Posts Tagged ‘MEXICO’
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DREAM ACT, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PANCHO VILLA, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SERGIO GARCIA, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, USA TODAY, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 1, 2017 at 12:08 am
On January 2, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted a law license to a man illegally living in the United States.
The decision allowed Sergio Garcia to begin practicing law even though his mere presence was a blatant violation of American immigration laws.
Garcia arrived in the U.S. illegally in 1994 to pick almonds with his father and worked at a grocery store and in the fields while attending school.
He graduated from Cal Northern School of Law in 2009 and passed the bar exam.
Garcia was not a citizen, nor even a legal resident.
But that didn’t stop him from challenging a 1996 Federal law that forbids state agencies to extend public benefits—including professional licenses—to those who are illegally in the country.
The headline for this story in the liberal Huffington Post read: “California Supreme Court Grants Law License to Undocumented Immigrant Sergio Garcia.”
California Supreme Court
The headline could just have accurately read: “California Supreme Court Allows Illegal Alien to Legally Practice Law.”
But “illegal alien” is—for all its accuracy—Politically Incorrect. Instead, those who defend the wanton violating of American immigration laws prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.”
As though at one time these lawbreakers had valid citizenship documents but somehow lost them during their swim across the Rio Grande.
Of course, Mexican politicians are quick to accuse Americans of racism if they dare to enforce their own immigration laws.
Consider the lecture that then-Mexican President Felipe Calderon gave a joint session of Congress on May 20, 2010.
Calderon attacked the Arizona law that allowed law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Felipe Calderon
According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”
Racial profiling? Consider the popular Latino phrase, “La Raza.”
This literally means “the race” or “the people.” In the United States, it’s sometimes used to describe people of Chicano and Mexican descent as well as other Latin American mestizos who share Native American heritage.
It rarely includes entirely European or African descended Hispanic peoples.
So when Latinos say, “The Race,” they’re not talking about “the human race.” They’re talking strictly about their own.
In his lecture, Calderon condemned the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its borders.
The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words was staggering.
From a purely political viewpoint, it’s makes sense that Calderon didn’t say anything about this. From a viewpoint of fairness and common sense, his refusal to do so smacked of the vilest hypocrisy.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Calderon also ignored a second, well-understood but equally unacknowledged truth: Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
The Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.
A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution—Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon—died in a hail of bullets.
Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second–and equally bloody–Mexican revolution.
So Felipe Calderon and his successors in power find it easier–and safer—to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BILL DE BLASIO, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HISPANICS, HUFFINGTON POST, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEDIA MATTERS, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 28, 2017 at 12:55 am
Donald Trump has promised to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico.
Its purpose: To stop the oncoming waves of illegal immigration from that country–and other poor, strife-torn nations in Central and Latin America.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Skeptics have derided the sheer difficulties of building such a wall. Among these:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
But there is another way that, as President, Trump can attack illegal immigration: By attacking the “sanctuary cities” across the nation that illegally shield violators of Federal immigration laws from arrest.
This would prove far cheaper and more effective than building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
All Trump has to do is cut off Federal funding to those cities which systematically defy the immigration laws of the United States.
And on March 27, his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, threatened to do just that.
“The Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for DOJ grants to certify compliance with [U.S. Code 1373] as a condition of receiving those awards,” said Sessions in a surprise appearance at the White House Briefing Room.
His reference was to a Federal law which says cities cannot prevent federal authorities from enforcing immigration laws.
“Block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funding,” Trump said in August, 2016, when he laid out his immigration plans at a rally in Phoenix. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
New York City, for example, could lose up to $10.4 billion in Federal funding. Its agencies that receive the biggest share of these monies: The Housing Authority, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services.
Mayors from “sanctuary cities” such as New York, Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco have threatened to resist Trump’s threat.
Trump has never held public office, and there is much he has to learn about the difficulties of carrying out his programs. But his experience as a businessman has given him a solid feel for the power of greed and selfishness. And he knows well how to exploit both.
Donald Trump takes the oath of office
By blocking monies to “sanctuary cities,” Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Bill de Blazio and their constituents who depend on those infusions of Federal monies.
