jobs

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

immigration
AP/DAMIAN DOVARGANES

A just-released poll shows that Donald Trump’s campaign-trail immigration and labor policies have overwhelming public support, and strong opposition from just one-sixth of voters. 

The Ipsos poll shows that only about one-in-six Americans strongly oppose Trump’s policies towards immigrant labor, repatriations, sanctuary cities, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and his ground-breaking proposal to reduce legal immigration.

Trump’s labor and immigration policies are “strongly” backed by .... an average support of almost 60 percent, versus strong opposition of just 15 percent. Roughly 10 percent did not answer the questions.

Ipsos is a highly rated polling firm, but conducted the poll in September and hid the pro-Trump answers until Nov. 16, a week after the election....

Trump’s promise to start “immediately deporting” illegals who have committed crimes gets 75 percent strong and somewhat support, and only 7 percent strong opposition. That’s 10-to-one support.

Sixty-two percent support and 13 percent strongly oppose, “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.”

Sixty-seven percent of respondents support, and only 9 percent strongly oppose, the implementation of current laws that levy fines on employers who hired illegals instead of Americans...

The poll shows that Trump’s revised plans to minimize the danger of immigrant Islamic terrorism is backed by 59 percent, and strongly opposed by 12 percent. That result echoes the public’s strong opposition to Islamic doctrines.

The most significant result in the poll, however, is the strong support for reductions in legal immigration, which amounted in 2015 to roughly one new immigrant for every two Americans entering the workforce, or one immigrant for every two American births... 57 percent, back reductions in legal immigration, while 13 percent did not take a position.

On the campaign trail, Trump called for a two-year pause in legal immigration....

Any significant reduction in immigration would raise Americans’ salaries and wages, cut welfare spending, reduce housing costs and drop unemployment, according to recent studies by a Wall Street advisory group that backed Hillary Clinton, and by the National Academies of Sciences.

More importantly, a major reduction in immigration would force Democrats to give up their 20-year strategy of gaining political dominance by importing government-dependent poor workers and voters...

Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 1.54.35 PM

 Many polls show that most Americans do like immigrants, and they want to be seen liking immigration — but they also want a reduction in the annual immigration of 1 million people, which cuts salaries for the 4 million Americans who enter the job market each year. ...

This same outspoken response is also visible in a pre-election poll of the midwesterners who gave Trump his election-winning state victories, and of Latinos, who mostly prioritize the economy over additional immigration of their ethnic group. On Nov 8, “actual election results from counties with large Latino populations suggests that Trump probably did no worse than [Gov Mitt] Romney among Latinos, and probably did better,” said Harry Enten, a data analyst at Fivethirtyeight.com.

These disparate views of Americans are highlighted in the IPSOS poll by unusually strong opposition to Trump’s campaign-trail promise to extend the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Overall, 42 percent strongly or somewhat supported building a wall, while 32 percent strongly opposed a wall, said the poll.

But this response from the 1,005 adult respondents is likely influenced by party solidarity because it was conducted Sept. 1 to Sept. 2, 2016, during the political campaign where Trump’s main theme was construction of a border wall...

Similarly, 23 percent of the poll’s respondents strongly opposed cancellation of the Obama’s 2012 quasi-amnesty for younger illegals, who are called ‘Dreamers” by Democratic advocates. When asked if they support or oppose “Ending the executive orders that protect people who were brought to the US illegally when they were children,” 23 percent said they were strongly opposed, and 23 percent said they “strongly” support the proposal. Overall, 43 percent of Americans support an end to the amnesty, while 45 percent somewhat or strongly oppose ending the amnesty.

But when the same question is asked without any reference to “children,” support for repatriations spikes and opposition crashes. Sixty-two percent support — and only 13 percent strongly oppose — “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.” That’s four-to-one support for enforcing immigration laws. 

The public’s conflicting answers may also be caused by the poll’s lack of information about the scale and economic impact of current immigration.

'Sanctuary Cities' Vs. National Security and Public Safety

Why 'sanctuary city' mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

The lunacy of the immigration executive orders and other actions of the Obama administration to block the enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration anarchy will be brought to a screeching halt on the day that Donald Trump replaces Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.

However the “Immigration All-Clear” will not be sounded across the United States in cities and states that have been declared “Sanctuaries” by the mayors and governors who have created a false and very dangerous narrative that equates immigration law enforcement with racism and bigotry.

This insidious false claim has been heartily embraced by the demonstrators who are rampaging across the United States...

