RUTHFULLY YOURS

The popular will regarding illegal immigration appears to have triumphed over elite sentiment—at least for now. The Senate is close to passing a House measure to build 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border, without demanding amnesty for illegal aliens or a guest-worker program as a quid pro quo. “Comprehensive” immigration reform (a.k.a. amnesty), the pet project of the Bush Administration and its conservative open-borders supporters, has for the moment foundered on political and social reality.

Anyone who still questions the wisdom of the enforcement-first strategy embraced by House Republicans (and a few staunch GOP senators such as Alabama’s Jeff Sessions) need only look at Madrid, where a conference on the European illegal immigration crisis has thrown the folly of amnesty into sharp relief. Spain is leading an appeal to other European Union members to beef up their support for a new EU border control agency. The agency, Frontex, tries to apprehend illegal immigrants as they sail from Africa to Spain’s Canary Islands. Spain’s Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos argued on Friday that the African influx threatened Europe’s entire border, not just Spain’s.

But Spain’s appeal for aid has so far fallen on deaf ears. The reason: Spain is largely responsible for exacerbating the illegal immigration problem by having granted amnesty to its illegal aliens last year, according to leading EU representatives. Nicholas Sarkozy, France’s interior minister, says that Spain’s 2005 amnesty to 600,000 illegals lies behind the explosion of illegal migration this year. Officials have caught more than five times the number of Africans trying to reach the Spanish islands in the first 8 months of 2006—24,000—than they caught in all of 2005. France experienced an identical surge in would-be “refugees” after its own amnesty in 1997, says Sarkozy. Austria’s justice minister Karin Gastinger has charged that amnesties create a “pull factor [to] the people in Africa [and] give the wrong signal.” Even Senegal, the source of most immigrants to Spain, has criticized the Spanish amnesty for encouraging illegal immigration, according to Deutsche Presse-Agentur.

Needless to say, the European experience with amnesty repeats the U.S. one. Following the 1986 American amnesty, illegal Mexican immigration surged several fold. By now, we have enough shared experience with misguided immigration policy not to keep making the same mistake. France’s Sarkozy proposes a Europe-wide ban on mass amnesties. This is one French idea that the U.S. would be wise to embrace.

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years by persuading America to accept his crippling politically correct sanctuary city policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed to destabilize and destroy civil society. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party and its “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.

The term “sanctuary city” originated in the 1980’s when San Francisco passed a city ordinance forbidding city police or city magistrates from assisting federal immigration officers in enforcing immigration policies that denied asylum to refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador. The mission of the sanctuary city was to protect innocent refugees from deportation – although these immigrants were in the U.S. illegally they had not committed any other crimes.

Today sanctuary cities are actually sanctuary jurisdictions because they include cities counties and states. Over 300 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in America today actively hindering federal authorities from seizing illegal criminal aliens, rapists, murderers, terrorists, and drug dealers for deportation. https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States?gclid=CjwKCAjw3rfOBRBJEiwAam-GsD2uPe-uPrWOlMdFDq0LYvwCvixywYOVsMkcW8duyH1bcVH9vGqFEhoCJiEQAvD_BwE

The shocking murder of 21 year old Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015 publicized the danger of sanctuary jurisdictions. The shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico with seven felony convictions had been deported five times and intentionally sought shelter in San Francisco. Yet officials in “sanctuary city” San Francisco refused to turn him over to federal authorities for deportation and instead released him into society enabling him to kill Kate Steinle.

The three young Muslim migrant boys who savagely raped and urinated in the mouth of an innocent five year old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho last year were protected as well. No jail, no deportation, in fact these monsters were shielded by the mainstream media and local city officials who tried to cover up the case and pretend that Twin Falls was a model for multiculturalism. Wendy Olson, Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for Idaho stunned the country by threatening to prosecute Idahoans who spoke out about the heinous crime in ways SHE considered “false or inflammatory.” Judge Thomas Borresen issued an equally stunning gag order that denied the right of anyone in the courtroom to speak about the sentencing even AFTER the case ended.