In New York, for example, once Federal monies are cut off:
- Legal American citizens won’t be able to obtain assistance for low- and moderate-income families to rent housing in the private market.
- American children needing care for their emotional or medical needs will be denied it.
- Americans wanting to adopt a foster care child will be unable to do so–because there won’t be monies to pay the officials who now staff these agencies.
In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.
And when legal citizens can’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they will quickly become enraged.
At first, many–perhaps most–of the people living in “sanctuary cities” will rush to support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.
But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while Federal monies continue to be blocked.
First they will aim their rage at the local–and elected–officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. And then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by civic officials.
This will be followed by increasing demands by legal–and law-abiding–American citizens for their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.
As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!”
Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.
And those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth: Illegal immigration is against the law–and local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels–including those laws they don’t agree with.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHARLES BOWDEN, CIUDAD JUAREZ, CNN, CORRUPTION, DAILY KOS, DREAM ACT, DRUG LORDS, DRUG TRAFFICKING, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, illegal immigration, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, MURDER CITY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PANCHO VILLA, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, SALON, SLATE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 17, 2017 at 11:00 am
On May 20, 2010, Mexico’s then-President Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of the United States Congress–and attacked the Arizona law that allows law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Felipe Calderon
According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”
And to make certain his audience got the point, he offered: “I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.”
The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words was staggering.
Racial profiling? Consider the popular Latino phrase, “La Raza.”
This literally means “the race” or “the people.” Its meaning varies among Spanish-speaking peoples. In the United States, it’s sometimes used to describe people of Chicano and Mexican descent as well as other Latin American mestizos who share Native American heritage.
It rarely includes entirely European or African descended Hispanic peoples.
So when Latinos say, “The Race,” they’re not talking about “the human race.” They’re talking strictly about their own.
Other races need not apply.
In his lecture, Calderon condemned the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its own borders.
From a purely political viewpoint, it’s makes sense that Calderon didn’t say anything about this.
From a viewpoint of fairness and common sense, his refusal to do so smacks of the vilest hypocrisy.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Calderon also ignored a second well-understood but equally unacknowledged truth: Mexico uses the American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Anyone who doubts the overwhelming need for such reforms need only read Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields.
Written by Investigative Reporter Charles Bowden and published in 2010, Murder City offers a terrifying, almost lethally depressing portrait of what happens when a city–and a country–disintegrates.
Among the casualties of Mexico’s drug-trafficking cartels:
- Mexican police pay big bribes to be assigned to narcotics enforcement squads. The reason: Not to suppress the rampant drug trafficking but to enrich themselves by seizing and selling those narcotics.
- Residents awaken at dawn to find bodies of the drug cartels’ latest victims dumped on streets–their hands, feet and mouths bound with silver and gray duct tape.
- Mexican policewomen are often snatched off the streets and raped–by members of the Mexican Army. Honest policemen–and even police chiefs–are routinely gunned down by cartel members.
- Members of drug cartels live like kings–until violence catches up with them.
- Their bribes and violence have corrupted all branches of the Mexican government, military and police forces.
- Ordinary Mexicans live in grinding poverty, thanks to American factories paying starvation wages
Meanwhile, the Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.
A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution–Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon–died in a hail of bullets.
Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second–and equally bloody–Mexican revolution.
So Felipe Calderon and his successors in power have found it easier–and safer–to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, BILL DE BLASIO, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, SALON, SLATE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 26, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Donald Trump has promised–or threatened, depending on your viewpoint–to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico.
Its purpose: To stop the oncoming waves of illegal immigration from that country–and other poor, strife-torn nations in Central and Latin America.
Illegal aliens crossing the border
Skeptics have derided the sheer difficulties of building such a wall. Among these:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
But there is another way that, as President, Trump can attack illegal immigration: By attacking the “sanctuary cities” across the nation that illegally shield violators of Federal immigration laws from arrest.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
All Trump has to do is cut off Federal funding to those cities which systematically defy the immigration laws of the United States.
This would prove far cheaper and more effective than building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.
