RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-administration-will-appeal-asylum-ruling/

The Trump administration plans to appeal a federal court ruling blocking the administration from shutting down asylum claims by migrants who enter the country illegally.

Federal District Judge Jon Tigar handed down the ruling last week, frustrating the presidential proclamation President Trump issued last month.

The president’s order “irreconcilably conflicts” with current immigration law, Tigar wrote.

He added that immigrants would be at “increased risk of violence and other harms at the border” because of the new regulation.

A panel of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges upheld Tigar’s initial temporary restraining order on the asylum ban, saying it is “likely inconsistent with existing United States law.”

The Supreme Court later upheld the ruling in a 5 to 4 decision.

Administration officials on Wednesday informed the Ninth Circuit that they would appeal the asylum ruling. They requested an extension to file an opening brief to appeal the ruling until several sectors of the government reopen.

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2018/12/david-singer-un-hit-list-can-bypass_20.html

21 Nations that received almost $14 billion in US foreign aid in 2017 could become the key to unlocking the White House confrontation between President Trump and Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer over their refusal to commit the Democrats to authorizing Congress to commit $5 billion immediately towards the construction of Trump’s border wall to prevent illegal immigration into America.

Trump’s threatened Government shutdown by 21 December has been withdrawn as he seeks alternative sources of funding.

The following UN hit list offers a ready solution:

Country, and US Aid 2017
Bangladesh $261 million
Congo $494 million
Egypt $1475 million
Indonesia $277 million
Iraq $3712 million
Jordan $1489 million
Lebanon $505 million
Mali $230 million
Morocco $490 million
Mozambique $580 million
Niger $173 million
Nigeria $852 million
Pakistan $837 million
Russia $168 million
Senegal $197 million
South Africa $511 million
Turkey $153 million
Vietnam $150 million
Yemen $595 million
Zambia $419 million
Zimbabwe $194 million
TOTAL $13762 Million

These 21 states were major players in humiliating Trump — when an American-sponsored resolution in the United Nations General Assembly seeking to condemn Hamas and other militant groups for indiscriminately targeting Israel’s predominantly Jewish civilian population since 2007 failed to secure the required two-third’s majority earlier determined as necessary for its passage.

Trump has warned on many occasions that those who receive money from America — yet do not support America diplomatically — stand to lose financially as a result.

Trump has already well and truly practised what he preached:

– Defunding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency of $360 million annually

– Withdrawing from UNESCO leaving it to fund the 22% of its budget lost as a result

– Calling on NATO countries to meet their agreed share of the NATO budget

– Cutting more than $200 million in funding the Palestine Liberation Organisation

Trump has already ominously warned those countries that humiliated him on the Hamas Resolution that they could be in the firing line for reductions in their annual foreign aid as a result of not voting with America.

This threat becomes increasingly more likely as the Democrats dig in their heels and refuse to give the President the $5 billion he needs to build the border wall — one of the president’s cardinal promises made in the 2016 election campaign that has been frustrated by the Democrats from the day Trump became president.

Trump should be readily able to determine how $5 billion of this $14 billion funding to these recalcitrant states can be redirected to building the border wall.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272311/lawless-judge-strikes-down-trumps-asylum-policy-matthew-vadum

As President Trump made significant progress in his bid to win congressional funding for a border wall with Mexico, a swamp-dwelling federal judge in Washington struck down Trump administration policies that made it more difficult for foreigners who claim to be victims of domestic or gang violence to seek asylum.

Trump has vowed to use the military to build the wall and in recent days sent out mixed messages about whether he would veto a stopgap spending bill needed to avert a partial government shutdown at Friday midnight. After a fierce backlash from conservatives like Ann Coulter apparently prompted Trump to return to his hardline stance insisting on getting border wall funding now before Democrats take over the House of Representatives in two weeks, Republican congressional leaders met with the president at the White House midday Thursday. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) emerged from the meeting to announce Trump would veto any spending measure that lacked funding for the wall, the president’s signature issue on the 2016 campaign trail.

Later Thursday the House voted 217 to 185 to approve a temporary spending bill after adding $5.7 billion in appropriations for the wall. Democrats have said they will oppose the measure when it reaches the Senate where under current rules it requires a supermajority of 60 votes for passage. Presently there are 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats in the Senate. As of January 3, there will be 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats. During a White House meeting with incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last week Trump said he would be happy to shut down the government to gain funding for the wall.

“I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck,” Trump said.

That shutdown now seems certain.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272278/trumps-battle-border-wall-michael-cutler

The immigration debate has been raging for years. Advocates for open borders can be found on both sides of the political aisle and in a wide variety of special interest groups who have come to see the immigration system that delivers an unlimited supply of cheap and exploitable labor, an unlimited supply of foreign tourists, and unlimited supply of foreign students and, for the lawyers, an unlimited supply of clients.

