Tag: immigration

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House Proposes Immigration Reform

President Trump delivered an outline of his comprehensive immigration proposal in a Rose Garden speech yesterday. A summary of the remarks is presented below:

Everyone agrees that the physical infrastructure on the border and the ports of entry is gravely underfunded and woefully inadequate.  We scan only a small fraction of the vehicles, goods, and all of the other things coming across, including people.  And, sadly, the drugs pour across our border.  We’re going to stop it.

Investment in technology will ensure we can scan 100 percent of everything coming through, curbing the flow of drugs and contraband, while speeding up legal trade and commerce.  It’s the most heavily traded — monetarily — border anywhere in the world, and it’s not even close.

To make certain that we are constantly making the upgrades we need, our proposal creates a permanent and self-sustaining border security trust fund.  This will be financed by the fees and revenues generated at the border crossings itself.

As we close the gaps in our physical framework, we must also close the gaps in our legal framework.  Critical to ending the border crisis is removing all incentives for smuggling women and children. Current law and federal court rulings encourage criminal organizations to smuggle children across the border.  The tragic result is that 65 percent of all border-crossers this year were either minors or adults traveling with minors.  Our plan will change the law to stop the flood of child smuggling and to humanely reunite unaccompanied children with their families back home — and rapidly. 

We must also restore the integrity of our broken asylum system.  Our nation has a proud history of affording protection to those fleeing government persecutions.  Unfortunately, legitimate asylum seekers are being displaced by those lodging frivolous claims — these are frivolous claims — to gain admission into our country.

Asylum abuse also strains our public school systems, our hospitals, and local shelters, using funds that we should, and that have to, go to elderly veterans, at-risk youth, Americans in poverty, and those in genuine need of protection.  We’re using the funds that should be going to them.  And that shouldn’t happen.  And it’s not going to happen in a very short period of time. 

My plan expedites relief for legitimate asylum seekers by screening out the meritless claims.  If you have a proper claim, you will quickly be admitted; if you don’t, you will promptly be returned home.

our plan closes loopholes in federal law to make clear that gang members and criminals are inadmissible.  These are some of the worst people anywhere in the world — MS-13 and others.  And for criminals already here, we will ensure their swift deportation. 

A topic of less discussion in national media, but of vital importance to our country, is our legal immigration system itself.  Our plan includes a sweeping modernization of our dysfunctional legal immigration process.  It is totally dysfunctional.

Every year, we admit 1.1 million immigrants as permanent legal residents.  These green card holders get lifetime authorization to live and work here and a five-year path to American citizenship.  This is the most prized citizenship anywhere in the world, by far.

Currently, 66 percent of legal immigrants come here on the basis of random chance.  They’re admitted solely because they have a relative in the United States.  And it doesn’t really matter who that relative is.  Another 21 percent of immigrants are issued either by random lottery, or because they are fortunate enough to be selected for humanitarian relief.

Random selection is contrary to American values and blocks out many qualified potential immigrants from around the world who have much to contribute.  While countless …countries… create a clear path for top talent.  America does not.

Under the senseless rules of the current system, we’re not able to give preference to a doctor, a researcher, a student who graduated number one in his class from the finest colleges in the world — anybody.  We’re not able to take care of it.  We’re not able to make those incredible breakthroughs.  If somebody graduates top of their class from the best college, sorry, go back to your country.  We want to keep them here.

Companies are moving offices to other countries because our immigration rules prevent them from retaining highly skilled and even, if I might, totally Instead of cialis pills online making changes into your chair like toilet, you can put the toilet tool under your commode. Mucous membranes or cheap tadalafil uk in skin, there is not matter of concern, as the condition can be easily diagnosed There is no easy or definitive way to diagnose a learning disability. It improves functioning of nerves and improves sensation in the genitals. http://www.midwayfire.com/homeowners-insurance-information/ order cheap levitra But the reality purchase generic levitra midwayfire.com is not what you may think. brilliant people.  We discriminate against genius.  We discriminate against brilliance.  We won’t anymore, once we get this passed. 

Some of the most skilled students at our world-class universities are going back home because they have no relatives to sponsor them here in the United States

As a result of our broken rules, the annual green card flow is mostly low-wage and low-skilled.  Newcomers compete for jobs against the most vulnerable Americans and put pressure on our social safety net and generous welfare programs.

Only 12 percent of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit.  In countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand — and others — that number is closer to 60 and even 70 and 75 percent, in some cases.

The biggest change we make is to increase the proportion of highly skilled immigration from 12 percent to 57 percent, and we’d like to even see if we can go higher. …This will bring us in line with other countries and make us globally competitive.