And that is precisely what he has threatened to do.
“Block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funding,” Trump said in August when he laid out his immigration plans at a rally in Phoenix. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
One such city is New York, which could lose up to $10.4 billion in Federal funding. Among the city agencies that receive the biggest share of these monies: The New York City Housing Authority, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has openly rejected Trump’s threat: “We’re not going to tear families apart. So we will do everything we know how to do to resist that.”
Mayors from other “sanctuary cities”–such as Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco–have similarly echoed de Blasio’s sentiments.
Trump has never held public office, and there is much he has to learn about the difficulties of carrying out his programs. But his experience as a businessman has given him a solid feel for the power of greed and selfishness. And he knows well how to exploit both.
Donald Trump takes the oath of office
By blocking monies to “sanctuary cities,” Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Bill de Blazio and their constituents who depend on those infusions of Federal monies.
In New York, for example, once Federal monies are cut off:
- Legal United States citizens won’t be able to obtain assistance allowing low- and moderate-income families to rent housing in the private market.
- American children needing care for their mental, emotional or medical needs will be denied it.
- Americans wanting to adopt a child in foster care will be unable to do so, because the monies won’t be there to pay the officials who now staff these agencies.
In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.
And when legal citizens can’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they will quickly become enraged.
At first, many–perhaps most–of the people living in “sanctuary cities” will rush to support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.
But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while Federal monies continue to be blocked.
First they will aim their rage at the local–and elected–officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. And then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by civic officials.
This will be followed by increasing demands by legal–and law-abiding–American citizens for their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.
As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!”
Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.
Those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth:
Illegal immigration is against the law. And local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels–including those laws they don’t agree with.
In the end, Trump will almost certainly win his battle on this. And his victory will give him confidence to press on with the rest of his agenda.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, BILL DE BLASIO, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NPR, POLITICO, SALON, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 30, 2016 at 1:08 am
Donald Trump has promised–or threatened, depending on your viewpoint–to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico.
Its purpose: To stop the oncoming waves of illegal immigration from that country–and other poor, strife-torn nations in Central and Latin America.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Skeptics have derided the sheer difficulties of building such a wall. Among these:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
But there is another way that, as President, Trump can attack illegal immigration: By attacking the “sanctuary cities” across the nation that illegally shield violators of Federal immigration laws from arrest.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
All Trump has to do is cut off Federal funding to those cities which systematically defy the immigration laws of the United States.
This would prove far cheaper and more effective than building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.
And that is precisely what he has threatened to do.
“Block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funding,” Trump said in August when he laid out his immigration plans at a rally in Phoenix. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
One such city is New York, which could lose up to $10.4 billion in Federal funding. Among the city agencies that receive the biggest share of these monies: The New York City Housing Authority, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has openly rejected Trump’s threat: “We’re not going to tear families apart. So we will do everything we know how to do to resist that.”
Mayors from other “sanctuary cities”–such as Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco–have similarly echoed de Blasio’s sentiments.
Trump has never held public office, and there is much he has to learn about the difficulties of carrying out his programs. But his experience as a businessman has given him a solid feel for the power of greed and selfishness. And he knows well how to exploit both.
Donald Trump takes the oath of office
By blocking monies to “sanctuary cities,” Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Bill de Blazio and their constituents who depend on those infusions of Federal monies.
In New York, for example, once Federal monies are cut off:
- Legal United States citizens won’t be able to obtain assistance allowing low- and moderate-income families to rent housing in the private market.
- American children needing care for their mental, emotional or medical needs will be denied it.
- Americans wanting to adopt a child in foster care will be unable to do so, because the monies won’t be there to pay the officials who now staff these agencies.
In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.
And when legal citizens can’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they will quickly become enraged.
At first, many–perhaps most–of the people living in “sanctuary cities” will rush to support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.
But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while Federal monies continue to be blocked.
First they will aim their rage at the local–and elected–officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. And then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by civic officials.
This will be followed by increasing demands by legal–and law-abiding–American citizens for their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.
As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!”
Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.
