RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/mayorkas-is-not-the-right-target-for-impeachment-over-the-border/

There is one official in the United States who has the undeniable statutory and constitutional authority to end the border catastrophe — for which that official is wholly responsible. That official is not Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. It is President Joe Biden. This is not to say Mayorkas is undeserving of the impeachment that House Republicans approved on Tuesday — only after losing a similar, party-line squeaker last week in a fit of incompetent vote-counting. But since this is merely a gesture — since there is not the slightest possibility that the Democrat-controlled Senate is going to convict and remove high-ranking Biden administration officials for carrying out Biden policy Democrats support — why not aim the gesture at the right target?

Like many of us, I’ve been ambivalent about the Mayorkas-impeachment gambit. Notwithstanding the ill-informed insistence of Representative Ken Buck (R., Colo.) in a National Review column this week, there’s no real doubt that the willful failure to secure the border is an impeachable offense, and that Mayorkas has willfully failed to secure the border, his main job. Nevertheless, in my 2014 book on impeachment, Faithless Execution, in discussing the debates that led to the congressional impeachment power that Madison regarded as “indispensable,” I made much — because the Framers had made much — of the interplay between impeachment and the constitutional concept of the unitary executive.

https://thespectator.com/topic/stalemate-illegal-immigration-border-crime/

Few moments are less promising to reach a bipartisan deal than the months before a presidential election. And few issues present greater obstacles than limiting illegal immigration. Even the word “illegal” is contested. Progressives say it is too harsh. Conservatives say it is simply truthful.

It is no surprise, then, that the compromise “border-security bill” gasped its final breath this week. The Senate bill, negotiated by a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent, met a hostile reception as soon as the text was released. House Speaker Mike Johnson declared it “dead on arrival.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reluctantly brought it up for a procedural vote, where it went down in flames.

Why such stiff opposition? Because the bill contains not one but two divisive issues. The first is that the “immigration bill” also funds Ukraine’s war with Russia and, to a lesser extent, Israel’s war with Hamas and Hezbollah. Funding for Israel has broad support, but funding for Ukraine does not. There is considerable opposition among Republicans and some progressive Democrats to giving Ukraine another $60 billion. (Faced with the defeat of the combined bill, Schumer is considering a separate package to fund Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, with no mention of immigration.)

The second problem goes to the heart of the immigration bill. It includes provisions that would allow some 5,000 to 8,000 migrants to cross illegally into the US each day before tougher restrictions kick in.

Almost every Republican, including many moderates, are appalled by those numbers. They remember when President Obama’s secretary of Homeland Security called 1,000 illegal crossings per day a crisis. If that was a crisis, they say, what do you call five- to eight-times that many?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/the-senate-border-deal-should-be-rejected-on-the-merits/

EXCERPTS:

The proposal would undermine the existing presumptions in the law that illegal aliens should be apprehended, detained, and rapidly removed.
 

On X/Twitter, Fox News’ superb reporter Bill Melugin has a good analysis of the long-awaited Senate border legislation. It is very fair in presenting what is enticing about the proposal. The problem is that what is enticing is disingenuous and, ultimately, counterproductive.

That is to say, the good in the bipartisan Senate negotiators’ proposal — and there definitely is some — (a) can already be accomplished under current law, and (b) would require faith that the Biden administration will for some reason enforce these provisions even though it has systematically refused to enforce existing border-security provisions. More important, to get the illusory good in the proposal, Congress would have to enact provisions in the deal that would both undermine existing statutory restrictions and etch into our law magnets for illegal immigration.

Both legally and practically speaking, the border can be shut down, right this instant. There is no legal requirement that any alien who sets foot on American soil be permitted to apply for asylum (which is a discretionary act of national clemency, not a right of the alien). There is similarly no mandate that such aliens be routed into a “process” that enables them to remain — even though their first contact with our nation is to flout its laws, and even though empowering illegal aliens this way is patently harmful to aliens who are attempting to enter by complying with our laws.

To state it clearly, it is not true under existing federal law that an illegal alien who makes it onto U.S. soil has a right to be processed or seek asylum. As things stand, that is a wayward proposition, and there is no need for a new law to reform it. To the extent that the senators claim otherwise, they are either misinformed or misleading us.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-goal-of-an-open-border/

For decades, progressives have dreamed of changing Texas from a “red” Republican state to a “blue” Democrat one. This dream is realistic because Democrats have succeeded in turning several western states “blue.”

For example, California was the state that launched the political career of President Ronald Reagan. Prior to his presidency, Reagan served two terms as Governor of California. Today, California is a progressive wasteland, rapidly losing population and businesses.

Not long ago, Republicans controlled Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. Today, Democrats either totally or partially lead those states.

One of the major reasons these states have become Democrat bastions is the influx of Hispanic immigration, both legal and illegal. In the last midterm election, a survey showed that 64% of Hispanic voters supported Democrat candidates, while only 33% supported Republican candidates.

Thus, boosting the size of the Hispanic population helps improve the political chances for Democrats. It is certainly a major reason Democrats, like President Biden, encouraged undocumented migrants to cross our border. In his first press conference as President, Biden said he was “flattered” that undocumented migrants were surging into the country.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/02/06/the-moral-hazard-of-an-open-border/

The political left argues that the immigrants illegally crossing our borders are in search of better lives, and that those who want to stop the flood are hateful, heartless bigots and racists. Morality is a certainly central to the dilemma, but it’s not the morality that much of the Democratic Party wants everyone to believe it is.

An average of more than 200,000 immigrants a month have illegally jumped America’s southern border during Joe Biden’s three years in the White House, almost four times the monthly rate of crossings under Donald Trump. By any fair description, our southern border is open, and this has created a humanitarian crisis of emigres being processed in cities where there are not enough services to meet the surging demand.

The Democrats and their marketing department, known as the media, insist that we have a principled obligation to absorb the immigrants. Some seem to think the poem found on the Statue of Liberty that asks “ancient lands” to “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” is actually U.S. law. Or at least a tenet that we all have the duty to live by.

To drive this point home, a number of Democrat-run municipalities declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities,” where the local government refuses to comply with federal immigration law and to cooperate with immigration officials. Chicago’s welcoming ordinance, for instance, “means that the city will not ask about your immigration status, disclose that information to authorities, or, most importantly, deny you city services based on your immigration status.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/yes-america-is-being-invaded/

Across the globe, hostile nations like Russia are using migration as a weapon of war. War is being waged with migrants, instead of tanks, to destabilize and even bankrupt a country and facilitate terrorists attacks from within.

Migration is being used to attack Finland, Italy, France, Poland and — no surprise — America. But the Biden administration is asleep at the switch, oblivious to the threat.

Though most of the migrants crossing the U.S. southern border are in search of economic opportunity, some are used as tools by our enemies.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is rightly sounding the alarm about what he calls an “invasion.”

So are 10 top-ranking former FBI executives, who sent a warning letter to Congress on Jan. 17 about a “new and unfamiliar” type of warfare. Heed their words.

The letter points to the danger of a large number of military-age men “who could begin attacking gatherings of unarmed citizens,” duplicating the horrors of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.

The letter also warns that some of the migrants are on the terror watchlist or are from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism.

Europe gets it. French Minister of the Interior Gerald Darmanin cautioned back in October that failing to expel illegal immigrants has led to past terrorist incidents, and will again.

The Left claims it’s “racist” to refer to migration as an “invasion.” Nonsense. Ask Finland.

Finland locked its eastern border in November, after Russia flooded the country with migrants from as far away as Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria, likely in retaliation for Finland joining NATO.

https://www.offthepress.com/nyc-launches-53m-program-to-provide-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrant-families/

New York Mayor Eric Adams’ administration has embarked on a $53 million pilot program designed to aid migrant families residing in city hotels. The initiative, managed by New Jersey-based Mobility Capital Finance, will distribute pre-paid credit cards to asylum seekers at the Roosevelt Hotel for purchasing necessities.

The program aims initially to benefit 500 migrant families living in temporary hotel accommodations, supplanting the current food services available to them. These cards are exclusively accepted at local bodegas, grocery shops, supermarkets, and convenience stores. Recipients of the program must commit, through an affidavit, to spend the allocated funds solely on food and baby items. Failure to comply with this agreement would result in their removal from the program.

Dubbed the Immediate Response Card initiative, the program resembles New York’s SNAP food stamp program by providing financial assistance on an identical scale to cover meal costs.

The assistance amount loaded onto each card will be determined by the family size and any additional income earned. For example, a family of four could receive close to $1,000 per month for their nutritional needs, equating to roughly $35 per day. The cards are scheduled for replenishment every 28 days.

This method of support is not unprecedented, as economically disadvantaged citizens in city housing previously received a similar type of card to assist with holiday meal expenses.

MoCaFi CEO Wole Coaxum commented on the partnership with New York City, highlighting MoCaFi’s mission to extend access to financial resources to the unbanked populations, including asylum seekers, while simultaneously boosting the local economy.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/02/05/build-the-border-wall-americans-once-again-tell-biden-ii-tipp-poll/

he hot topic of immigration has come to a boil in recent weeks with a clash between President Joe Biden and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over the building of a border fence to keep illegal entrants from crossing into the U.S. Americans lean strongly toward Abbott in the feud, expressing strong support for a border wall, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.

Along with the economy and health care, immigration has leapt to the fore among the many issues that concern Americans this election year. The latest national online I&I/TIPP Poll, including 1,402 registered voters, asked three questions related to the topic, with special focus on the U.S.-Texas border row.

To begin with, voters were asked: “Do you support or oppose building a wall along the southern border to combat illegal immigration?”

The score wasn’t close: Among all respondents, 59% supported constructing a wall along our southern border, either “strongly” (41%) or “somewhat” (18%). Just 32% oppose the idea, either “strongly” (17%) or “somewhat” (15%).

As with many other things in America these days, political differences can be huge. Democrats are split close to evenly, with 43% supporting a wall and 47% opposing it. Republicans overwhelmingly like the idea, with 85% support and just 11% opposition. A slight majority of independents (51%) back a wall, while 37% reject it.

https://twitter.com/realmuckraker/status/1747334332421714056?t=y5RdUovNBUbk-mBToNeeaA&s=09

The breadth of this coordinated operation and the so-called legitimate NGOs and foreign governments cooperating with cartels and other criminal elements in what is a lucrative and dangerous enterprise is astounding!  (Plus, many of our political leaders are on board to facilitate this feature of the Great Reset even while it is opposed by the vast majority of “we the people.”)

With rampant death, disease, rape, human, weapons and drug trafficking and other crimes along the route, it is anything BUT a “humanitarian” mission.  

The unchecked invasion of our once sovereign nation is changing the face of America and imperiling all citizens, stressing our infrastructure to the breaking point and damaging the economy.

The country we leave our children and grandchildren will be unrecognizable in the not too distant future. Janet Levy