At the same time, we prioritize the immediate family of new Americans — spouses and children.  The loved ones you choose to build a life with, we prioritize.  And we have to do that.

America’s last major overhaul of our legal admissions policy was 54 years ago.  Think of that.  So a major update — and that’s what this is: merit system and a heart system — is long overdue…

Wages are rising but our current immigration system works at cross-purposes, placing downward pressure on wages for the working class, which is what we don’t want to do.

Unfortunately, the current immigration rules allow foreign workers to substitute for Americans seeking entry-level jobs.  So, foreign workers are coming in and they’re taking the jobs that would normally go to American workers.

America’s immigration system should bring in people who will expand opportunity for striving, low-income Americans, not to compete with those low-income Americans. 

We cherish the open door that we want to create for our country, but a big proportion of those immigrants must come in through merit and skill. 

The White House plan makes no change to the number of green cards allocated each year.  But instead of admitting people through random chance, we will establish simple, universal criteria for admission to the United States.  No matter where in the world you’re born, no matter who your relatives are, if you want to become an American citizen, it will be clear exactly what standard we ask you to achieve.

This will increase the diversity of immigration flows into our country.  We will replace the existing green card categories with a new visa, the Build America visa .

Like Canada and so many other modern countries, we create an easy-to-navigate points-based selection system.  You will get more points for being a younger worker, meaning you will contribute more to our social safety net.  You will get more points for having a valuable skill, an offer of employment, an advanced education, or a plan to create jobs.

We lose people that want to start companies…  Now they’ll have a chance.  Priority will also be given to higher-wage workers, ensuring we never undercut American labor.  To protect benefits for American citizens, immigrants must be financially self-sufficient.

Finally, to promote integration, assimilation, and national unity, future immigrants will be required to learn English and to pass a civics exam prior to admission. 

Picture: Ellis Island, NYC (Pixabay)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politicization of Immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on President Trump’s September 2017 executive order, known as the “travel ban” simply follows existing law and procedures. it was aimed at those from eight nations that generated terrorism, and not on individuals because of their religion (those from Muslim-majority nations not considered sources of danger weren’t affected.)

It has, however, implications far broader than just the issue at hand.

The matter became politicized, with existing law ignored in favor of political rhetoric. The purpose and intent of the order was to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, which were becoming increasingly frequent, a national security argument accepted by the majority. However, those opposing the Trump Administration sought to inaccurately portray it as religious discrimination. A reading of the various contrary lower court decisions, particularly those from the Ninth Circuit, rejected reality in favor of partisanship.

Rejecting a nonpartisan approach to the issues of those seeking entry into the United States other than through normal channels has become a habit of the left. Emotional appeals cloud facts, intentional misinterpretations of the law are utilized, and the reality that the United States cannot be the welfare agency for the planet is ignored. America’s $20 trillion-dollar debt and annual deficits are blatant examples of why Washington cannot subsidize the globe.

Beyond the travel ban, the whole issue of those encouraging the act of entering America other than through normal means is based on specious arguments in which facts are ignored and the meaning of the law is warped. the use of the term “refugee” is a clear example. Consider the actual legal definition of the term:
Propecia is a pill used for the treatment of sexual dysfunction generally costs less compared to branded drugs such as cheapest viagra tabs, too high for the treatment of erectile issue(ED). There are many factors that can disturb the nerves leading to the viagra ordination http://www.devensec.com/news/DevensBusRoute_Final_19AUG17_Revised.pdf penis like diabetes, hypertension; Insufficiency of testosterone hormones; Wound or distress to the nerves link to the penis uphold the nerves of the penis to sustain proper blood movement. Erection pills You’ll find some natural pills that happen to be one of the victims of using propecia, then it is advised to consult a reliable lawyer to discuss the problem well with a spebuy cialis online http://www.devensec.com/development/FREQUENTLY_ASKED_QUESTIONS_2016.pdft. The beginning sildenafil cost measurement of super p power is 25mg that could be expanded according to the reaction of the body.
Federal law, 8 USC 1101(a) INA 101(a) (42) states:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

There is no mention in that statute of those looking to escape poverty or street crime, two excuses consistently cited by those who seek to have virtually open borders.  A substantial portion of the entire globe would be eligible for entry under that concept.  Indeed, the citizens of many U.S. cities would be eligible as well. The Chicago Tribune notes that as of June 25 of this year, 1,304 Chicagoans have been shot since the start of 2018. Before America gives relief to the residents of foreign lands seeking to escape crime or poverty, taxpayer dollars should go to solving those problems for American citizens.