This is the false narrative that has enabled mayors of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” to foist this lunacy on the residents of their cities...

The challenge for the Trump administration and for all Americans, is to eliminate these enclaves of lawlessness.

Sanctuary cities are highly attractive to illegal aliens and the criminals, fugitives and likely terrorists among them who entered the United States by evading the inspections process...

Sanctuary cities, however, certainly do not provide “sanctuary” for the residents of those cities who, all too often, fall victim to the crimes committed by these criminal aliens...

Terrorists would most likely seek to set up shop in sanctuary cities to evade detection and arrest.

They can use the security provided by such “leaders” as Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel and New York’s Bill de Blasio as a staging area for attacks...

While politicians from both parties often claim that the “Immigration system is broken” as a way of justifying their positions of advocacy for massive amnesty programs and the creation of these dangerous “sanctuaries” for criminals, fugitives and terrorists, in reality, this is “Immigration Failure -- By Design.”

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, fugitives from justice and those foreign nationals who would displace American workers...

A quick review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 would quickly dispel the bogus claim that equates the enforcement of our immigration laws with racism.

That section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment...

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a multi-agency federal task force that operates under the aegis of the FBI.  While, as might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of enforcement personnel to that effort, the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the JTTF are special agents of  Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI).

The majority of international terrorists also commit immigration law violations including visa fraud, immigration benefit fraud and a list of other crimes which include immigration law violations....

This quote from the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” identifies the nexus between systemic failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks in the United States.

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

That quote also underscores the importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and how failures of such efforts create deadly vulnerabilities for the United States.  This concern was the focus of my recent article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”

Read the full article.

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.

Trump deportations would hit Idaho ag, where a fourth of all workers are undocumented

What would happen to an industry that loses one-fourth or more of its employee base?

Idaho’s agriculture industry, and particularly its farming sector, might run head-on into that hypothetical question if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on a pledge to reverse his predecessor’s executive actions on immigration and deport undocumented immigrants en masse.

Agriculture represents about 4 percent of Idaho’s $65 billion annual gross domestic product, and about the same percentage of the state labor force..... - approximately 45,000...

But Pew’s analysis says Idaho’s undocumented workers dominate in the state’s agriculture industry....

The state’s agricultural industry employs more than 40 percent of Idaho’s undocumented immigrant population, and more than one-quarter of all state ag workers are undocumented. Idaho, Washington and Oregon are the only three states in the nation where agriculture is tops in both of those metrics, said Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer with Pew and one of the study’s authors.

The share of agriculture workers who are unauthorized “tends to be very high everywhere,” Passel said. But Idaho’s agriculture sector is “a little bit unusual” because it also employs the largest portion of the state’s unauthorized immigrants. Nationwide, construction and the leisure/hospitality industry, which includes hotel service workers, employ the most unauthorized immigrants.

“Just 4 percent of unauthorized workers are in agriculture” nationwide, Passel said.

IDAHO TOPS IN AMNESTY ELIGIBILITY

Idaho ranked first among states in the percentage of undocumented immigrants who could avoid deportation under President Obama’s executive action on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and related moves on pathways to citizenship — more than 60 percent, according to Pew. That’s because such a high percentage of Idaho’s undocumented population, nearly 9 out of 10, is Mexican. That population qualifies at a higher rate based on DACA’s criteria regarding longevity and family ties.

Trump has proposed immediately reversing Obama’s actions and deporting anyone in the U.S. illegally.

A measurable if imperfect proxy for undocumented population is foreign-born workers. .... Almost all are Hispanic, he said.

The state’s unemployment rate is tight at 3.8 percent. “We have been short of workers here for the last two or three years,” Troxel said.

‘DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN-BORN LABOR’

Troxel said that if workers are deported, “it will have impact.”

“If food prices go up because it can’t get harvested or processed by the existing workforce, then there’s going to be dramatic repercussions,” he said.

Like Troxel’s group, the Idaho Dairymen’s Association has supported and worked for immigration reform to address the status of undocumented workers. Dairy workers are needed year-round, not seasonally, so the industry has little use for H-2A visas granted to temporary agricultural workers.

“Any change in immigration policy that brings some certainty to what that policy is, is a positive...

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.

 

Donald Trump won ... now what?

On Tuesday, Americans elected Donald Trump as the 45th President, and according to exit polling, many based their vote on Trump's tough stance on illegal immigration and his pro-American worker positions. So what can we expect from a Trump Administration?