Those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth:
Illegal immigration is against the law. And local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels–including those laws they don’t agree with.
In the end, Trump will almost certainly win his battle on this. And his victory will give him confidence to press on with the rest of his agenda.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, CHINA, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, DRUG SMUGGLERS, ENGLISH-ONLY VOTING MATERIALS, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, HUMAN SMUGGLERS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, Kamala Harris, MAFIA, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RACIAL PROFILING, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, sanctuary cities, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S.-MEXICAN BORDER, U.S.-MEXICO WALL, USA TODAY, VOTING, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 11, 2016 at 12:38 pm
According to Donald Trump, stopping illegal immigration is easy.
Just build a massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S./Mexican border to keep out Mexican immigrants.
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Really?
Among the obstacles to erecting such a barrier:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and human smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
Click here: Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is ‘easy.’ But is it really? – The Washington Post
There are, in fact, cheaper and more effective remedies for combating illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
As District Attorney for San Francisco (2004-2011 Kamala Harris created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony. It is not the duty of local law enforcement, she said, to enforce Federal immigration laws.
Harris is now California’s Attorney General and will soon be its U.S. Senator.
(3) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(4) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least 20 years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S.-Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers’ luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(5) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of their birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(6) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should Americans.
(7) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish. There is no reason to cater to their hypocrisy.
(8) The United States should vigorously counter the argument that deporting illegal aliens “separates families.” There is absolutely no reason why this should happen. Those American citizens who wish to do so are perfectly free to accompany their illegal relatives to their home countries.
(9) The United States should impose severe economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, AMERICAN NAZI PARTY, ANTI-SEMITISM, ARCHER SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, BARACK OBAMA, BARRY GOLDWATER, BIRTH CONTROL, BLACK LIVES MATTER, CBS NEWS, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, ED MARTIN, FACEBOOK, FLORIDA, FOX BUSINESS, FOX NEWS, GEORGE W. BUSH, GRETCHEN CARLSON, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMAYUN KHAN, IRAQ WAR, JOHN MCCAIN, KATRINA PIERSON, KU KLUX KLAN, LATINOS, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MARCO GUTIERREZ, MEDICAID, MEDICARE, MEXICO, MICHELE BACHMANN, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW YORK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, OMAROSA MANIGAULT, PAUL MANAFORT, PRINCESS DIANA, ROGER AILES, SOCIAL SECURITY, STEPHEN BANNON, TEA PARTY, THE APPRENTICE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE NEW NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, VOTER ID LAWS, VOTING, WAYNE ROOT, WELFARE
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on September 8, 2016 at 1:21 am
In late July, Donald Trump’s new spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, accepted an impossible mission that even Jim Phelps would have turned down:
Convince Americans that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed by a truck-bomb in Iraq in 2004.
Appearing on CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on August 2, Pierson said: “It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagements that probably cost his life.”
Katrina Pierson
Totally ignored in that scenario:
- President George W. Bush lied the nation into a needless war that cost the lives of 4,486 Americans and wounded another 33,226.
- The war began in 2003–and Khan was killed in 2004.
- Barack Obama became President in 2009–almost five years after Khan’s death.
- Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State the same year.
- Obama, elected Illinois U.S. Senator in 2004, vigorously opposed the Iraq war throughout his term.
Pierson’s attempt to rewrite history touched off a frenzy on Twitter, leading to the creation of the hashtag #KatrinaPiersonHistory. Its purpose: To mock Pierson’s revisionist take on history.
Among the tweets offered:
- Hillary Clinton slashed funding for security at the Ford Theater, leading to Lincoln’s assassination.
- Obama gave Amelia Earhart directions to Kenya.
- Remember the Alamo? Obama and Hillary let it happen.
- Obama and Clinton kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
Not content with blaming President Obama for the death of a man he never sent into combat, Pierson claimed that Obama started the Afghanistan war.
Appearing again on CNN, Pierson said the Afghan war began “after 2007,” when Al Qaeda “was in ashes” following the American troop surge in Iraq.
“Remember, we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time,” Pierson said. “Barack Obama went into Afghanistan, creating another problem.”