That was the premise for my article, “Sanctuary Country – Immigration failures by design.”

Now the debate about the construction of a border wall is coming to a head.

A line has been drawn, and not in the sand, but along the highly porous and dangerous U.S./Mexican border that permits huge numbers of illegal aliens to enter the United States without inspection and permits huge quantities of narcotics and other contraband to be smuggled into the United States as well.

President Trump is arguably the first U.S. President in many decades who truly understands that border security equals national security. He also understands that flooding America with exploitable foreign workers from Third World countries is not compassionate for those foreign workers and certainly not for the American workers that they displace.

President Trump is determined to build that wall but incredibly, the Democrats are adamantly opposed to the construction of a border wall.

As I noted in my recent article “Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Of The House – The Sequel (Worse Than The Original),” Pelosi and her Democratic Party colleagues have incredibly declared that a border wall would be as Fox News reported Pelosi’s assertions, “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

Pelosi and company have created the false illusion that the border wall would seal off the United States from Mexico when, in point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The border wall would not block access to U.S. ports of entry along that border but simply funnel all traffic to those ports of entry so that the aliens can be inspected and vetted and records of their entry into the United States can be created. Similarly all cargo would be subject to inspection to keep drugs and other contraband out of the United States.

How could any rational person not want to act to combat the flow of those drugs into the United States?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/20/it_was_always_about_the_wall_138971.html

The reason a secure borer wall has not been — and may not be — built is not apprehension that it would not work, but rather real fear that it would work only too well.

There was likely never going to be “comprehensive immigration reform” or any deal amnestying the DACA recipients in exchange for building the wall. Democrats in the present political landscape will not consent to a wall. For them, a successful border wall is now considered bad politics in almost every manner imaginable.

Yet 12 years ago, Congress, with broad bipartisan support, passed the Security Fence of Act of 2006. The bill was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush to overwhelming public applause. The stopgap legislation led to some 650 miles of a mostly inexpensive steel fence while still leaving about two-thirds of the 1,950-mile border unfenced.

In those days there were not, as now, nearly 50 million foreign-born immigrants living in the United States, perhaps nearly 15 million of them illegally.

Sheer numbers have radically changed electoral politics. Take California. One out of every four residents in California is foreign-born. Not since 2006 has any California Republican been elected to statewide office.

The solidly blue states of the American Southwest, including Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, voted red as recently as 2004 for George W. Bush. Progressives understandably conclude that de facto open borders are good long-term politics.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272282/california-ice-capades-lloyd-billingsley

In California’s capital, sheriff Scott Jones has been under fire for allegedly resisting oversight. This week the Sacramento County sheriff revealed the real reason for the campaign against him.

“It’s no secret,” he told county supervisors, “I give ICE unfettered access to our jails and our databases.” That was a problem because county supervisors voted in July to cancel the sheriff’s contract with ICE, and it also raised issues of compliance with Senate Bill 54, the state’s sanctuary law.

“I’ve been portrayed horribly, like I split up families and like I’m a Trump guy, and we’re all buddies,” Jones told reporters last year. So he brought ICE director Thomas Homan to a Sacramento forum to explain “factual information” about federal policy. Jones had no problem with immigrants but explained, “it’s the people in the jail, the people that choose a career of crime, we have to get rid of those folks.”

In 2015, Jones told Fox News that “by ICE’s own numbers, 95 percent of the people they used to arrest, that they’ve already identified, that they want to take custody of, are getting out of jail before they can get to them. And that’s scary, because they’re criminals. They’ve demonstrated a propensity for criminal behavior.” The real back story to Jones’ concern came in October of 2014.

Repeat deportee Luis Bracamontes, gunned down Sacramento deputy Danny Oliver and detective Michael Davis. The murder of two police officers prompted no statement from California governor Jerry Brown or Kamala Harris, attorney general at the time. Both failed to lament the “gun violence” on display in the case.

In court, with relatives of the victims present, Bracamontes said “I wish I had killed more of the motherfuckers.” Also present was Anthony Holmes, whom Bracamontes had shot five times when he refused to give up his car. Bracamontes called Holmes a “nigger,” and yelled “black lives don’t matter!” at the jury. As it happens, Danny Oliver’s wife Susan is also African American.

Jones fulfilled a promise to her by making a video urging the president to secure the borders. That didn’t happen and Jones got no support from California’s political and judicial establishments. They showed more interested in protecting illegals, even violent, racist criminals like Bracamontes, who was not supposed to be in the United States in the first place.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272240/muslim-immigrant-icon-oppressed-humanity-niram-ferretti

Editor’s note: Below is a translated interview with Frontpage’s Shillman Fellow, Bruce Thornton, with Niram Ferretti in the Italian magazine Foglio Quotidiano.