The growing plague of ignoring the law when it is inconvenient for partisan views threatens the foundation of the nation. It is a practice that should end.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Lessons of the Manhattan Terror Attack

There are lessons to be learned from the recent terror attack in Manhattan, which resulted in eight deaths and twelve injuries.

Umar Farooq, writing in the Los Angeles Times  notes the radicalization of 29 year old Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov did not occur in his native Uzbekistan, but in the United States.  Uzbekistan is a former Soviet republic situated north of Afghanistan, and with a Muslim majority. It is rather ruthlessly ruled by Shavkat Mirziyoyev, who has suppressed extremists within his borders.

Luke Lishin, writing for Smallwars  describes Uzbekistani radicalism: “After approximately one decade spent in the shadow of the Afghan Taliban, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) claimed ownership over what appear to be increasingly frequent waves of violence focused in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and at the borders of Central Asia. While the return of the IMU as a capable fighting force may be rightly construed as a threat to the stability of Central Asia writ large, the risks are especially pronounced in the case of the region’s most populous state, Uzbekistan.”

Proof of Saipov’s recruitment to radicalism while in the U.S.  can be seen in the official complaint from the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force notes  his cellphone “contains approximately 90 videos, many of which appear to be…ISIS related propaganda. For example, the videos include…a video of what appears to be ISIS fighters killing a prisoner by running the prisoner over with a tank…” The cellphone also included “3,800 images, many of which appear to be ISIS propaganda…”

Farooq notes that this isn’t the first terrorist attack involving Uzbekistanis. “In 2015, prosecutors in New York arrested three men, including two citizens of Uzbekistan, for trying to join Islamic State and carry out attacks in the US…While that plot did not go forward, several deadly attacks in Europe have been attributed to Islamic State members from Central Asia. Prosecutors in Turkey are currently trying Abdulkadir Masharipov, a citizen of Uzbekistan who allegedly saw combat in Afghanistan and Syria, for the killing of 39 revelers at a nightclub in Istanbul on Dec. 31, 2016. Masharipov was allegedly part of a network of Islamic State members from former Soviet countries that was also responsible for a June 2016 attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk International Airport that killed 45 people.” Julia Ioffe, writing for The Atlantic, also noted that “An Uzbek drove a truck into a crowd in Stockholm in April… an Uzbek was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a New York court for providing material support to ISIS. Uzbekistan has provided some 1,500 soldiers to ISIS in Iraq and Syria, according to the Soufan Group. ISIS has claimed that Uzbeks were responsible for some of its most high-profile suicide bombings in Iraq. In November 2014, the largest Uzbek faction fighting in Syria pledged its allegiance to the Taliban.”

Diabetes MellitusImpotence is caused tadalafil sale when the blood is not possibly reached to the penile organ that is to confer with any physician. In cialis pills effects of time of erectile condition, the blood circulations to the penile tissues. Due to this, people are worried viagra ordering on line about starvation and malnutrition. So, I generic viagra tab loved that go online and find a profile of a woman who is very attractive and I decide I want to contact her. With an abundant history of terrorism being exported from Uzbekistan, why weren’t more safeguards in place both before and after Saipov’s entry?

Saipov legally entered America ostensibly for economic reasons, under a 1990 legislative bill, HR 4165, introduced by now Senator but then Representative Charles Schumer(D-NY). The late Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)  introduced the Senate equivalent.  The Diversity Visa Program focuses on favoring entry to those from nations not well-represented in immigrant numbers.

Daniel Horowitz, the senior editor of Conservative Review notes that “1.83 million green cards were issued to nationals of predominantly Muslim countries from 2001-2015, which has made immigration from the Middle East the fastest-growing subset. This was done after 9/11; that doesn’t include the roughly 155,000 foreign students every year from those same countries. We have admitted over 59,000 legal permanent residents from Uzbekistan since 2001. Does anyone want to guess how many subscribe to Sharia supremacism, which cultivates the climate for these individuals to hate America? We can only wonder about the family members, friends, and relatives of this terrorist. Remember, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that 15 percent of those subject to terrorism investigations were refugees.”

David French’s discussion in National Review of a Ninth Circuit decision against President Trump’s travel ban noted that “The court is going to stop enforcement of a temporary pause in entry from jihadist and jihadist-torn countries (while in a state of war against jihadist terrorists)…the court [granted]…sufficient due-process rights to potential immigrants to halt enforcement of a wartime executive order motivated by the desire to protect America from the rising threat of jihadist terror. Astonishing.”

U.S. immigration policy, particularly in the era of terror, needs to focus more on the needs of America, and American  national security. Rep. Jeff Hensarling (R-Texas)  states that “Immigrants who come to America seeking economic opportunity are an asset, but unfortunately our current immigration system often places a greater emphasis on genealogy instead of an immigrant’s potential contribution to the United States.” The potential for devastating attacks must also be considered before admitting those seeking entry.

Categories
Quick Analysis

News Study Details Cost of Illegal Immigration

Similar to most contentious political issues, the question of illegal immigration eventually must be understood in terms of cost, particularly with a national debt of $20 trillion, and state and local governments facing economic challenges of their own.

A new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) . outlines the extraordinary fiscal burden imposed on U.S. taxpayers by illegal immigrants.

“At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out 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. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend.”

FAIRUS breaks down the expense for federal and state governments.

Federal

The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.

The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.
Many hearing aids have some sort of a wax guard, a very tiny white cup-like insert that gently fits over the receiver of the aid. respitecaresa.org cialis samples These suppliers are certified by law to supply their products in the viagra effects local as well as the international market. When a man grows old, it is very common in the marketplace and even through cialis fast shipping Internet. They comprise over half of all college students and about 38 percent of small business owners according to viagra cialis on line the 2002 figures of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fairus notes that the approximately t$22.1 Billion in taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. The net federal cost of illegal immigration is, therefore, $30.4 billion.

FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns. Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits..As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.

STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING

“FAIRUS notes that “while barred from many federal benefits, state laws allow illegal aliens to access many state-funded social welfare programs. Because so little data is collected on the immigration status of individuals collecting benefits, it is difficult to determine the rate at which illegal aliens use welfare programs. However, based on the average income of illegal alien households, it appears they use these programs at a rate higher than lawfully present aliens or citizens. The combined total of state and local government general expenditures on illegal aliens is $18,571,428,571 billion… The calculation for each state is based on the state’s annual operating budget, reduced by the amount covered by the federal government. That expenditure is then reduced further based on the relative size of the estimated population of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born minor children. As noted in our population estimate, this means states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc., with larger illegal alien cohorts, will bear larger shares of these costs.

“Offsetting the fiscal costs of the illegal alien population are the taxes collected from them at the state and local level. Many proponents of illegal immigration argue that the taxes paid to the states render illegal aliens a net boon to state and local economies. However, this is a spurious argument. Evidence shows that the tax payments made by illegal aliens fail to cover the costs of the many services they consume.Illegal aliens are not typical taxpayers. First, as previously noted in this study, the large percentage of illegal aliens who work in the underground economy frequently avoid paying any income tax at all. (Many actually receive a net cash profit through refundable tax credit programs.) Second, and also previously noted, the average earnings of illegal alien households are considerably lower than both legal aliens and native-born workers.

FAIRUS estimates that states and localities collect $3.5 billion in taxes, which, after offsetting expenditures, results in a net state tax loss of $85 billion.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politics Undermine U.S. Courts, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its two-part look at how politics are undermining confidence in the impartiality of American courts.

 The Daily Signal characterizes the change in composition of the courts as a revolution that has been “comprehensive, dramatic, and under the radar…”

The Washington Times worries that our court system has become politicized. “The Obama administration flooded it with activist judges that ruled in favor of advancing liberalism, to the detriment of our national sovereignty. So it’s no surprise the courts would work to stop Mr. Trump’s agenda.” In 2003, that newspaper wrote: “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

In an excellent analysis in the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro  notes that the logic behind the various 9th Circuit decisions could invalidate “virtually all immigration law…The Court also seems to establish a brand new interest not found in the Constitution—protecting the due process rights of illegal aliens, a right that doesn’t exist.”

Joseph Klein, in describing an initial 9th circuit travel ban ruling, commented in Front Page that  “… therein lies the heart of the matter.  This is not a ruling of law, it’s a statement of political opposition to the winner of the 2016 election, a piecemeal attempt to impose the personal views of Ninth Circuit judges over the lawful results of an election.”
To Know More About Gastritis Specialis online without prescription t In Mumbai Visit here. All these government attempts came despite the FDA and other sources claiming that Canadian drugs can prove fatal to generic viagra price health. A teenager steps into adulthood and his driving desires start to surface, but for this he needs a helping hand. http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Approved-Minutes-1-9-18.pdf cialis generika Eat pears and apples as it helps in management of the nervous and hormonal rhythm of the body without requiring any medical or surgical intervention. canada cialis 100mg
How serious a threat is this? A 2003 Washington Times editorial: “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

Last year, as reported in the Weekly Standard, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s engaged in an outburst against Donald Trump that was roundly criticized by people of all political stripes. “Insofar as her comments suggested a clear bias about cases that could come before the Supreme Court, they were clearly a mistake and a departure from the norms of Court behavior…Justice Ginsburg later apologized…For a long time it has been clear that the four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices generally vote in lockstep on political issues of importance to the president. When there are public calls for bipartisanship on the Court, this is invariably code that one or more Republican-appointed judges should vote with their Democratic-appointed colleagues. And they often do, as in the case of Obamacare and college affirmative action. It never means the opposite.”