Historically, a President's first 100 days in office are when they can accomplish the most, and in late-October, Trump laid out a fairly detailed plan for his first 100 days, including actions he plans to take on immigration.

First, Trump said he'll cancel Pres. Obama's executive orders and actions. This includes ending Obama's executive amnesties -- DACA and DAPA -- and could also mean an end to his extension of the OPT program that allows foreign students who graduate with a degree in a STEM field to stay and work in the U.S. until they can get an H-1B visa and an end to Obama's regulation that allows H-1B holders to stay and work after their visa expires if their employer has applied for an employment-based green card on their behalf, just to name a few.

Second, Trump announced that he would cancel ALL federal funding for Sanctuary Cities. He's likely to receive some pushback on this; Seattle has already announced that it will continue to be a Sanctuary City under a Trump Administration, but if Trump does withhold funding, that policy will probably end quickly. The question is: how far will Trump go? Will he only block law enforcement funding, or will he also block funding unrelated to law enforcement.

Third, Trump will begin removing the 1 million criminal illegal aliens still present in the United States who have already been ordered removed. Most have not been removed because of Pres. Obama's Priority Enforcement Program which only allows for the removal of the most dangerous criminal aliens. Some have not been removed because their countries won't take them back. On the latter issue, Trump has also pledged to block new visas to countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

Fourth, Trump has promised to suspend immigration from terror-sponsoring countries. There's been some debate over whether a President has the authority to do this, but federal law specifically gives the President discretion to block entry to foreign citizens. It'll be interesting to see how Congress responds to Pres. Obama's demands to dramatically increase refugee resettlement during the lame-duck when they'll have to pass a spending bill to keep the government running past Dec. 9.

Fifth, Trump promises to have legislation introduced within the first 100 days that fully funds the building of a border fence (with Mexico paying for it) and includes Kate's Law that would establish minimum sentencing guidelines for aliens who illegally re-enter the United States.

Just as important will be who Trump appoints to certain key positions throughout his Administration. The Attorney General, DHS Secretary, and Secretary of State will all play key roles in ending illegal immigration and reducing overall immigration numbers.

For Roy's reaction to Trump's election and a list of things Trump promised to do, read his new blog here. I've also posted a blog reviewing what happened in the House and Senate races and what impacts there may be for immigration.

 
 


 

Quite a spin on reality

I read the following article with interest - wondering how CAUSA might try to put a big smiley face on yet another defeat of their misguided efforts with the election of Donald Trump.. 

Please read selected portions of the article posted below and my remarks noted with **.  Read the full article.

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

Causa
OREGON’S IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OREGONIZATION

Message to Community about election results

November 10, 2016

After Tuesday’s elections, the nation's direction changed....

Causa’s mission is to improve the lives of Latino immigrants and their families...

Since 1995, Causa has stood with our immigrant families for their safety, protection, and recognition in this country and we will continue to do so.

     **CAUSA advocates for the ?rights? of illegal aliens living and working in Oregon.

Over the last year, we’ve seen a culture of xenophobia growing in America and in our own state.

We saw it earlier this year when local efforts attempted to qualify three anti-immigrant ballot measures. Causa and a coalition of 57 organizations stopped those efforts in their tracks....

     **CAUSA and 57 organizations had absolutely no role in stopping  the qualification of 3 initiatives for the ballot.  Unless they are implying that the Attorney General's office is in cahoots with CAUSA, I would like to know exactly how they claim to have stopped our efforts?

....Immigrants are a part of this country, and are here to stay. Immigrants are courageous, smart, resourceful, and resilient people who come to this country ready to work hard and make it even stronger.....

     **Once again the term immigrant and illegal alien are not interchangeable.  Legal immigrants are welcome!

The call for this work is louder than ever. We will continue the momentum we built in Oregon...

     **By momentum, are you referring to the defeat of driver cards for illegal aliens? 

     **All five Congressional districts, 35 of 36 counties and nearly a million citizens voted NO to driver cards without proof of legal presence -

     a resounding  66% NO vote!

We call on our elected leaders, allies, and community members to join us. In the coming weeks, we’ll plan and provide more information about our next steps, please stay tuned.

We’ve also been deeply moved and grateful for the Causa supporters who have reached out over the last 24 hours to donate or ask how they can support. If you want to join us in building power by volunteering or making a donation, we welcome your support.

Thank you for standing up for the rights of immigrant families in the face of fear and hate.

     **Legal immigrant families are warmly welcomed in our state and have nothing to fear.. 

     **I would speculate that the word "illegal"  is intentionally left out of your fundraising requests?

La lucha sigue,

The Causa Team:
Andrea, Lorena, Delia, Yanely, Cristina C., Carmen, and Cristina M

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.