In fact, President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Millions of Americans who lived through 9/11 remember that.
When your spokeswoman becomes a nationwide laughingstock, your own credibility goes down the toilet as well.
In July an Associated Press/GfK poll found that half of Americans saw Donald Trump as “racist”–and only 7% of blacks viewed him favorably.
There are numerous reasons for this:
- His enthusiastic support by racist white supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.
- His “birther” attacks on President Obama as a non-citizen from Kenya–and thus ineligible to hold the Presidency.
- His attacks on the Black Lives Matter movement and calling on his supporters at rallies to rough up minority protesters.
Since 1964, blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Democratic Presidential candidates. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s won their loyalty with his support for and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
President Johnson signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater opposed it–as did the majority of his party.
Since 1964, fewer than six percent of blacks have voted for Republican Presidential candidates. Whites have not only remained the majority of Republican voters but have become the single most important voting bloc among them.
John McCain received four percent of black votes in 2008 and Mitt Romney received six percent in 2012. When a Republican collapses into single digits among blacks and other minorities, it reduces the number of white votes a Democrat needs to win the presidency.
To counter this, Donald Trump has turned to his Director of African-American Outreach: Omarosa Manigault.
Trump made the appointment just hours before the first night of the Republican National Convention.
Omarosa Manigault
Manigault is best known as the villain of Trump’s reality-TV show, “The Apprentice”–where she was fired on three different seasons. Her credentials include a Ph.D. in communications, a preacher’s license, and topping TV Guide’s list of greatest reality TV villains in 2008.
During the Clinton administration she held four jobs in two years, and was thoroughly disliked in all of them.
“She was asked to leave [her last job] as quickly as possible, she was so disruptive,” said Cheryl Shavers, the former Under Secretary for Technology at the Commerce Department. “One woman wanted to slug her.”
In her role as Trump’s ambassador to blacks, Omarosa has inspired others to want to slug her. Appearing on Fox Business, she ignored Fox panelist Tamera Holder’s question on why blacks should support Trump,and then mocked her “big boobs.”
Manigault isn’t bothered that blacks regard Trump so poorly in polls: “My reality is that I’m surrounded by people who want to see Donald Trump as the next president of the United States who are African-American.”
Appointing as your public relations director a woman who gratuitously insults and infuriates people is not the move of a smart administrator. Nor the move of a smart Presidential candidate.
If Donald Trump becomes President, he will inherit the authority to appoint thousands of officials to domestic and foreign agencies. Voters have a right to judge him on the quality of the appointments he has already made to his own campaign.
A review of those named within this series gives serious cause for concern.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, AMERICAN NAZI PARTY, ANTI-SEMITISM, ARCHER SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, BARACK OBAMA, BARRY GOLDWATER, BIRTH CONTROL, BLACK LIVES MATTER, CBS NEWS, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, ED MARTIN, FACEBOOK, FLORIDA, FOX BUSINESS, FOX NEWS, GEORGE W. BUSH, GRETCHEN CARLSON, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMAYUN KHAN, IRAQ WAR, JOHN MCCAIN, KATRINA PIERSON, KU KLUX KLAN, LATINOS, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MARCO GUTIERREZ, MEDICAID, MEDICARE, MEXICO, MICHELE BACHMANN, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW YORK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, OMAROSA MANIGAULT, PAUL MANAFORT, PRINCESS DIANA, ROGER AILES, SOCIAL SECURITY, STEPHEN BANNON, TEA PARTY, THE APPRENTICE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE NEW NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, VOTER ID LAWS, VOTING, WAYNE ROOT, WELFARE
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on September 7, 2016 at 12:18 am
Even the Secret Service can’t protect Donald Trump from the notoriety of his supporters.
The current manager of Trump’s Presidential campaign is Stephen Bannon, who’s under fire for anti-Semitic remarks and having been registered to vote at a vacant house in Florida.
But before Bannon signed on, his predecessor was Paul Manafort, whom Trump hired to add stability to his often scattershot campaign.