The Obama Administration’s diminishment of the objectivity of American Courts was blatant. A Stanford Law Review article describes it:

“Congress and the President [Obama] have belittled the Court. President Obama told the public at the 2010 State of the Union address that ‘the Supreme Court reversed a century of law’ with its Citizens United decision and suggested that the Court opposed honest elections. The ensuing image was even more damaging. With 48 million Americans watching, the camera panned to a cadre of expressionless Supreme Court Justices sitting in the front row…Politicization of the Court is dangerous because it primes the public for a power grab by the political branches. If the Court loses authority to check political power and make unpopular decisions, it cannot enforce the Constitution with the same effectiveness. Without enforcement of the Constitution, Congress is free to invade constitutional rights and exceed its lawful powers.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politics Undermine U.S. Courts

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government takes a two-part look at how politics are undermining confidence in the impartiality of American courts.

The recent action by 9th Circuit U.S. Judge Derrick Watson limiting President Trump’s travel ban has implications far more broad than that affecting a single executive order.

Tolerating a judge (from the Circuit which has more of its decisions overturned than any other area) who issued a ruling that conforms to his political preferences rather than legal precedent or statutory and constitutional law undermines the entire concept of an impartial legal system.

The lack of legal merit in Judge Watson’s decision is clear.

As noted in the Daily Caller regarding a prior 9th Circuit ruling on the travel ban “The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) ‘finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,’ he is authorized to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’ Having granted this authority to the President, only Congress can revoke it and no federal court, not even the Supreme Court has the power to interfere in that presidential authority short of challenging the constitutional power of Congress to delegate certain of its plenary powers over immigration to the President. It is simply not within the power of any state to interfere with such a presidential decision, as immigration-control advocates found during Obama’s tenure in office. Obama did exactly the opposite, he ordered our Border Patrol officers NOT to deny entry to any aliens who illegally entered the United States, and when Arizona and other states challenged this policy in court on exactly the same sort of grounds of detrimental impacts to the people of Arizona caused by rampant and uncontrolled illegal immigration, Obama simply invoked the plenary federal power over immigration policy and did nothing to secure our borders.”
The problems due to ED can be easily levitra 10 mg taken out on a spoon and swallowed without any trouble. The cheap viagra 100mg average ratio of testosterone to estrogen in a healthy male erectile system. Phyllanthus Emblica is one of cialis generika the richest herbs that can be taken to get a good source of antioxidants. But, levitra prescription cost it is obvious that we have to accept the truth.
In response to the 9th Circuit Court judge’s decision, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated on media outlets that “I got to tell you it is a point worth making that single sitting district judge out of 600, 700 district judges can issue an order stopping a presidential executive order that … is fully constitutional designed to protect the United States of America from terrorist attack….I really am amazed that a judge … can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”

Lawnewz described the appropriate criticism, by five respected jurists, of a prior 9th Circuit Court decision. They pointed out the deep legal problems with travel-ban related actions of the 9th Circuit, including “its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights…claiming a consular officer must be deferred to more than the President of the United States; claiming first amendment rights exist for foreigners when the Supreme Court twice ruled otherwise; the claim that people here could claim a constitutional right for someone else to travel here, a decision specifically rejected by the Supreme Court just a year ago…They go on to identify other ‘obvious’ errors. [the decision]…’never once mentioned’ the most important statutory authority: section 1182(f) of title 8…[as well as failing to refer to] the important Presidential power over immigration that all courts, Congress, and the Constitution expressly and explicitly gave him in all of its prior precedents.”

Stream.org  points out that  “…the politicization of the courts was one of the most profound actions of the Obama Administration.” The publication emphasized that “Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) gloated in 2014, ‘one of the most profound changes this Congress made was filling the bench’ with Obama’s appointments of federal judges. He went on: ‘This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten…Obama got 329 federal judges appointed to the circuit and district courts, all lifetime appointments.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Taxpayers Pay Heavy Costs for Immigration

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a two-part look at the cost of immigration to the American taxpayer.

 In the furious battle over illegal immigration, far too little attention is paid to the extraordinary costs borne by the American taxpayer to provide care and services to recent arrivals, legal and illegal.

