she should contact HHS and say: For the sake of our own struggling people, send no more Syrian refugees to Oregon.

Cynthia Kendoll of Salem and Richard F. LaMountain of Cedar Mill are president and vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform

Rioters Prove Mexicans “Not Criminals” By Committing Criminal Acts; Prove Their Loyalty To The U.S. By Brandishing The Mexican Flag–Brilliant Strategy!

The violent mayhem being loosed against Trump at various rallies resembles that of a Third World country. It should also remind us that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were against “mobocracy”.

A significant proportion of these rioters are Mexicans or Mexican-Americans, though it is clear they self-identify as the former not the latter.

They are angry at Trump for calling Mexicans criminals. So to prove Trump is wrong they commit criminal acts.

Yeah, that’s brilliant.

Do they claim to be Americans? If so, why brandish the Mexican flag and yell “¡Viva México!”?

Once again, it’s brilliant.

It’s brilliant for the Trump Campaign because it shows in bold relief what is at stake here.

Why is there such a frenzied opposition to a candidate who wants to enforce the law?

It’s not just about one candidate. It really doesn’t matter what anybody thinks about Trump the man. Trump is a target because of what he stands for and for his courage.

I suggest readers browse the photographs of the violent protests outside a Trump rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Just look at these photographs. (Click here). These are not “demonstrators” they are violent people. Do we want our country turned over to people who act like this?

Just read the title of the article:

‘Thugs’ chant ‘Viva Mexico’ while burning Stars and Stripes flag as Trump’s may 24th rally in Albuquerque rally erupts in violence: Billionaire hits out at ‘criminals’ who clashed with riot police in the streets  by David Martosko, Daily Mail, May 25, 2016.

That’s just the title.

Once again, thanks to Britain’s Daily Mail for showing us Yanks what’s going on in our own country.

facismAmong other photographs, note the big unfurled Mexican flag in photograph number one , the “Facist [sic] not welcome on native land” in photograph 14 and the poor horse and its rider getting knocked down in photograph 15.

Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation from Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, or for that matter from Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush?

Trump responded on his twitter that:

The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!

----------------------

Trump needs to continue to emphasize that. Demonstrators who brandish the Mexican flag and shout “¡Viva México!” to condemn an American candidate are behaving as de facto agents of a foreign nation.

It’s not we who are impugning their loyalty to a foreign power. It’s they themselves who do so, by their own behavior.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - President