Tag: border control

Categories
Quick Analysis

Opinion Tide Turns Against Illegal Immigration

A dramatic combination of crime, cost, health, and population data has begun to convince the U.S. population that illegal immigration is presenting a dangerous and unaffordable challenge to the nation.

James Kirchik, writing in the New York Post which reports in a city known for its very tolerant attitude towards illegals, notes that “An economic migrant wanting to enter a country does not have a ‘right’ to do so in the same way that a citizen of that country has a right to free speech… Today, many on the left seem to believe that the very concept of borders is immoral and should not exist. Meanwhile, in the debate over so-called sanctuary cities, activists egg on municipalities to defy federal immigration officials in open defiance of the rule of law.”

California’s state government, which has views on illegal immigration  that are in open opposition to federal border controls, is now facing a revolt of its own. The Free Beacon reports that “San Diego County, California’s second-most populous county, [has] joined at least a dozen other municipalities in supporting the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state over its so-called “sanctuary” law… San Diego County is the latest in a series of revolts by municipalities against the law, which began last month when the small city of Los Alamitos, located within Orange County, made national news by launching a city ordinance to reject the sanctuary law. Orange County itself soon followed suit by voting to file an amicus brief supporting the federal lawsuit against the state. The cities of San Juan Capistrano, Aliso Viejo, Escondido, and Mission Viejo are among those whose leaders have either passed a resolution against the law or have voted to file amicus briefs in support of the Trump administration’s positions.”

The growing alteration of attitudes in states like California and New York  which face budgetary challenges, may be explainable by demographic, economic and crime factors.  The Hill cites a Kaiser Family Foundation survey that found “One in 4 children living in the U.S. in 2016 had at least one parent who was born outside the U.S., according to a study released Wednesday. More half of those children live in just four states: California (23 percent), Texas (13 percent), New York (8 percent) and Florida (8 percent), according to the study… A common theme for families with at least one immigrant parent is the family looking for affordable health care, the survey shows. About 8 million of the roughly 20 million children living with an immigrant parent were covered under either Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).”

Crime, and the role illegal immigration has played in it, also is changing formerly tolerant attitudes.

The Washington Times  cites just one example of how the Obama Administration intentionally ignored the entry of notorious MS-13 gang members into the U.S. The admitted gang members, known as such to American authorities, arrived as “unaccompanied minors” and were shipped to juvenile homes across the nation.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) recently released a worrisome report on the role MS-13 plays in crime. “Center researchers reviewed more than 500 cases of MS-13 gang members arrested nationwide since 2012. We conclude that this resurgence represents a very serious threat to public safety in communities where MS-13 has rebuilt itself. The resurgence is directly connected to the illegal arrival and resettlement of more than 300,000 Central American youths and families that has continued unabated for six years, and to a de-prioritization of immigration enforcement in the interior of the country that occurred at the same time. All criminal gangs are a threat to public safety, but MS-13 is a unique problem because of the unusually brutal crimes its members have committed, its success in using intimidation to victimize and control people in its territory, and its focus on recruiting young members, often in schools… a large share of MS-13 members are not citizens… The proliferation of sanctuary policies that interfere with cooperation between state and local law enforcement agencies threatens to hamper efforts to stifle MS-13 activity.”

We have previously reported that a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) found that federal, state, and local levels, governments spend approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. The FAIRUS study noted that Federal Tax Receipts from Illegal Aliens totals only about $22.1 Billion. On the state and local level, a Forbes study found that households headed by illegal immigrants paid a combined $11.64 billion in state and local taxes during 2010. Therefore, the combined intake of taxes from illegals is approximately $33.3 billion, resulting in a net combined government loss of $101.16 billion.

We have also previously disclosed that a General Accounting Office (GAO)  study of 55,322 illegal aliens, incarcerated in federal prisons found that:

  • They were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.
  • They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud—including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.
  • Eighty percent of all arrests occurred in three states—California, Texas, and Arizona. Specifically, about 58 percent of all arrests occurred in California, 14 percent in Texas, and 8 percent in Arizona.”

The testosterone level heightens significantly cialis from canadian pharmacy with this herb. There viagra online samples are cases in which the reasons for a man’s inability to control orgasm. You might prescription viagra without also like to know that herbal formulas are available with prescription in most countries and can even lead to depression. These make the internet the best place to buy online comes next. cialis without prescriptions uk
Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Why Democrat Leaders Oppose Border Controls, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of opposition to funding the southern border wall

Arguments about the cost of the wall fail to make economic sense; cost-savings from reducing the number of illegal entries far exceeds any expenses incurred in construction. Steven Camarota describes the financial outline in a Center for Immigration Studies report:

“The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. Among the findings:

  • There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2
  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.”

Understanding Male Erectile System To understand the working of enzyme PDE5 type the key culprit for bringing out erectile failures in their male look at here generic levitra organ. They are quite literally packed full of goodness and buy cheap levitra purchased this nutrients which help your body to perform much more efficiently, getting and keeping your body and mind fitter. The reputation of this unassuming little berry is now well known all over the planet and the demand of http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/mystery-animal/ cheapest viagra tabs is increasing worldwide. The expression on his face showed me that he buy levitra http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/waitoreke/ knew I was speaking the truth.
The answer to the puzzling opposition to border enforcement by Democrat leaders is found at the ballot box.  As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, What may seem, at first impression, to be a position counter to the Democrats own key interests comes into focus when seen through the prism of politics on a national scale.