Paul Manafort
For Trump, Manafort came with a dangerous liability: His longstanding ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine–which inevitably led to Vladimir Putin.
For years, Manafort worked for Viktor Yanukovych, a Putin protege who was deposed as Ukraine’s president in 2014 amid widespread demonstrations.
In August, the New York Times unearthed handwritten ledgers that listed $12.7 million in cash payments to Manafort from Yanukovych’s political party between 2007 and 2012.
Trump’s own ties to Putin were already facing increasing scrutiny for a number of reasons:
- Trump’s and Putin’s public expressions of admiration for each other’s toughness.
- The removal from the Republican party platform, written at the convention in Cleveland in July, of references to arming Ukraine in its fight against pro-Russian rebels who have been armed by the Kremlin.
- In July, high-ranking Democratic officials–including presumptive Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton–were embarrassed by a hack of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails. This was quickly traced to Russian hackers allegedly working on behalf of the Kremlin. Their alleged motive: To tip the election in favor of Trump.
- Trump drew more suspicion upon himself by inviting Russia to find 30,000 emails deleted from the private server used by Clinton while she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration: “I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
Added to Manafort’s embarrassing ties to Russia was another minus: He and Trump didn’t get along. Trump had begun calling him “low energy”–a term he once aimed at his former GOP rival, Jeb Bush.
Manafort wanted Trump to bring more self-discipline to the campaign and concentrate his fire solely on his Presidential rival, Hillary Clinton. Instead, in late July, Trump ignited a days-long feud with members of a Gold Star family, costing him support within the veterans community.
Manafort also wanted Trump to establish a conventional chain-of-command organization typical of a Presidential campaign. But Trump resisted, preferring to improvise and rely on his instincts and the counsel of his family.
In late August, Trump fired him.
Foreign policy nearly always plays a major role in Presidential elections. Yet Trump has shown a surprising lack of respect for a detailed knowledge of it.
Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he consults about foreign policy, Trump replied; “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.”
In late August, former Republican Congresswoman (2007-2015) Michele Bachmann claimed that she was now advising Trump on foreign policy.
Michele Bachmann
A member of the Right-wing Tea Party, Bachmann has said that diplomacy “is our option” in dealing with Iran–but wouldn’t rule out a nuclear strike.
Among the statements she’s made:
- “I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?'”
- “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”
- “President Obama waived a ban on arming terrorists in order to allow weapons to go to the Syrian opposition….U.S. taxpayers are now paying to give arms to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda.”
- “I’m a believer in Jesus Christ. As I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end time history.”
A woman who believes that God causes earthquakes and hurricanes, and that mankind has arrived at “End Times,” can hardly be a comfort to rational voters.
Another Trump adviser is former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. His assignment: Prepare Trump for the upcoming fall debates with Clinton.
But Ailes comes with huge notoriety: In July he was fired from Fox News on multiple charges of sexual harassment.
At first, only Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson dared accuse him. But then more than two dozen women came forward to accuse Ailes of sexual harassment.
On September 6, Carlson reached an out-of-court settlement with the parent company of Fox News for a reported $20 million.
At least two other women have settled with Fox, an anonymous source told the New York Times. And others may be planning to file lawsuits.
All of which makes Ailes the poster boy for sexual harassment.
Trump has been married three times and has often boasted of his sexual conquests–including ones he believes he could have had.
(Shortly after the 1997 death of Princess Diana, he told a radio interviewer he could have “nailed” her if he had wanted to.)
