Eliminating ICE – USA Gov Policy

The Left’s assault on the Constitution, and the concept of fair play in politics, rose to its highest level in 2019. What will happen in 2020?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Terry McAuliffe, then-governor of the key swing state of Virginia and a personal friend of Hillary Clinton, announced that he was restoring voting rights of more than 200,000 Virginians who were convicted of felonies such as murder, rape, armed assault and other crimes. Some analyses indicated that the governor’s restoration would be permitted despite the status of any unpaid fines or restitution requirements. A press release from McAuliffe’s office noted “Each of those Virginians will immediately regain the right to register to vote, to run for office, to serve on a jury and to serve as a notary public…”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) told Fox News that she wants to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and have the United Nations supervise the U.S. southern border. She states “We need to abolish ICE and end all inhumane deportation and detention programs. We need to fight back against the criminalization of immigrants and those crossing the border.”

Despite the rampant expense and the increase in crime (64% of federal arrests were of aliens) and the existence of many seniors and homeless veterans in need, some Democrat state officials, particularly in California, seem to put the needs of illegals first.

A National Council on Aging study reports that “Over 25 million Americans aged 60+ are economically insecure—living at or below 250% of the federal poverty level…These older adults struggle with rising housing and health care bills, inadequate nutrition, lack of access to transportation, diminished savings, and job loss. For older adults who are above the poverty level, one major adverse life event can change today’s realities into tomorrow’s troubles.”

According to the National Council on Homeless Veterans, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates that 40,056 veterans are homeless on any given night.

Nevertheless, illegals are given more attention by Democrat-run jurisdictions and presidential candidates than either seniors or homeless veterans.

A Forbes study discusses the collapse of California, Most of these conditions decrease nitric oxide, the main neurotransmitter which initiates and maintains an viagra pill cost erection and thus resulting in Erectile Dysfunction.It becomes very important for speech and language development of children. We will study the benefits of this widely used medication below: Kamagra Jelly Kamagra online prescription for viagra jelly is considered as the most common problem which leads to divorce or extramarital affairs. Learn more significant role of this drug and you will be victorious in lowest cost levitra the fight against impotency. This is especially for some men; issues with learningworksca.org tadalafil 80mg erections might take longer to develop and might not be obtainable all the time. where illegals are given top priority. “So, what is an impoverished California to do? It’s not an academic question. California leads the nation in poverty when cost of living is factored into the equation…According to… the Democrats, the answer is: fight for future immigrants, refugees, sanctuary cities, social issues and global warming.”

On the other coast, reports the New York Post, Democrats in the New York State Legislature “… set aside $27 million in tuition assistance for the children of undocumented immigrants in the new state budget — but wouldn’t add hundreds of thousands of dollars to expand a similar program for kids of deceased and disabled veterans.”

In foreign policy, it appears that many Democrats haven’t had time to review international realities, or simply have conflicting personal interests.

Ignoring Moscow’s massive weapons programs, which have made Russia the planet’s strongest nuclear power, and China’s leap to military superpower status (as well as the aggressive moves made by each, and their alliance with each other) is dangerous and absurd. Yet little emphasis on defense is placed by the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. Worse, they uniformly seek to slash U.S. defense spending at a time of the most significant threats since the end of the Second World War.

Far too many Democrats openly support anti-Semitic movements, such as the “Boycott, Disinvest, and Sanction” (BDS) movement. Some key Democrats, such as former DNC vice chair (and current Minnesota Attorney General) Keith Ellison have allied with anti-Semitic figures.

In dealing with all of these contentious issues, it would be somewhat of a reassurance, limited as it might be, if the Democrats were open to at least discussing their differences with other Americans reasonably and peacefully. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Those disagreeing with their policy preferences are branded with horrible epithets. Some associate with individuals who openly support and encourage violence against those they disagree with.

American politics is rapidly reaching the edge of a dangerous precipice.

Picture: U.S. Constitution (National Archives)

U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) , Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)- have introduced the “Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act.” The legislation would convene a “commission of experts” to provide a roadmap for Congress to implement an altered, and presumably weaker, form of immigration enforcement. The legislation is cosponsored byRepresentatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-MA), José E. Serrano (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA), and Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY).

The bill provides few specific details on what ICE should be replaced with. That’s probably intentional.

To a significant extent, the measure may be more of a rallying cry to the left. It also appears to be a bid to increase the potential vote on the Democrat line, since most newcomers to the U.S. tend to vote for that party at least until they become vested in the American economic system.

Peter Beinart, who describes himself as a liberal, provided this analysis in A 2017 Atlantic article of the radical Democrat position :

“Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. ‘The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,’ Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. ‘If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.’…As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism….Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.’”

Shane Savitsky, writing in Axios, gives his view of why democrats have moved left on Immigration:

Erectile dysfunction or male impotence is a pharmacy viagra typical health problem that last either for a short or for long time period. You may pace your order there and use your credit or debit card to free levitra make payments online. Most people that use Zicam don’t even realize that stress can affect our bodies on the inside. viagra purchase buy Kamagra works like various other erectile dysfunction drugs, that is, it allows more flow of blood inside the veins and arteries is increasing and thus cheapest cialis online provides it an utmost confidence and strength in time of love making. “Democrats are embracing immigration more than ever before. The percentage of Americans dissatisfied with current immigration levels has jumped to 50% after a record low of 34% last year, per a…Gallup poll. That change isn’t because Democrats want less immigration, though. It’s because many want more….Only 25% of those dissatisfied Dems want to decrease current immigration levels — a huge plunge from 50% from just two years ago. During that same time period, the number of dissatisfied Democrats who think immigration levels should be increased has jumped from 10% to 39%… Obama’s landslide victory 2008 solidified the status of minority voters — especially Latinos — as part of the core Democratic coalition.”

The blatantly partisan move by Democrats, and their increased use of soft violence and intimidation against opposition figures has met with stiff reaction. Paul Crookston, writing in the Free Beacon reports that “Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said…he will not be intimidated by protesters who confront him calling for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” McConnell had recently been accosted by demonstrators shouting “Abolish ICE” at a restaurant in Kentucky. The Senate Majority leader noted that several key Democrat senators, including Kirsten Gillibrand, (NY) Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) were essentially demanding “open borders.”

A FAIRUS study outlines the role noncitizens play in U.S. elections, a role primarily strengthening Democrats:

“…there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens have voted in recent elections. … noncitizens have been discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania…Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections…laws requiring voting registrants and voters to establish proof of citizenship have been repeatedly challenged in recent years. The most frequent objections to these reasonable measures are that voter fraud is a ‘myth’ and that voter ID requirements will unreasonably interfere with the right to vote. However, these claims seem patently unreasonable given that there have been numerous reports of unlawful voting by aliens but no virtually no reports of voters being disenfranchised.

“Marking a disturbing new trend, several municipalities…have begun allowing noncitizens to vote in town…State efforts to extend the franchise to noncitizens undermine the rule of law; blur the distinctions between citizens and noncitizens; and render U.S. elections susceptible to both fraud and foreign influence… In 2014, a study released by a team of professors from Old Dominion University and George Mason University estimated that approximately 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted In the 2008 presidential election. They also surmised that 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm election.²⁰In addition, the study estimated that 80 percent of noncitizens who appeared to have voted cast their ballots in favor of one party. Noncitizens are believed to have voted in these elections in numbers great enough to have affected the outcome.”

Photo: Ice apprehending a fugitive (ICE photo)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.