RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/real-border-crisis-foreigners-gaming-americas-asylum-laws/

Late last month, frustrated migrants rioted just beyond the U.S. border crossing in Tijuana, and were dispersed with tear gas. The images were genuinely fear-inducing — crowds of immigrants surging against the wall, scaling it, many breaking through, some retreating. It was exactly the kind of chaos that conservatives have been predicting for years. Perhaps in response, the military presence on the U.S. border has been extended through January.

But what’s really going on? Is there really a crisis at the border? Is illegal immigration totally out of control? A look at the data suggests there is indeed an unprecedented surge in one specific kind of migrant, which may be cause for some concern, but that, overall, the situation at the border remains well in hand. Conservatives and progressives both would do well to calm down, address the limited, real problems, and stop fearmongering about a widespread crisis that does not actually exist.
A Real Surge in Asylum Claims

Many of the largely Central American migrants arriving at the U.S. border nowadays have a more sophisticated strategy than Mexican migrants from decades past. Today’s immigrants make heavier use of legal, or potentially legal, strategies for entry. This is partly thanks to improved physical security of the border, but has other causes as well.

A key channel for obtaining legal stay in the United States is to apply for asylum. The right of asylum is enshrined in U.S. law, and is recognized by virtually every country in the world. Basically, the idea is that if a person faces “credible fear” that he or she will be subjected to violence or other serious discrimination based on various protected categories like race, religion, or political affiliation, countries aren’t supposed to deport that person.

Deportation is not supposed to be a death sentence. As such, pretty much all countries offer various forms of asylum to people who might not otherwise have a legal right to be in a country.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272185/did-judge-and-prosecutor-shield-criminal-illegal-michael-cutler

My article today is predicated on the December 2, 2018 Boston Globe report, “ICE agent was in courthouse. Did judge and others help man flee?”

Incredibly, a district court judge is now being investigated by a federal grand jury into her actions earlier this year, when she is believed to have acted, in concert with a prosecutor, to enable an illegal alien from the Dominican Republic to escape justice. As it turned out, the alien was using a false name, had falsely claimed to be a United States citizen at the time of his arrest and had been previously twice deported from the United States.

A detainer had been lodged by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and, at the time, an ICE agent was present in the courthouse waiting to take the alien into custody.

We will get into the details of this outrageous case but first I want to remind you how we have gotten to this point, to set the stage for this latest example of immigration anarchy.

The globalists have worked long and hard to convince politicians from both political parties and judges alike that it is somehow heroic to obstruct the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety, public health and the jobs of American workers.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission made it crystal clear that first and foremost, multiple failures of the immigration system not only permitted the 19 hijacker-terrorists who launched the savage attacks on September 11, 2001, but other terrorists the Commission studied as well, to enter the United States and embed themselves.

In spite of this, a growing list of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” and even “Sanctuary States” have openly declared their opposition to the enforcement of our immigration laws.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/white_privilege_and_illegal_immigration.html

White privilege is a crime, according to Leftists. Consequently, young people are drilled into believing that they are criminal because of their melanin levels. On the “Teaching Tolerance” site, students are told by author Cory Collins that they “can imagine [white privilege] as something of a whiteness water cycle, wherein racism is the rain. That rain populates the earth, giving some areas more access to life and resources than others. The evaporation is white privilege — an invisible phenomenon that is both a result of the rain and the reason it keeps going.”

But if white privilege is so awful, wouldn’t it be hypocritical to come to a country that is predominantly white and then partake of the wealth and power that white privilege provides? After all, benefiting from an evil system does not seem ethical. And leftists always claim the moral high ground — don’t they?

Collins explains that “Francis E. Kendall, author of Diversity in the Classroom and Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race, comes close to giving us an encompassing definition: ‘having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do.'” Does white privilege count when people of color across the globe have “more access to life and resources than others?”

So is it racial discrimination or a desire for power? Clearly the left wouldn’t want to let slip that raw power is really central to their desires. Instead they use race to cover up the naked truth that this is all about power and influence. Race baiting is a very convenient tool to accomplish their goals. Furthermore, Collins adds that:

Just as people of color did nothing to deserve this unequal treatment, white people did not ‘earn’ disproportionate access to compassion and fairness. They receive it as the byproduct of systemic racism and bias.

Since race plays such a huge role in left-wing ideology, may one inquire why people have different skin colors in the first place? According to Science ABC “…color is determined by a pigment called melanin, and while everyone has melanin (both fair and dark-skinned people) it comes in different forms and ratios. The two forms of melanin are called eumelanin and pheomelanin. Eumelanin comes in primarily brown and black hues, while pheomelanin appears as red and yellow hues.”

https://quillette.com/2018/12/08/what-happened-when-we

Immigration and diversity politics dominate our political and public debates. Disagreements about these issues lie behind the rise of populist politics on the left and the right, as well as the growing polarization of our societies more widely. Unless we find a way of side-stepping the extremes and debating these issues in an evidence-led, analytical way then the moderate, pluralistic middle will buckle and give way.