 

You haven't voted yet? Read this!

Alert date: 
2016-11-05
Alert body: 

NOTE:  It's too late to MAIL your ballot.  You must deliver it to an authorized, secure dropsite.

If you have not yet voted, read this one article before casting your vote:

It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!, by Tom Tancredo, Breitbart.
 
Read the full article. Here are some excerpts:
 
In the early days of Bill Clinton's campaign to oust President George Herbert Walker Bush from the White House in 1992, his campaign strategists concocted a slogan that defined Bush as a failure and set the guardrails for the Democrats' entire campaign: "It's the economy, stupid."
 
It stuck, and as they say, the rest is history.
 
... I, Tom Tancredo, the man who has championed border controls and immigration enforcement more than any other national figure, say: no big deal. It's the Supreme Court, stupid!
 
... what I care about most - and what all patriots and constitutionalists should tattoo on their eyelids - is that Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, must make the next Supreme Court appointments.
 
Yes, I know: There is no way to guarantee that Donald Trump will make the same appointments to the Supreme Court that Ted Cruz or Tom Tancredo would make.
 
Republican President Richard Nixon gave us the author of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, and George H.W. Bush gave us David Souter. But what is guaranteed is that Trump's appointments to federal courts will be 1,000 percent better than Hillary Clinton's. (Can you spell Associate Justice B-a-r-a-c-k -O-b-a-m-a?)
 
Constitutional conservatives understand that our immigration laws are meaningless if they are not enforced. It will mean nothing if President Trump orders a wall built from Brownsville to San Diego if a lawsuit brought by a dozen leftist groups results in a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down that order as contrary to the Constitution.
 
The same is true for every single important issue you can name, from education choice to refugee admissions, from criminal justice reform to repeal of Obamacare. If Hillary Clinton is allowed to remake the entire Supreme Court for a generation in the image of Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor, our Constitution is dead and salt poured on the gravesite.
 
What is most important - and most important by a factor of one hundred - is that the Scalia vacancy and every other vacancy that occurs be filled by a judge who respects the Constitution as a restraint on Congress and the President, not a blank slate for creating a socialist utopia of "transformative justice."
 
Yes, immigration policy is one of the two most important challenges that will confront the president sworn in on January 20, 2017. The other is Islamist terrorism. I hope Donald Trump spells out ambitious, sensible and effective plans for meeting those two challenges.
 
... What I care about very much and what I know for a 100 percent certainty is that those decisions and proposals by President Donald Trump will be one thousand percent more consistent with my constitutional principles than the decisions made by President Hillary Clinton.
 
What is not in the spotlight of media coverage of the campaign is this truth: Even if Trump and Congress deadlock on new immigration policies, all President Trump has to do to change direction radically is to order the robust enforcement of our current immigration laws. Bingo!
 
... After eight years of Obama's government by executive decree, not only in immigration but across a broad spectrum of government programs, our Constitution is in tatters.
 
If we invite four more years of this lawlessness with a Supreme Court clearing the way for every new insult to American sovereignty and the rule of law, there will be no possibility of returning to the constitutional government we inherited from ten generations of patriots.
 
... What we need most is the conscientious enforcement of existing immigration laws that have been subverted and castrated by Obama.
 
After a housecleaning and restaffing the upper echelons of the Department of Homeland Security, a simple order from President Trump to the 25,000 officers of the US Border Patrol would be sufficient to halt 95 percent of the illegal traffic across our border. That order would be only ten words: Do your job, and call me if you need anything.
 
The really good news is that such simple policies - the actual enforcement of existing immigration laws - do not require new legislation. They do not require cutting a deal with Senator Chuck Schumer or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. What the enforcement of immigration laws does require is a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution and the President's oath to take care that laws be faithfully executed.
 
If Clinton's Supreme Court reverses the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court ruling that invalidated Obama's "executive amnesty," then new immigration laws will be meaningless because they will mean whatever President Hillary Clinton wants them to mean.
 
In 2016, we have come to a day or reckoning in American politics. Patriots must take sides, and also must take up arms. In politics, our arms are our votes. Those votes will not be cast for mythical perfect candidates, for better candidates that should have won or might have won, but didn't. We have to vote for one of two candidates who have a chance to take that oath of office on a cold day in January.
 