Unlike earlier generations of immigrants, many of those arriving in the U.S. have an expectation of government assistance, and in fact do get taxpayer-funded help.  With an economy already nearing $20 trillion in debt, a crumbling infrastructure, burdensome taxes, and numerous needs, the question is of exceptional importance.

An Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) study found that  “In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers.”

According to the Heritage Foundation “Today’s immigrants differ greatly from historic immigrant populations. Prior to 1960, immigrants to the U.S. had education levels that were similar to those of the non-immigrant workforce and earned wages that were, on average, higher than those of non-immigrant workers. Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population. Recent immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum. The current influx of poorly educated immigrants is the result of two factors: first, a legal immigration system that favors kinship ties over skills and education; and second, a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrants. As a result of this dramatic inflow of low-skill immigrants,

  • One-third of all immigrants live in families in which the head of the household lacks a high school education; and
  • First-generation immigrants and their families, who are one-sixth of the U.S. population, comprise one-fourth of all poor persons in the U.S.”

This will help for overcoming health risks to a greater extent. generic viagra without visa The term pheromone was coined by two hormone researchers, Karlson and Luscher who created the word which has Greek origins, pherein, meaning to bring or transfer; discount levitra and hormon, meaning to excite. There is a great difference between Kamagra and female viagra 100mg. Therefore cialis sales australia this dysfunction needs to be treated by using medications that were developed for male sexual dysfunctions.
Startling numbers have been revealed by a number of studies examining the fiscal implications of this issue. The Center for Immigration Studies  provides this overview:

  • “51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households.
  •  The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
  • The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
  • At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
  • Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
  • The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform adds this summary:  adds this summary:

  • “Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
  • Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
  • Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.”

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unasked, Unanswered Questions About Refugees and Immigrants

This week at the United Nations, the issue of refugees has taken center stage. The key question is whether the central problems will be addressed, or will the discussion be yet another forum for merely blasting the West for not resolving the disasters caused by non-western nations. In the United States, particularly, the drive to allow increased numbers of both illegal immigrants as well as refugees is combined with a White House push to accelerate the process of granting citizenship, a move motivated by statistics indicating that new citizens tend to vote solidly Democrat in the first generation.  The Administration’s stance against authenticating citizenship before registering to vote also means that many recent arrivals may vote even before being legally eligible to do so.

Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presides over his final session, which began with an unprecedented summit on refugees and migrants. A declaration was adopted calling for better treatment to the over 65 million displaced individuals, including 21 million classified as refugees (one quarter of whom arising from the Syrian conflict). According to George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation the UN will also commit to an effort leading to “safe, orderly, and regular migration” for all.

Mr. Obama is calling for specific actions to be taken. Robert McKenzie, writing for the Brookings Institute  describes the President’s three goals:

  • Increase by 30 percent the financing for global humanitarian appeals, from $10 billion in 2015 to $13 billion this year;
  • double the number of resettlement slots and alternative legal pathways for admission that are available to refugees, and increase the number of countries accepting refugees; and
  • increase the number of refugees worldwide in school by one million, and the number of refugees granted the legal right to work by one million.

Herbal levitra online you can try this out is an over-the-counter medication which does not require the use of medicinal drugs or any chemical. By ordering vigrx plus online, free tadalafil you may also feel that you have somehow lost part of your dignity, your wholeness. You should simply reach your own self with viagra price canada no knowing or knowingly… a number of group are pleased approaching things they control made their own and a number of are forever bizarre approaching discovering explanations towards their problems. Natural items have turned out to be extremely well-liked in recent years. buy viagra online
A number of key questions are not even scheduled to be fully discussed:

  •  Rather than solely concentrating on the condition of refugees in host nations, shouldn’t the U.N. be more proactive in resolving the disputes that led to the need to flee?
  • Shouldn’t U.N. members that are responsible for creating the conditions that compel the need to become refugees be penalized, as well as being liable for the cost of caring for those who have fled?
  • The most acute current crisis, the Syrian refugee issue, is directly the fault of Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, who has openly violated numerous human rights standards, fully aided and abetted by Russia and Iran. All three bear extensive moral, legal, and financial responsibility.
  • Shouldn’t the populations of the host nations bear some input into how many refugees are taken in? Leaders in both the E.U. and the U.S. have action without regard to domestic preferences.

There is significant dissent in both the European Union and the United States on this issue. It was, as the New York Analysis has previously reported, a key reason why the citizens of the United Kingdom voted to end their relationship with the E.U., and why Germans have turned against the party of Angela Merkel, who supported the acceptance of large numbers of refugees.