This is why, as two university professors who work on these issues, we decided to help organize and join a public debate about immigration and ethnic change. The debate, held in London on December 6, was a great success, featuring a nuanced and evidence-based discussion attended by 400 people. It was initially titled, “Is Rising Ethnic Diversity a Threat to the West?” This was certainly a provocative title, designed to draw in a large audience who might hold strong views on the topic but who would nonetheless be exposed to a moderated and evidence-led debate. Though we would later change the title, we couldn’t escape its powerful logic: On the night itself, we repeatedly returned to this phrasing because it is the clearest way of distinguishing competing positions.

Aside from ourselves, two university professors who between us have researched the issue for decades, the panel included Trevor Philips, the former Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (who is of African-Caribbean heritage), and David Aaronovitch, a liberal columnist at The Times. The debate was chaired by Claire Fox and co-sponsored by the Academy of Ideas, founded to provide a “forum committed to open and robust public debate in which ideas can be interrogated,” and the online magazine UnHerd, which aims to draw attention to stories and ideas that do not usually get covered in the mainstream media.

As soon as the title of the event was published it provoked a strong backlash. Rather than a genuine debate, it was interpreted as an open attack on immigrants and minorities. Before the event had taken place, before a word had been spoken, one professor accused us of “helping to advance a white nationalist agenda” and engaging in “nativist and racist discourse.” Other academics retweeted accounts that suggested we were “complicit in violence,” including the U.S. mail bombs and the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue (two of our panelists are of Jewish heritage). Still others contended that we were contributing to racism, that by posing the question we were “devaluing” scholars from minority backgrounds (Kaufmann is of mixed race).

In the spirit of compromise, and to meet our critics halfway, we changed the title of the event to: “Immigration and Diversity Politics: A Challenge to Liberal Democracy?” But that was not enough. Even after this change, academics joined with self-described anti-fascist activists to publish an open letter on the platform Open Democracy. Titled “Framing ethnic diversity as a ‘threat’ will normalise far-right hate,” the letter claimed that the debate “was framed within the terms of white supremacist discourse” and “automatically targets communities already suffering from discrimination as part of the ‘problem.’” While the letter did not call for the debate to be cancelled, it concluded that “no other alternative factor or scenario is identified as a ‘threat.’” that the event had “racist presumptions,” “contributes to far right ‘dog whistling,’” and “serves to normalise ideas that should be firmly challenged.” These claims, they continued, were “undeniable.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272111/illegal-aliens-dismantled-identity-theft-ring-michael-cutler

For the most part, when the issue of crimes related to illegal immigration is raised, the discussion most often turns to crimes committed by illegal aliens that cause death or grievous injuries to the victims, whether the crime involved an assault or a motor vehicle accident at the hands of an unlicensed and/or drunk-driving illegal alien.

Undoubtedly there is no shortage of such infuriating and tragic examples of the consequence of illegal immigration.

Of late, attention has focused on transnational gangs such as MS-13 that has its origins in El Salvador and Los Angeles, California; however, it must be noted that because human nature is human nature, transnational gangs can be found in every ethnic community whose residents come from every country on this planet.

There are other crimes, however, that have a direct nexus to illegal immigration that do not directly involve violence or loss of life but nevertheless claim huge numbers of victims in the United States that may have a profound and life-altering impact.

One of the most serious of those crimes involves the theft of the identities of millions of United States citizens and lawfully-admitted immigrants whose citizenship, lawful immigrant status and good names are valued commodities that provide millions of illegal aliens with a sort of “camouflage.”

Criminals frequently assume aliases as a means of disguising themselves to thwart law enforcement and to conceal their movements and activities. This is why suspects who are arrested by law enforcement authorities are photographed and fingerprinted. Increasingly, other bio metrics, such as DNA and facial recognition technology, are being used to properly identify these individuals to help prevent them gaming the system.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/30/no-preventing-job-seekers-illegal-entry-not-comparable-holocaust/

During the past two years when liberal groups disagreed with President Trump on a particular immigration situation, they tried justifying their position by comparing the plight of the refugee or immigrant to that of victims of the Holocaust. Just yesterday, Representative-elect from the Bronx, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez equated the plight of the Caravan people to that of the Jews in the 1940s trying to escape the Holocaust and attempting to sail to America. It was similarly brought up two years ago when tens of thousands of Muslims leaving Syria toward the United States were met by a President who wanted to place a ceiling on how many could enter and who rightfully demanded they be vetted comprehensively, as opposed to what had previously been rather perfunctory and easy questioning.