Governing magazine points out that “Democrats went into this (2016)election controlling the governorship, Senate and House in just seven states — that was their lowest number since the Civil War, when there were 15 fewer states. Now, they control just five states.”

A National Review  study concurs.“President Obama’s recent executive orders granting provisional legal status to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens will likely allow an indeterminate number of them to cast ballots in elections across the United States — and it’s hard to see how it won’t affect the outcome of some number of close elections. Amnestied illegal aliens are now eligible to receive Social Security numbers and, in many cases, drivers’ licenses. Since the vast majority of states don’t require individuals to present proof of citizenship to either register or vote, and given the Obama administration’s zealous promotion of motor-voter registration and declared refusal to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (ensuring that only eligible individuals vote), it’s certain that appreciable numbers of amnestied illegal aliens will be able to vote. Furthermore, testimony…before the House Judiciary Committee revealed that under Obama’s amnesty some illegal aliens will receive advance-parole status — a glide path to citizenship and full voting rights…”

Voting in their own interests, unlawful immigrants who eventually vote, legally or otherwise, will overwhelmingly support Democrats. That is the primary reason for the opposition by Democrat party leaders to reasonable border control.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Jurisdictional Confusion

The Obama Administration is displaying a deeply disturbing, fundamental lack of comprehension concerning the role of the federal government, and the dominion of its various agencies. The problem is reflected in issues both foreign and domestic, and is profoundly changing the relationship between Washington, the states, and individual American citizens.

The White House response to the recent beheading of an American journalist, as well as the 9/11/12 attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi is illustrative of this deep confusion.  Each of these actions were military in nature, the former performed under the aegis of an adversarial armed force, the latter by organized terrorists using the weapons and tactics of war.

Rather than allow the appropriate organization, The Department of Defense, to timely respond, the Justice Department was absurdly given jurisdiction.  This is an irrational move for two key reasons. First, enemy military organizations are not vulnerable to nor concerned with American jurisprudence. Second, DOJ simply doesn’t have the capability to bring a foreign military to heel. Indeed, as has been amply demonstrated, even the heroic arrest or elimination by Special Forces of individual culpable leaders, Osama bin Laden being a prime example, does nothing substantive to reduce the threat.  Bin Laden is dead, but Islamic extremism is stronger than ever. Removing major figures has only strengthened the resolve of the movement, which now controls more territory than ever, a direct consequence of the Obama Administration’s decision to prematurely remove U.S. forces from Iraq and its announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan.

Domestically, the Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the tidal wave of illegal aliens flooding through America’s southern border, but has not hesitated to move against state and local officials seeking to do this vital task that the White House has abandoned.

It’s bewilderment over what it is supposed to do—and what it has no jurisdiction over– can also be seen in the events that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri. The proper course of action in the wake of the shooting of a black robbery suspect by a white police officer was to have the Missouri state legal system investigate and take appropriate action. No evidence of a civil rights violation was established before Attorney General Eric Holder became involved, sending numerous FBI agents to the area and travelling there himself. Since a civil rights violation had not been established, DOJ lacked jurisdiction and its presence was inappropriate.

In contrast, The Department of Justice has repeatedly refrained from investigating fairly obvious actions which affected Americans’ fundamental rights, including acts of voter intimidation, the harassment of journalists, and the abuse of the Internal Revenue Service involving partisan political attacks. It has also consistently interfered with states seeking to insure that their voter registration rolls are accurate.

Extension of ugly fights and misunderstandings Many couples extend their fights beyond a certain tadalafil generic india click to read more level. There are several kinds of medication that contains Sildenafil buy sildenafil online Citrate. Performing in bed for more than five minutes in bed. check that cheap viagra soft If you don’t loss into these categories however and your price of cialis 10mg doctor provides you the go-ahead, then looking into this supplement to experience the helpful listed above will likely be a wise move. While the Department of Justice is a key problem, other federal agencies have, during the tenure of the current White House, also been responsible for numerous, dramatic and frequently unwarranted and constitutionally inappropriate increases in Washington’s authority, endangering the rights and property of individual citizens and enterprises. The expansionist policies of the Environmental Protection Agency has caused significant harm and raised constitutional issues.

Washington’s overreach has created a regulatory climate that is Kafkaesque.

In his 2013 testimony before the Congressional Committee on over-criminalization, John G. Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation Stated: “… buried within the 51 titles of the United States Code and the far more voluminous Code of Federal Regulations, there are approximately 4,500 statutes and another 300,000 (or more) implementing regulations with potential criminal penalties for violations.  There are so many criminal laws and regulations, in fact, that nobody really knows how many there are, with scores more being created every year.  And that’s just federal offenses.”

It is clear that the Constitution never envisioned this vast and direct role for the federal government. The Bill of Rights’ Tenth Amendment clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This combination of confused jurisdiction between individual federal agencies, combined with Washington’s constitutionally inappropriate overreach into the jurisdiction of the states, reflects a government badly at odds with both common sense and its own founding principles.