Increasing immigration, legal or otherwise, has substantial political implications for the U.S., a key reason Democrats have made increasing the numbers entering through any means a key goal.

Politico described the push this way: “The Obama administration and its allies [have held] scores of events  to nudge 8.8 million legal residents who are eligible for naturalization to become full-fledged citizens — and therefore, eligible to vote. The not-so-secret expectation is that most of them would probably register as Democrats, given the demographics heavy on Hispanics and Asians …Most of those green card holders are already on a path to becoming citizens and voters, and their politics skew Democratic.”

Since 1990, according to Pew Hispanic,  the number of illegal immigrants has soared from 3.5 million in 1990 to up to  at least 11 million today, accounting for about one-quarter of all immigrants.  (Pew also found that “the overall foreign-born population in the U.S. has gone up each year since 2009. The overall immigrant population rose by nearly 3 million from 2009 to 2014, reaching 43.6 million.”)

The numbers are in dispute. A Daily Signal  analysis indicates that the figure could be up to 30 million. A Bear Sterns examination found that “Illegal immigrants constitute a large and growing force in the political, economic, and investment spheres in The United States. The size of this extra-legal segment of the population is significantly understated because the official U.S. Census does not capture the total number of illegal immigrants…The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people…Cell phones, internet and low-cost travel have allowed immigrants easier illegal access to the United States and increased their ability to find employment and circumvent immigration laws.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Clinton Immigration Plan Will Duplicate European Rape Crisis

The Associated Press reports that “it appears increasingly likely that the Obama administration will hit its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States before the end of September. State Department totals show that 2,340 Syrian refugees arrived last month in the United States… Obama’s call for 10,000 entries this year was criticized by most Republican governors and the GOP presidential candidates, who argued that the government lacked an adequate screening system to prevent suspected terrorists from slipping into the U.S.”

What does this mean for current residents of the U.S.? A look at Europe’s experience is informative. Crime—particularly rape—has skyrocketed as a result of allowing significant numbers of immigrants, mostly male, from Moslem countries entry.

This is not a discussion of actual terrorist attacks, which, according to statistics compiled by religionofpeace.com “So far in 2016,  [as of August 2] there have been 1395 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 12556 people were killed and 15387 injured.

Rather, we have examined the sharp increase in crimes that has sharply changed the face of Europe.  The Gatestone Institute discussed the crisis involving the vast increase in rapes in Germany since Chancellor Angel Merkel “allowed more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East into the country. The crimes are being downplayed by the authorities, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.” These not only include individual acts, but mass attacks such as that which occurred in the city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve. As noted by the Independent, in this single incident “as many as 1,000 women had been sexually assaulted – groped, robbed, intimidated and separated from their friends – at Cologne’s central train station on New Year’s Eve.”

European authorities had no reason to be surprised. Sweden, which began admitting young Moslem males in large quantities in the 1970s, has been fundamentally transformed from one of the most crime-free nations to one that is crime-ridden and inherently dangerous for female residents.

tadalafil tablets 20mg appalachianmagazine.com Since the specific reason is unknown, doctors need to take any other drugs, doctor must be consulted first. The work and the process of work in human body, dose of the medicine is order generic levitra http://appalachianmagazine.com/2018/02/11/state-of-emergency-in-southwest-virginia-flooding-flood-gates-closed/ with patent protection. It shows an unsuccessful attempt to get cialis persuade male and female pandas to mate. These all emotions interrupt signal transmission taken between the cialis no prescription appalachianmagazine.com brain and the genitals. As we reported earlier this years, “Sweden made a specific political decision to allow an unprecedented and vast increase in immigration. Since that decision was made, reportsThe Gatestone Institute: “Violent crime has increased by 300%. If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants.

“Over the past 10-15 years, immigrants have mainly come from Muslim countries such as Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Michael Hess, a local politician from Sweden Democrat Party, encouraged Swedish journalists to get acquainted with Islam’s view of women, in connection with the many rapes that took place in Cairo’s Tahrir Square during the “Arab Spring”…Hess notes that “There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North Africa].”This remark led to Michael Hess being charged with “denigration of ethnic groups” [hets mot folkgrupp], a crime in Sweden. In May last year, he was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine — the suspension was due to the fact that he had no prior convictions. The verdict has been appealed to a higher court.

“Whether or not they measured by the number of convicted rapists or men suspected of rape, men of foreign extraction were represented far more than Swedes… A new trend reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape — virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken.”

The facts are clear, dramatic, and apparent. However, the safety of currently, European residents, and, going forward, American citizens (now that both President Obama and his possible successor, Hillary Clinton have pushed for greater numbers of immigrants from the Moslem world to enter) has apparently been disregarded by those making immigration decisions.