In a mid-March CNN/ORC poll, 73% of female voters voiced a negative view of Trump. Associating with a notorious sexual harasser like Roger Ailes can only do even more damage to his candidacy.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, AMERICAN NAZI PARTY, ANTI-SEMITISM, ARCHER SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, BARACK OBAMA, BARRY GOLDWATER, BIRTH CONTROL, BLACK LIVES MATTER, CBS NEWS, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, ED MARTIN, FACEBOOK, FLORIDA, FOX BUSINESS, FOX NEWS, GEORGE W. BUSH, GRETCHEN CARLSON, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMAYUN KHAN, IRAQ WAR, JOHN MCCAIN, KATRINA PIERSON, KU KLUX KLAN, LATINOS, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MARCO GUTIERREZ, MEDICAID, MEDICARE, MEXICO, MICHELE BACHMANN, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW YORK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, OMAROSA MANIGAULT, PAUL MANAFORT, PRINCESS DIANA, ROGER AILES, SOCIAL SECURITY, STEPHEN BANNON, TEA PARTY, THE APPRENTICE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE NEW NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, VOTER ID LAWS, VOTING, WAYNE ROOT, WELFARE
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on September 6, 2016 at 12:08 am
“The first impression that one gets of a ruler and his brains is from seeing the men that he has about him.
“When they are competent and loyal one can always consider him wise, as he has been able to recognize their ability and keep them faithful.
“But when they are the reverse, one can always form an unfavorable opinion of him, because the first mistake that he makes is in making this choice.”
So wrote the Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli more than 500 years ago in his famous treatise on politics, The Prince.
And his words remain as true in our day as they were in his.
Niccolo Machiavelli
They are especially important to remember when evaluating Donald Trump’s talents as an administrator.
In pursuing the Presidency, he is seeking the most powerful office in the world, one that would give him authority to appoint thousands of officials to domestic and foreign agencies.
Consider some of those he has placed around him in his campaign for President:
Founder of Latinos for Trump Marco Gutierrez told MSNBC’s Joy Reid: “My culture is a very dominant culture. And it’s imposing, and it’s causing problems. If you don’t do something about it, you’re gonna have taco trucks every corner.”
At a Tea Party for Trump rally at a Harley-Davidson dealership in Festus, Missouri, former Missouri Republican Party director Ed Martin reassured the crowd that they’re not racist for hating Mexicans: “Donald Trump is for Americans first.
“He’s for us first. It is not selfish to support, or to be for, your neighbor, as opposed to someone from another nation. And Mexico, Mexicans, that’s not a race. You’re not racist if you don’t like Mexicans. They’re from a nation.”
From the outset of his Presidential campaign, Trump has polled extremely poorly among Hispanic voters. This is perfectly understandable, given his comments about Mexicans as:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
Trump has also promised to “build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”
Donald Trump
These comments made Trump the winner of the Republican primaries, where voters always nominate the most extreme Rightist candidate.
But the general election phrase requires Republican and Democratic candidates to appeal to both their base and beyond it. As a result, Trump is now desperate to attract the votes of Hispanics.
Comments such as those by Marco Gutierrez and Ed Martin guarantee this won’t happen.
Wayne Root, opening speaker and master of ceremonies at many Trump events, told Virginia radio host Rob Schilling that people on public assistance and women who get their birth control through Obamacare should not be allowed to vote:
“If the people who paid the taxes were the only ones allowed to vote, we’d [Republicans] have landslide victories. But you’re allowing people to vote. This explains everything! People with conflict of interest shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If you collect welfare, you have no right to vote.
“The day you get off welfare, you get your voting rights back. The reality is, why are you allowed to have this conflict of interest that you vote for the politician who wants to keep your welfare checks coming and your food stamps and your aid to dependent children and your free health care and your Medicaid, your Medicare and your Social Security and everything else?”
Wayne Root
According to a March Gallup poll, 70% of women–or seven in 10–have an unfavorable opinion of Trump.
Such comments as Root’s aren’t going to increase Trump’s popularity with them. Nor with anyone who receives Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security.
Donald Trump’s new campaign manager, Stephen Bannon, was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery, and dissuading a witness in 1996, after an altercation with his then-wife, Mary Louise Piccard, in Santa Monica, California.
Picard also said in a 2007 court declaration that Bannon didn’t want their twin daughters attending the Archer School for Girls in Los Angeles because many Jewish students were enrolled there.
Stephen Bannon
Not only is this certain to lose Trump votes among women, it will make him unpopular among Jews. A campaign manager charged with anti-Semitism could cost Trump heavily Jewish states like New York and Florida.