Ferretti: Professor Thornton, in 1984, French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote Le sanglot de l’homme blanc, his essay in which he showed how the West, from the Sixties onwards, has been engulfed in an apotheosis of self-guilt. The bottom line is that Western civilization is nothing more than a tale full of sound and fury, while the Third World is the innocent victim of its rapacity and evil. What are the reasons, according to you, of this cultural landscape?

Thornton: There are three developments behind what we can call Third Worldism. First, increasing contact with the undeveloped world through colonialism exposed Europeans to exotic peoples whom they idealized as superior to their own more developed and repressed lives. Next, Marxism, having been rejected by the European proletariat, turned to the anticolonial revolutionary movements in the Third World to find a substitute revolutionary vanguard. Now the revolution would be spearheaded by Third World peoples rather than the workers. And it made the Third World into a useful club for attacking liberal democratic and capitalist countries. Finally, Romanticism and the cult of sentimentalism in the West, aided by globalized communication media, found the Third World an object of “compassion” and guilt, which mass media turned into a commodity of suffering that Westerners could consume and vicariously enjoy those feelings without any efforts to ameliorate it. The result is cheap sentiment and guilt serving the Marxist ideology of undermining Western culture.

Ferretti: “Oppressor”, “Oppressed”, this seems to be the main dichotomy internal to most of political and cultural discourse, both here in Europe and in the United States. European and American universities, to a great extent, have espoused cultural Marxism. Is the battle lost?

https://www.city-journal.org/e-verify-illegal-immigration

Donald Trump was elected president because a large segment of the American public was fed up with the government’s failure to stop mass illegal immigration. Trump’s campaign promise to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. drew an ecstatic response from his supporters, long scorned for their belief that the decision regarding who enters the country belongs to Americans, not to foreign nationals living outside the country. But the wall has not been built, and the fight over its funding has sucked political capital from the pursuit of other, and arguably better, means to deter illegal immigrants.

The most important of those measures is to prevent unauthorized aliens from getting work, since the jobs magnet is the primary lure for illegal immigration. Commentators and analysts across the political spectrum have acknowledged that preventing illegal employment is key to deterring illegal immigration. The New York Times editorialized in 1982 that “there can be no effective enforcement of the borders” without mandatory verification of a worker’s papers. A technology has existed for decades to do just that. E-Verify, run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, allows employers to check—instantaneously and for free—whether the work documents presented by a potential employee correspond to an existing Social Security number or whether they are forged. Universal implementation of E-Verify has been blocked, however, by employers who prefer to hire illegal aliens over American workers.

Trump invoked E-Verify during the 2016 campaign but has since stopped publicly promoting it. Yet E-Verify is more popular with the public than the wall; at least two-thirds of poll respondents support mandatory verification of a worker’s lawful status. States that require it (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah) have changed worker behavior. Illegal aliens dropped off the payrolls in Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, prompting employers to hire legal workers, according to a 2013 study conducted by Bloomberg Government. A 2017 study by Carnegie Mellon University found that Arizona’s E-Verify law induced return migration from Arizona to Mexico and decreased illegal immigration into Arizona from Mexico. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that the population of less educated young Mexican and Central American immigrants dropped in states with mandatory E-Verify, in part because they moved to states without the mandate and in part because they returned to their home countries. Wages for low-skilled American and legal-immigrant workers in mandatory E-Verify states rose between 7 percent and 9 percent, while wages for illegal Mexican males dropped nearly 8 percent.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/trump_sprang_three_traps_on_pelosi_and_schumer_yesterday_.html

President Trump clearly shocked House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer yesterday with his televising of the Oval Office sit-down over his demand for $5 billion in funding for border security, including funding of critical mileage for his border wall. Knowing well that Pelosi had already vowed publicly that “transparency and openness” would characterize the Democrat-run House starting next month, her plaintive request to speak in private scored points for Trump and revealed her hypocrisy before any substance at all was considered.

The remarkable body language during the meeting tells the story of Trump’s dominance. Here is the full video of the press gaggle, via Grabien:

That was merely the first of three traps Trump had prepared for the Democrats’ congressional leadership.

Trump’s second trap is his bold declaration of ownership of any “government shutdown.” Democrats have convinced themselves that what is called a “shutdown,” but really means furloughing non-essential federal workers, is a tragedy, a scar on the nation’s psyche. The fact that federal workers are now a major and solid constituency for Democrats skews their perception of the public’s concern. Aside from canceling sleigh rides in national parks and other such photo drama, the fact is that life goes on well for nearly all Americans during the furlough. They learn that there are a lot of non-essential government workers.

After multiple shutdowns, including the last one that bore the label “Schumer Shutdown” and was quickly conceded by the Democrats, the public is no longer afraid of non-essential services (roughly 25% of the government) being temporarily suspended.