And, of course, a few months ago when children were placed in clean and pleasant housing away from their parents during their parents’ appearances before immigration judges, we heard the refrain about Concentration Camp guards separating parents from children. However, none of the Jewish children forcibly seized from their mother and father at Auschwitz saw their parents again. They were murdered in the gas chambers. Well, at least that’s what I heard in the early 1950s back in Cleveland from the mouths of mothers who survived the War. In contrast, the immigrant children from Mexico last year were quickly reunited with their parents, and during their away-time found nurses and doctors, playmates and games, gym, wholesome food and clean bedding, and probably more personal medical care than ever before. Comparisons to the Holocaust are fundamentally wrong and a dishonor to the six million Jews who were rounded up from their homes and put on trains to be tortured and murdered.

Even for those on the Left who have made it their mission to destroy President Trump, it seems vile to do it on the backs of the Six Million. The question needs to be asked: Who has brainwashed and poisoned the minds of so many against their fellow Americans, the President, Republicans, as well as employees of ICE? How is it that so many Americans on the Left believe their own countrymen would act like guards at Concentration Camps? How can so many (including Jews on the radical Left) knowingly lie and demean the Holocaust-martyred just to score political points against President Trump? Well, political leftism, like communism, often takes hold of its adherents in a fervor that invariably ignores reality, propriety, and even decency.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272073/democrats-stand-foreign-rioters-michael-cutler

The news footage of the thousands of members of the “migrant” caravan showed young men throwing rocks at U.S. Border Patrol agents and attempting to charge the U.S./Mexican border. The Border Patrol agents were clearly under attack and had only two courses of action to take. The beleaguered agents could step aside or even retreat and permit their positions to be overrun by hundreds or even thousands of illegal aliens among whom are likely criminals, gang members and even those affiliated with terrorism, who would then disperse into the United States where the abject lack of resources would enable them to meld into communities across the country, particularly those jurisdictions that have been proclaimed “Sanctuary Cities.” Alternatively, they could stand their ground and defend the border to prevent the illegal and un-inspected entry of these invaders. In order to protect themselves, however, these agents would need to deploy either lethal or less-than-lethal force.

We all know that the Border Patrol opted to deploy teargas, a less-than-lethal force, that succeeded in repelling the attempted breach of our border, although it was reported that approximately 50 aliens did manage to enter the United States, but were quickly apprehended and taken into custody by the Border Patrol.

It would certainly appear that the agents demonstrated discipline, restraint and professionalism in managing to bring a very dangerous situation under control without the loss of life. Incredibly, rather than commending these valiant federal agents, Democrats and members of the mainstream media have attacked the agents. They complained that these “asylum seeking migrants” should have been quickly processed and permitted to enter the United States. They complained bitterly that the use of teargas was wrong and had the potential to injure women and children who were in the front of the surging mob.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hillary-clinton-conservatives-were-right-on-mass-migration/?utm_source=ntnlreview&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=amconswap

Amidst the hurly-burly of politics these days, it can be hard to notice when your side has won a victory. Yet that’s what’s just happened for conservatives on immigration: they’ve won. Okay, it’s not a final victory, nor even a crushing victory, but, even so, it’s a win.

We know this because Hillary Clinton, arguably still the biggest name in Democratic politics, has just said that conservatives were right. She has conceded the essence of the rightist—and, by the way, centrist—critique of the open-borders approach to immigration.

On November 22, Clinton said in an interview with The Guardian, “I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame.” Continuing in that vein, she damned German Chancellor Angela Merkel with faint praise: “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message—‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’—because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.” In other words, when Merkel opened the German border in 2015, she was being nice, but misguided. Of course, Clinton is no doubt aware that the global backlash against Merkelism was felt in America, too, contributing to her own defeat in 2016.

To be sure, Clinton is no convert to Trumpism. Indeed, lest anyone think she was, she also told The Guardian that the president has “a strong streak of racism…the whole package of bigotry.”

Yet of course, the fact that Clinton doesn’t like Trump is not news. What is news is that she has shifted her stance on immigration in a Trumpian direction—or, if one prefers, to the familiar rule-of-law position embraced even by the Bernie Sanders left until recently.

Yet the immediate reaction to Clinton’s words was cautious incredulity. As The New York Times put it later that day, “Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to The Guardian drew criticism and a dose of surprise from an array of scholars, immigration advocates and pundits on both the left and the right, some of whom were so perplexed by the comments that they wondered aloud whether Mrs. Clinton had perhaps misspoken.” After all, as the Times observed, “Mrs. Clinton, many said, has a long history of supporting refugees—a track record seemingly at odds with her recent remarks. Her immigration platform in the 2016 presidential election boasted that ‘we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them.’”