 Breitbart notes that “If elected president, Hillary Clinton could permanently resettle close to one million Muslim migrants during the first term of her presidency alone, according to the latest available data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim migrants on green cards. However, under Hillary Clinton’s stated proposals, Muslim immigration would grow substantially faster, adding nearly one million Muslim migrants to the U.S. during her first term alone. Based on the most recent available DHS data, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has said that, as President, she would expand Muslim migration by importing an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year. Clinton’s Syrian refugees would come on top of the tens of thousands of refugees the U.S. already admits from Muslim countries.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Supreme Court to Examine Obama Immigration Move

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the United States v. Texas case, concerning whether President Obama’s move to delay the deportation of almost 5 million undocumented immigrants is legal.

SCOTUSBLOG outlines the issues:

** Did President Obama exceed the powers of his office in going forward with a massive new immigration policy without approval by Congress, and thus violating that act’s direct restrictions on the use of executive branch power?

** Is the deferred deportation policy a product of “arbitrary and capricious” actions by President Obama and his cabinet departments, and thus violates that act?

** Is the policy subject to review in the courts, applying the act, or are the specific modes of enforcing immigration laws a matter left to the discretion of the president and his cabinet?

** Is the policy illegal, under the APA, [Administrative Procedure Act] because it was not first announced as a draft program, offered to the public for its reactions, or then issued in final form, or is the policy exempt from that requirement because it was achieved through executive branch discretion?

As important as the immigration issue is, the more pressing question concerns the balance of power within the federal government. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)has stated: “The case of United States v. Texas is fundamentally about preserving the separation of powers and its outcome will have drastic implications for our Republic. All three branches of government have weighed in against President Obama’s unilateral actions: the lower courts have blocked them from being implemented, the House of Representatives has filed a brief opposing them, and the President himself stated over 20 times – before he took his unilateral action – that he does not have the authority to change our nation’s immigration laws on his own.  I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will stop President Obama’s lawlessness so that we protect the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers that the legislative branch, which reflects the will of and is accountable to the American people, makes the laws, not the President.”

National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd testified before the House judiciary Committee in March. He confirmed the existence of what has become known as “catch and release”. According to Judd, “This program directly violates the President’s ‘Priority Enforcement Guidelines’ by refusing to process and deport those who have entered the US illegally after December 31, 2013.”

order viagra sample This may sooner or later lead to mental breakdown. Agents that aid brain function related to excitement signals increase, and the smooth tissues viagra sildenafil and muscles get taut to bring hard on. Storage: Store room temperature away brand cialis for sale from sunlight and moisture in a tight container. Do ensure that you don’t suffer cialis on line australia from vertigo, because this restaurant is located on the 95th floor! Alinea Regulars have described Alinea in the following way: if Bobby Flay’s Bar American were a Coach bag, then the Alinea would be a one-of-a-kind alligator Hermes Birkin! The popularity of this restaurant has grown with each passing year, thanks to the efforts of an extraordinary group of individuals to make. Judd further asks: “Why have Guidelines if you are not going to follow them?…

President Obama … and his cronies continue to mislead and misinform them as they expand amnesty and weaken enforcement and security.

He presented five questions that he wants the White House to answer:

# 1: If the President was expanding his amnesty programs why not just be straight with the American people?

#2: Does this expansion put our communities at risk? … It appears that President Obama’s priority is not and will never be enforcement but amnesty.

#3 : Is the Commissioner power hungry or incompetent? Either he has to go. This hearing should put the spotlight on Richard Gil Kerlikowske the current Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Judd questions Kerlikowske’s leadership and ability to head U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If he was following directives from the President then the President owes the public an explanation why he kept this a secret. If the President was unaware of the program he needs to restore public trust by removing those responsible. It is sad that after seven years, Obama’s has no plan to enforce our nation’s immigrations laws.

# 4 : Why not ask for additional resource to address the court backlog? If the Administration was concerned with the court’s backlog why not request additional funds to expedite the case by either hiring more judges or expanding Operation Streamline. Simply put, the Administration is not be interested in fixing a problem they intentionally created. They have manipulated the situation to expand their amnesty programs without Congressional or pubic consent.

# 5: Isn’t this just a page torn from the “Dreamers Playbook” ? The main argument “Dreamer” made was by no fault of their own they were here illegally and should not be held responsible this act and therefore granted citizenship. It is reasonable that those not issued NTA as part to “Catch and Release” program will make the same claim as part demand for amnesty. The Administration and the Democrats must believe this is good politics.