For myself, when I cast my ballot, I will not be asking whether Donald Trump's immigration policies are 100 percent in tune with my own. It is enough that whatever policies he finally adopts, my country has a 1,000 percent better chance of survival than if Hillary Clinton is making Supreme Court appointments designed to complete Obama's dream of remaking America into something the patriots who died in battle at Bunker Hill, Omaha Beach and Fallujah would not recognize.

 

A concise comparison of Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on eight key issues

Here are the big election cycle political issues and Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s positions on what each wants to see and make happen, according to political analysts John Porter, James Kouri,...

  1. OPEN OR CLOSED BORDERS: National Security

Hillary Clinton is for an entire Western Hemisphere of open borders, free travel with no restrictions as to identity or the numbers of people entering these countries, including the U.S. She wants a mirror image of the European Common Market. It is estimated up to 600 million people could freely migrate here.

Donald Trump is for completely closed borders with strict limitations and extreme vetting on who and how many people are allowed to enter the U.S. He is soundly opposed to the European Common Market concept.

  1. AMERICA’S MILITARY STRENGTH:

Hillary Clinton is opposed to substantially increasing the size and strength of the U. S. Military forces. This in its self means a weaker military presence in the world. She, like Obama, doesn’t believe we should be a dominant military power.
 

Donald Trump is in favor of substantially increasing both the size and strength of the U.S. Military forces. This would be restoring us to the strongest military presence in the world. He, like Ronald Reagan, believes we should be a dominant military power. The Military is in the worse possible position since WWI.

  1. FEDERAL INCOME TAXES:

Hillary Clinton plans to substantially increase Federal Income Taxes on both individuals and all businesses, large and small, and increase the inheritance tax rate to 65% of what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Increase the number of brackets to eight.

Donald Trump plans to substantially lower taxes on all individuals and all businesses, large and small, and totally eliminate the inheritance tax all together on what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Decrease the number of brackets to three.

  1. AMERICA’S ECONOMY: Trade with foreign countries

Hillary Clinton has stated she has no desire to open any of our trade agreements with foreign nations to renegotiation. She is satisfied with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in spite of an $800 Billion dollar trade deficit with our trading countries, and is in favor of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). She believes NAFTA has boosted the American economy, in spite of a terribly slow and sluggish economy with over 95 million American workers having left the work force because there are no jobs available to them. She wants to continue the same policies.

Donald Trump has stated he wants to open our current trade agreements and renegotiate the terms of those agreements and make them more fair for the U.S. He is very unsatisfied with NAFTA and will not sign on to the TPP without further negotiations. He believes NAFTA has destroyed American manufacturing jobs and greatly weakened our economy. He sites the huge trade deficit and so many leaving the work force as evidence of it. He wants to put plans into motion that will halt American Companies from leaving this country and bring those back which have left.

  1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

Hillary Clinton wants to appoint judges who will make rulings that will be more in line with modern day Liberal and Progressive ways of thinking, possibly infringing on the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, and religion (especially Catholics and Evangelicals) being targets of change.

Donald Trump wants to appoint judges who will follow the Constitution strictly. The right of citizens to own guns, speak freely in all matters, and freedom of worship will not be infringed.
(This issue alone could effect our nation for generations to come.)

  1. PUBLIC EDUCATION:

Hillary Clinton wants to leave Common Core in tact and is opposed to school choice. She wants local school boards to teach what they are directed to teach by Common Core Standards, and parents send their children to the schools they are directed to, eliminating school competition.

Donald Trump wants to eliminate Common Core and is in favor of school choice. He wants to return all school subject content selection to the states and local school boards, and parents can send their children to the school of their choice, creating school competition.

  1. MEDICAL CARE:

Hillary Clinton wants to keep, as is, what is referred to as Obamacare, expand upon it and finally morph it into a national government paid and managed medical system with no competition, much like Canada.

Donald Trump wants to completely repeal Obamacare and have it replaced with a free market medical system, eliminating the regulation restricting insurance companies to certain states, allowing them to sell nationwide, creating fierce competition.

  1. RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM, THE THREAT OF ISIS:

Hillary Clinton does not believe we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, will not recognize them by name. She recently said, “I am not worried about terrorism in America.”

Donald Trump believes we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, does recognize them by that name. He recently said, “We are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorism.” “They declared war on us and we need to declare war on them and fight to win.”

Remember Ronald Reagan’s words. You are the driver. Which of the roads above do you wish to travel and how fast do you want to drive? You are leaving the driveway and MUST turn right or left. Your decision can’t be delayed any longer, a choice has to be made.

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - jobs