RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/sanctuary-cities-continue-obstruct-ice-michael-cutler/

On November 22, 2019 Immigration and Customs posted a news release, ICE announces Montgomery County, Prince George’s County criminal offenders shielded by current non-cooperation policies.

Once again local supposed “law enforcement” officials of Prince George’s County and Montgomery County decided to ignore detainers lodged by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

This is not the first time that these officials and other such officials have ignored detainers so that ICE could take these illegal aliens into custody to seek their deportation (removal) from the United States.

Clearly these officials refuse to learn the lessons even when their wrong-headed sanctuary policies result in the preventable death of a child!

In June of this year, FrontPage Magazine published my article, Politicians Must Face Consequences For Crimes They Enable. 

That article included a link to a May 21, 2019 ICE press release, ICE seeks custody of teen murder suspects for a second time- Local jurisdiction failed to honor previous detainers which began with this excerpt:

BALTIMORE – Following the recent arrest of two unlawfully present teens suspected in the violent murder of a young girl in Maryland, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers in Baltimore are again seeking to take custody of the illegal aliens through the ICE detainer process following the Prince George’s County Detention Center’s (PGCDC) failure to cooperate.

Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce and Joel Ernesto Escobar, both Salvadoran nationals, were previously arrested on May 11, 2018 when they were arrested by Prince George’s County Police Department (PGCPD) for attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted robbery, and other related charges. ICE officers lodged a detainer with PGCDC, however both were released on an unknown date and time without notification to ICE.

On May 16, 2019, PGCPD arrested the same individuals and charged them with first-degree murder.

https://www.city-journal.org/intergenerational-mobility-us-immigrants

The New York Times has not been in the habit of publishing heartening stories about the American dream in recent years, but last week, the editors made an exception, with an article recounting the findings of a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, showing that the sons of low-income immigrants are moving up the economic ladder—as they have since the Ellis Island era. After the article appeared, the Times reporter, Emily Badger, tweeted: “There is a lot in this study tweaking talking points in the current immigration debate.” I’d put it differently: there is a lot in this study suggesting that we’ve been having the wrong immigration debate.

The study itself, “Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the U.S. over the Last Two Centuries,” won’t give any final answers to our immigration dilemmas, but it merits attention for its remarkable reach. The three authors, all economic historians, linked the incomes of immigrant fathers and their American-born sons in three generational cohorts—1880, 1910, and 1980—from 20 of the major sending countries. (They didn’t include daughters, whose economic outcomes are trickier to evaluate, given name changes and shifting employment patterns for women.) The sending countries vary dramatically over time. The 1880 group, for example, came mostly from Northern and Western Europe, or more specifically, from Germany, Ireland, and England; the 1910 cohort, meantime, hailed from Southern and Eastern Europe. Finally, the 1980 faction is dominated by exiles from Latin America and Asia. (The authors pass over the period between 1924 and 1965, when immigration was highly restricted.)

For each group, the researchers compared the immigrant pairs with native-born fathers and sons. They found that upward mobility between first- and second-generation immigrants has remained a constant in U.S. history, regardless of the sending country. As the Times put it: “The adult children of poor Mexican and Dominican immigrants in the country legally today achieve about the same relative economic success as children of poor immigrants from Finland or Scotland did a century ago.” In fact, immigrant sons were 3 to 6 percentile points more upwardly mobile than the sons of American fathers.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/lefts-immigration-laws-ultimate-con-game-michael-cutler/

I have written ever so many articles about how globalists have used deceptive language to deceive Americans about the true nature of our immigration laws, beginning with President Carter’s edict, issued during his administration, that INS employees, replace the legally accurate term “Illegal Alien” with the deceptive term, “Undocumented Immigrant.”

I focused on this in my article, Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship. Generally we think of immigration fraud as taking two forms – aliens who engage in fraud schemes, such as those who enter into a sham marriage with an American or lawful immigrant, not out of love, but as a ploy to game the immigration system to acquire a green card. 

The other traditional form of immigration fraud involves the manufacture of counterfeit or altered identity documents and/or supporting documents such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses or green cards.

However, there is actually a third form of immigration fraud, by which tens of millions Americans have been conned into believing pernicious lies about about our nation’s borders and immigration laws.  

Over time, this highly coordinated fraud perpetrated by the mainstream media and globalists in both political parties, has convinced millions of otherwise sensible Americans to accept and even laud politicians and their corrupt immigration policies and practices that undermine public safety, public health, national security and the jobs and wages of American workers.

https://www.city-journal.org/government-benefits-immigrants

Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced that it would expand the list of government benefits it considers when defining a person as a “public charge.” Under the new terms, an immigrant receiving, say, food stamps, emergency cash assistance, or living in public housing may see those benefits count against him when he seeks to upgrade or extend his visa status or apply for citizenship.

It was long believed that immigrants to the United States should not impose social burdens and should thus secure local sponsors who could guarantee their expenses until they got settled. The Immigration Act of 1891, for example, excluded from entry “insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease,” and other undesirable categories, including felons and polygamists. 

Progressive localities have responded furiously to Trump’s directive. New York City and State have joined a lawsuit to prevent the expansion of public-charge criteria, alleging that it reflects animus against nonwhite immigrants. “The ultimate city of immigrants will never stop fighting President Trump’s xenophobic policies,” declared New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. New York attorney general Letitia James called the rule change “a clear violation of our laws and our values” that would make “more children go hungry,” though aid to children was excluded from consideration in the new rule.

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&

“Vile.” “Repugnant to the American dream.” “Cruel.” “Callous and despicable.” “An abhorrent act of moral terrorism.” These are just a few of the comments that have been uttered in the past few weeks with respect to a policy change recently announced by the federal government. (These comments come, respectively, from Attorney General Xavier Bacerra of California, U.S. District Judge George Daniels, Congresswoman Grace Meng (D-NY), Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-CA), and Families USA.)

I know what you are thinking: What completely sensible thing has the Trump administration done now?

The quoted comments all relate to a so-called “final rule” issued by the Department of Homeland Security in the Federal Register on August 14, scheduled to take effect on October 15, on the subject of “Inadmissibility [for immigration] Based on Public Charge Grounds.”

So what is this new rule, and what about it has caused the progressive left to go completely berserk?

Here’s my take: Since Immigration Act of 1882, the U.S. immigration statutes have in clear terms explicitly instructed that entry be denied to any person deemed “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” Despite the rather explicit language of Congress, the Clinton administration, in “guidance” issued in 1999, found a way to effectively read this provision out of the statute and admit large numbers of immigrants without regard to whether they were likely to become, or even were already, public charges. The Trump administration has now specified a basis on which the statute can and will be enforced as written and intended. Cue the outrage!

Let’s go through this in some more detail. The Immigration Act of 1882 was the very first general immigration statute in the U.S., so the “public charge” basis for exclusion of an applicant for a visa has existed for as long as we have had immigration laws. The relevant language has changed somewhat over the years, as extensive amendments and updates to immigration laws have been enacted; however, as far as I can determine, none of the changes have been material. Here is the current version of the “public charge” provision, as codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(4):

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/immigration-enforcement-mexico-cooperating-with-us/

‘No one will come to trample our country, our land!’

One of the reasons border apprehensions have dropped from their alarming peak in May is that Mexico has been pretty aggressive in stopping third-country nationals from traversing its territory on their way north to make bogus asylum claims so they can be released into the U.S.

But why has Mexico been willing to work with us like this? It’s especially curious because in the past, Mexico was not at all eager to help us limit illegal immigration, a pattern we might have expected to intensify with last year’s election as president of left-wing populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (commonly known as AMLO, pronounced as a word rather than initials).

No doubt President Trump’s tariff threats had some effect. Three-quarters of Mexico’s exports go to the U.S., and despite increased integration of our economies over the past couple of decades, they still need us a lot more than we need them. Also, Trump’s mercurial temperament clearly has the Mexicans worried that he could do something rash (similar to Iran’s fears about Reagan if the hostages weren’t released before he was inaugurated).

But it’s unlikely that these things would be enough to move a sometimes touchy nationalist like AMLO. Rather, I think a big part of the explanation is that the current flow of illegals is mainly made up of foreigners, not Mexicans. Earlier waves of mass infiltration across our southern border consisted mainly of Mexicans, and while Mexico quickly took back its people who had been nabbed by the Border Patrol, it did little if anything to reduce the flow. They did establish a police-like unit of the country’s immigration agency called Grupo Beta, which worked on Mexico’s northern border (opposite our southern border), but its remit was to help potential illegals with water and first aid and protect them from criminals.