In addition: Bannon and another ex-wife, Diane Clohesy, were registered to vote at a vacant house in Florida, a possible violation of election laws in a key swing state.
Republicans have vigorously denied voting rights to tens of thousands on the pretext of “voter fraud.” More than a dozen states still have voting restrictions in place since 2012.
A Washington Post investigation found just 31 credible cases of voter fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of an estimated 1 billion ballots cast in the U.S. during that period.
Meanwhile, voting rights groups have been fighting back–and winning.
“Voter ID” laws in Texas, Wisconsin and North Carolina have been found discriminatory against minorities–who traditionally vote Democratic.
With evidence of Republican fraud like that supplied by Trump’s own campaign manager, victories against “Voter ID” laws may well increase.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, RACIAL PROFILING, sanctuary cities, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 30, 2016 at 10:46 pm
According to Donald Trump, stopping illegal immigration is easy.
Just build a massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S./Mexican border to keep out Mexican immigrants.
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Really?
Among the obstacles to erecting such a barrier:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and emcompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and human smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
Click here: Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is ‘easy.’ But is it really? – The Washington Post
There are, in fact, cheaper and more effective remedies for combating illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(4) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least 20 years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S.-Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers’ luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(5) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of their birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(6) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should Americans.
(7) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish. There is no reason to cater to their hypocrisy.
(8) The United States should vigorously counter the argument that deporting illegal aliens “separates families.” There is absolutely no reason why this should happen. Those American citizens who wish to do so are perfectly free to accompany their illegal relatives to their home countries.
(9) The United States should impose severe economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DREAM ACT, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PANCHO VILLA, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SERGIO GARCIA, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, USA TODAY, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
ILLEGAL ALIENS CAN BE LEGAL EAGLES–IN CALIFORNIA
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 1, 2017 at 12:08 amOn January 2, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted a law license to a man illegally living in the United States.
The decision allowed Sergio Garcia to begin practicing law even though his mere presence was a blatant violation of American immigration laws.
Garcia arrived in the U.S. illegally in 1994 to pick almonds with his father and worked at a grocery store and in the fields while attending school.
He graduated from Cal Northern School of Law in 2009 and passed the bar exam.
Garcia was not a citizen, nor even a legal resident.
But that didn’t stop him from challenging a 1996 Federal law that forbids state agencies to extend public benefits—including professional licenses—to those who are illegally in the country.
The headline for this story in the liberal Huffington Post read: “California Supreme Court Grants Law License to Undocumented Immigrant Sergio Garcia.”
California Supreme Court
The headline could just have accurately read: “California Supreme Court Allows Illegal Alien to Legally Practice Law.”
But “illegal alien” is—for all its accuracy—Politically Incorrect. Instead, those who defend the wanton violating of American immigration laws prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.”
As though at one time these lawbreakers had valid citizenship documents but somehow lost them during their swim across the Rio Grande.
Of course, Mexican politicians are quick to accuse Americans of racism if they dare to enforce their own immigration laws.
Consider the lecture that then-Mexican President Felipe Calderon gave a joint session of Congress on May 20, 2010.
Calderon attacked the Arizona law that allowed law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Felipe Calderon
According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”
Racial profiling? Consider the popular Latino phrase, “La Raza.”
This literally means “the race” or “the people.” In the United States, it’s sometimes used to describe people of Chicano and Mexican descent as well as other Latin American mestizos who share Native American heritage.
It rarely includes entirely European or African descended Hispanic peoples.
So when Latinos say, “The Race,” they’re not talking about “the human race.” They’re talking strictly about their own.
In his lecture, Calderon condemned the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its borders.
The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words was staggering.
From a purely political viewpoint, it’s makes sense that Calderon didn’t say anything about this. From a viewpoint of fairness and common sense, his refusal to do so smacked of the vilest hypocrisy.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
The law also ensures that:
Calderon also ignored a second, well-understood but equally unacknowledged truth: Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
The Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.
A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution—Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon—died in a hail of bullets.
Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second–and equally bloody–Mexican revolution.
So Felipe Calderon and his successors in power find it easier–and safer—to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
Share this: