Displaying posts categorized under

IMMIGRATION

Fact Checking The “Fact Checkers” on Illegal Aliens “Outing” Orwellian fake news. Michael Cutler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272861/fact-checking-fact-checkers-illegal-aliens-michael-cutler

On Monday, February 11th I was a guest on a radio show, “The Americhicks” on radio station KLZ to discuss a Feb 4, 2019 CBS News article, The facts on immigration: What you need to know in 2019- CBSN fact-check on immigration.

The CBS article ostensibly responded to nine questions about immigration raised by President Trump. I was asked to weigh in about the honesty and accuracy of the “Facts” published by CBS to discredit what the President had said.

I reviewed the article during the weekend that preceded that show and found that falsehoods permeated this supposed “fact-check on immigration.”

Unfortunately this sort of deceptive “reporting” is all too common.

By understanding how to unravel the tapestry of lies contained in this article will provide a methodology that can be brought to bear to critically analyze all supposed “news” articles.

To begin with, the late criminal defense attorney Johnnie Cochran remarked at the O.J. trial, “If you can’t trust the messenger, you cannot trust the message.”

Trump To Formally Declare Border Emergency The battle over America’s security heats up. Matthew Vadum

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272878/trump-formally-declare-border-emergency-matthew-vadum

A defiant President Trump promised yesterday to declare a national emergency to get the wall he promised to build constructed on America’s porous southern border, as Congress gave him funding –with plenty of strings attached– to build 55 miles of border barriers.

“President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action—including a national emergency—to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border[,]” the White House tweeted Thursday at 3:44 p.m.

Trump, who said he was “not thrilled” with the omnibus spending bill, is nevertheless expected to sign “and declare the national emergency in an appearance Friday morning, according to a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity,” the Washington Post reports.

On the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said declaring an emergency was “a very wrong thing to do.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indignantly tweeted, “The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities.”

Schumer Defends Opposing Border Wall After Voting for Secure Fence Act of 2006 By Nicholas Ballasy

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/schumer-defends-opposing-border-wall-after-voting-for-secure-fence-act-of-2006/

“The lack of faithfulness in saying the border ought to be secured is appalling to me,” says Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.).

WASHINGTON – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) defended his vote in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and his opposition to President Trump’s proposed wall for open areas along the border.

In addition to Schumer, Democrats including former Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Joe Biden (D-Del.) voted for the Secure Fence Act but the fencing that the bill called for was not fully completed. Trump, who originally called for a concrete wall that was blocked by Congress, says his current border security plan would install “see through” steel barriers at open portions of the border that currently lack fencing. According to the Border Patrol, drug smugglers and human traffickers have cut more than 1,700 holes in the fencing along the border in San Diego since 2015.

PJM asked Schumer, “You voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. Will you support additional barriers on the border?” The Democratic leader replied, “No wall – didn’t have it then and doesn’t have it now.”

James Freeman: Trump, Immigrants and the Best Job Market Ever At Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, another call for expanded legal migration.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-immigrants-and-the-best-job-market-ever-11550013358?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=poptarget&cx_artPos=6#cxrecs_s

Today brought more news of a historically tight job market, as businesses have continued to respond to President Trump’s tax and regulatory reforms by going on a hiring binge. The problem is that they can’t find enough workers. Fortunately, today also brought more comments from President Trump suggesting that he knows how to fix it.

The government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this morning that on the last day of December the number of job openings in the United States hit a record high of 7.3 million.

The Associated Press adds that the total of 7.3 million open positions is “far greater than the number of unemployed, which stood at 6.3 million.” AP reports:

Businesses have shrugged off a variety of potential troubles for the economy in the past two months and kept on hiring. The 35-day partial government shutdown began Dec. 22, and growth in China, Europe and Japan has weakened, threatening U.S. exports. Still, employers added 304,000 jobs in January, the government said earlier this month, the most in nearly a year.

It’s Not Just the Wall — Democrats Hate Interior Enforcement, Too By Rich Lowry

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/its-not-just-the-wall-democrats-hate-interior-enforcement-too/

My post below on border funding assumes that there is a deal, which isn’t a guarantee. The sticking point at the moment is the interior:

But throughout the talks, Democrats had also been focused on limiting ICE’s ability to detain unauthorized immigrants, which has become a major issue for the party because of their opposition to the Trump administration’s aggressive detention tactics. The Democrats’ proposal included a new limit on detention beds for immigrants picked up not at the border but in the interior of the country.

Democrats wanted to cap that number at 16,500, which they said is around the level of interior detentions in the final years of the Obama administration. Republicans proposed excluding immigrants with criminal records from the cap. But Democrats said that would make the cap toothless, because it would amount to giving ICE free rein to round up thousands of immigrants without criminal records, on top of unlimited numbers of immigrants with criminal convictions.

Military on the Border: Appropriate Response to a Crisis How does a house stand without walls? Michael Cutler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272778/military-border-appropriate-response-crisis-michael-cutler

On February 3, 2019 ABC News posted an AP (Associated Press) report, “Pentagon sending another 3,750 troops to Southwest border.”

The ABC/AP report noted that the Trump administration was sending those members of the armed forces to the U.S./Mexican border to bring the total number of active-duty troops to 4,350. The Pentagon said that the soldiers would be installing 150 miles of concertina barbed wire and assist with surveilling the border, but not have direct contact with any illegal aliens or aid in their arrest by the Border Patrol. Reportedly, however, the soldiers will be able to help defend Border Patrol agents who come under fire.

The news report included this excerpt:

The announcement is in line with what Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan had said on Tuesday when he provided estimates for the next phase of a military mission that has grown in size and length. Critics have derided it as a political ploy by the White House as President Donald Trump seeks billions to build a border wall.

It is astonishing that anyone would actually believe that protecting America and Americans from the entry of uninspected aliens and cargo is a “political ploy.”

Is the oath of office the President, Vice President or members of Congress take a political ploy?

In point of fact, the political foes of the border wall are playing politics with national security, public safety, public health and the livelihoods of American and lawful immigrant workers.

Even though prior administrations, including those of George W. Bush and Barak Obama, have sent military units to back up the Border Patrol, the fact that President Trump would take this action incites the knee-jerk deprecatory reactions of his foes.

Against The Evidence, Media Keeps Insisting Terrorists Aren’t Crossing The Southern Border The Times is somewhere between misleading by omission and outright lying to their readers about the threats posed by lack of border security. By Todd Bensman

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/06/the-nyt-is-lying-to-readers-about-immigration-threats-from-muslim-world/

Much of the noise accompanying President Trump’s partial justification for a wall concerns the veracity of a general threat: that Islamist terror travelers in the flow of “special interest aliens” (SIAs) might easier breach the southern border without one.

Critics in the media vehemently argue that the administration is trafficking in ridiculous, baseless fearmongering. After President Trump said Muslim prayer rugs were intercepted at the border, one Vox article said migration from Muslim-majority countries only happened at “vanishingly small rates.” Another, in The Washington Post, called southern border migration from Muslim countries a “conspiracy theory.”

But perhaps the most influentially misleading article on the subject came from The New York Times. On January 18, The Times published a “Fact Check” column by Linda Qiu titled “Trump’s Baseless Claim About Prayer Rugs Found at the Border.” It essentially concluded that migration from Muslim-majority countries is an unproven conspiracy theory and, even if it did happen, no one could consider it a security threat.

The column contained numerous errors and inaccurately cited two government reports to support the story’s weak contentions. This sort of recurring problem in the media must finally be called out.

Immigration Pitfalls By Mark Krikorian

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/immigration-politics-pitfalls/

An advance press briefing last week teased that at tonight’s State of the Union address the president would move beyond the current border-security wrangling and offer a grand, new vision for moving forward on immigration, involving something Trump has not said before.

That could just be marketing hype, but there’s reason to be worried. That’s because the formulation of this new — dare I say “comprehensive” — thrust on immigration is apparently not being overseen by Stephen Miller, but by Jared Kushner. This has raised alarm bells because of Kushner’s Manhattan millionaire liberal instincts, but I’m not sure that that’s the main problem.

Rather, I fear that the combination of Kushner’s unfamiliarity with the past 30 years of immigration politics, combined with overconfidence in his powers stemming from his success in brokering criminal-justice reform, will lead the White House astray. Jared could end up like Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons, stepping on one rake after another, because the immigration issue is strewn with rakes just waiting to smack the unsuspecting policy entrepreneur in the face. As a service to those in the White House who are new to the immigration issue, here are a few of those rakes, just waiting to be stepped on:

Mexico deploys militarized police to block 2,000 migrants from entering Texas by Anna Giaritelli

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mexico-deploys-militarized-police-to-block-2-000-migrants-from-entering-texas?utm_source=

Hundreds of militarized Mexican police officers were standing guard Tuesday at the border between Piedras Negras, Coahuila, and Eagle Pass, Texas, to prevent nearly 2,000 Central American migrants from illegally crossing into the U.S.

Buses dropped off the migrants in Piedras Negras, a city of around 250,000 residents, late Monday. By Tuesday morning, federal police in full military gear were lined up in two long parallel rows outside of the facility to keep them from leaving the country, according to tweets from Mexican officials.

The Rio Grande separates both countries in that area, and due to the landscape, portions of the border do not have a physical barrier, making it easier for people to try to enter the U.S.

Starting Tuesday, the state’s governor, Miguel Riquelme, plans to begin deporting migrants who illegally entered Mexico on their way to America.

Coahuila officials will ask those staying at the temporary shelter to show humanitarian visas they would have received if they tried to travel through the country legally from Guatemala. Those who do not have the documents will be removed as soon as Tuesday.

Meanwhile, American, Mexican, and Central American officials are in talks about how to handle this new caravan, one of a handful in the past year. Officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol, the Guatemalan consulate in South Texas, the Mexican consulate in South Texas, Mexican government, Coahuila state government, and others met again Monday to talk about how to care for and process the group.

Byron York: Can moderate Dems talk Pelosi out of her extreme position in the border negotiations? by Byron York

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-key-border-question-can-moderate-dems-talk-pelosi-out-of-extreme-position

As things stand now, a House and Senate conference committee is the only hope that Democrats and Republicans can reach agreement on border security and avoid another government shutdown. The negotiations — such as they are, for a committee that has met briefly only once in more than a week — are ostensibly between Republicans and Democrats. But well-informed Republicans believe it is another set of talks — internal talks among Democrats — that will determine whether the committee succeeds and a shutdown is averted.

“This is not a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats,” said one GOP lawmaker who is keeping close tabs on the process. “This is a negotiation between rank-and-file Democrats and Nancy Pelosi.”

“That is unmistakably true,” added a Republican who is taking part in the talks. “There are many reasonable voices within the Democratic conference who want to see a positive resolution here.” The speaker of the House’s “emboldened stance” — her decision to refuse to consider any funds for a border barrier — has been “very hurtful to the process,” the lawmaker added.

Why are the intra-Democratic talks so critical? Because Republicans already agree on the key components of a border security package. They are united behind the need for a border barrier, and they are united behind the other provisions — drug detection technology for ports of entry, more immigration judges, humanitarian aid for detained migrants — that many members of both parties support as part of a comprehensive border security policy. Republicans are already there.

The question is whether the California Democrat can be talked down from her my-way-or-the-highway position