Twin Falls is one of two Muslim refugee relocation centers in Idaho. Rather than identifying themselves as a “sanctuary city” Twin Falls has chosen the equally disingenuous name of “welcoming city” and declared themselves to be a “neighborly community.” REALLY? Protecting rapists and censoring free speech is definitely not neighborly for the victims!

The word sanctuary implies safety from a threat – it does not mean shelter for immigrant criminal felons, rapists, murderers and terrorists who threaten the safety of law abiding citizens. Why would any law abiding citizen endorse the protection of these criminals whether they are illegal aliens or legal citizens? The answer lies in the active participation by the mainstream media in the humanitarian hoax of sanctuary cities. The media has deliberately romanticized sanctuary cities as humanitarian havens for the oppressed instead of honestly reporting them as despicable safety zones for criminal aliens. The colluding media has duped the trusting American public and exploited their compassion and good will.

It was recently announced that new countries were added to President Trump’s list of travel-restricted nations. Contrary to the anti-Trump narrative, this list is far from a Muslim ban. It was wise to add Chad to the list, already including Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, with Venezuela and North Korea included as well. Now the ban should be expanded, our the interest of our national security.

The president, in fulfilling a pillar of his campaign promise of extreme vetting of refugees and immigration from war zones, is doing the right thing. Having said that, Sudan should have been left on the list, with the addition of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kenya, and the Chechen region of Russia as well. These are all war-torn or terrorist-supporting countries whose citizens should not become U.S. citizens.

Just as the decision to remove Sudan from the list of countries was announced, we learned the identity of the shooter in Tennessee, who left one person dead and many injured. This shooter was indeed from Sudan and may not even be a U.S. citizen. The media seemed to have less coverage of the shooting once the suspect was determined not to be an American. This comes on the heels of a deadly shooting at a New York hospital this summer perpetrated by a Nigerian immigrant and a number of cases of Somalians wanting to fight with terror groups overseas.

Parts of Africa are clearly war zones with a culture of brutality and violence like much of the Islamic world. As Professor Amy Wax of the University Of Pennsylvania opined in a now famous column “not all cultures are equal.” We must ask ourselves regarding war-torn cultures: is this something we want to import to America?

Finally, despite claiming to fight terror, Saudi Arabia has been at the forefront of supporting terrorism since before 9/11. Many of the infamous hijackers were Saudis, and there is now evidence that lower-level members of the Saudi government may have helped in the attacks. Despite this, America continues to see the Saudis as allies. Is Sept 11 not justification enough to ban Saudi immigration and student visas?

With the election of this president, America sent a clear message: no more open borders, with a major overhaul of our immigration system. Contrary to leftist talking points, it’s not a right to immigrate to this country, but a privilege. Those regions known for violence and terror should no longer send their people to America. Our immigration policy should be pro-American, not pro-Third World.

Commentator and legal immigrant Mark Steyn said he “did the boring thing” by following American immigration law, and therefore gets none of the sympathy that DACA recipients receive.

“I’m a non-DREAMer. Nobody sentimentalizes me,” he said of Democrats who use tales of illegal immigrants’ hardship to defend the rights of the undocumented.

Steyn said many of the DACA supporters talk about “brave journeys” through the desert.

“Nobody ever says that about me and my kids,” the Canadian immigrant to New Hampshire said. “We did the boring thing and filled out the paperwork.”
Read Full Article

On the topic of the supporters of illegal immigration speaking broadly about their fear or disdain for Trump, Steyn said it reminded him of Democrats during the Bush years.

He said that many on the left had bumper stickers during the Iraq War that said “Bush scares me.”

“Nobody in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was driving around saying ‘Saddam scares me’,” he said.

“John Kasich would scare them,” Steyn said, referring to the Ohio governor’s centrist stance on many issues compared to President Trump.

Watch more above.