2020 Dems Plan Deportation Freeze

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

This is why we need to reelect President Trump in 2020.

We need President Trump tp keep our border closed and make the border safe.

‘The result would basically be open borders,’ expert says.

Multiple 2020 Democrats have voiced interest in or support for a freeze on deportation of illegal immigrants, a move that immigration expert Jessica Vaughn said would effectively put an end to border enforcement.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), and former Obama administration official Julián Castro have all backed either suspending deportations or dismantling detention facilities for those caught crossing the border. In fiscal year 2019, a wave of unauthorized immigrants at the southwestern border led to what U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has called a “humanitarian crisis.” Loosened enforcement would likely exacerbate this situation, according to Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“A moratorium on deportations would cause chaos in the immigration system and prevent ICE from removing even the worst of the worst criminal aliens that are the bulk of its case load,” Vaughn told the Washington Free Beacon. “The result is basically open borders.”

Speaking Friday at a forum hosted by the Latino activist group Mijente, Warren said that she is “open to suspending deportations, particularly as a way to push Congress for comprehensive immigration reform.” She added that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “focusing on people who do not pose a threat” and does not “make this country safer.”

Other 2020 Democrats have made similar proposals. In his immigration plan, Sanders promises to, on his first day in office, “put a moratorium on deportations until a thorough audit of current and past practices and policies is complete.” Castro’s plan did not call for a moratorium, but did propose to dismantle immigration detention and restructure ICE.

If implemented, such policies would allow tens of thousands of individuals with standing deportation orders to remain in the country. In fiscal year 2019 alone, immigration judges granted more than 186,000 deportation orders, nearly six times the number of orders they rejected. In fact, in 2019 ICE asked for the deportation of even more people—more than 440,000—contributing to the immigration court system’s million-person backlog.

The result of halting deportations would be an immigration system asked to care for many more people than current detention centers can contain. A moratorium would force the administration to consider the release of even violent criminal offenders slated for deportation, according to Vaughn.

“The detention centers would quickly fill up, and ICE would have to start releasing some of these people, or Congress would have to provide additional funding for detention space,” she said. “ICE would basically become a detention agency instead of a deportation agency, and that strikes me as something that Elizabeth Warren would not be in favor of, except these cases are so egregious because she couldn’t really order them to be released either.”

The “egregious” cases might include unauthorized criminal offenders apprehended by ICE. Such apprehensions usually follow an individual’s arrest by local law enforcement and referral to federal officials. In fiscal year 2018, of the 256,000 illegal immigrants deported from the United States, 145,000—roughly 57 percent—were “convicted criminal illegal immigrants.” Among the tens of thousands still awaiting deportation are criminals charged with drug trafficking, sex offenses, and weapons charges.

A deportation moratorium would also likely lead to an increase in illegal immigration, as would-be border crossers discover they could expect to be apprehended and then released into the United States, rather than being detained in already overflowing detention facilities. The resulting wave, Vaughn said, would likely dwarf the nearly one million people who attempted to cross the border illegally in the last fiscal year.

“It would set off levels of illegal immigration that would make the current border crisis look like a picnic,” she said. “Word would get around so fast that there are no deportations that obviously everyone would take advantage of that.”

Advertisements

Nikki Haley Was Approached To Help ‘Deep State’… Told Them To Pound Sand

H/T Clash Daily.

My question is why didn’t Nikki Haley share this information with President Trump.

If what she’s saying is true, there have been some high-ranking government employees more interested in pushing their own agenda than they were in accomplishing the President’s mandate.

And these guys are about as close to the hub of power as you get.

The President’s own Chief of Staff, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were, Haley claims, directly working to undermine Trump.

The press will likely celebrate them as heroes for trying to rid the world of a Trump Presidency … but imagine their reaction if someone had done it during Obama’s tenure, say, in reaction to his drone strikes on US citizens, or giving guns to the cartels in Fast and Furious, or weaponizing the IRS against Tea Party groups, or having Senator’s computers hacked, or American journalists surveilled, or…

They would be outraged. And they would have ever reason to be outraged. There is a correct way to oppose a president when you think he’s done the wrong thing. Insubordination is NOT that way.

Haley was the president’s voice on issues that still dominate the headlines: Russian aggression in Ukraine, North Korea’s nuclear program, and the Syrian civil war. But her battles at the U.N. were rivaled by battle for control within the White House.

Haley recounts a closed-door encounter with then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: “Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country … Tillerson went on to tell me the reason he resisted the president’s decisions was because, if he didn’t, people would die. This was how high the stakes were, he and Kelly told me. We are doing the best we can do to save the country, they said. We need you to work with us and help us do it. This went on for over an hour.”

O’Donnell asked, “You memorialized that conversation? It definitely happened?”

“It absolutely happened,” said Haley. “And instead of saying that to me, they should’ve been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan. It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing. And it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what the American people want. And it was offensive.”

[We asked them to respond. John Kelly tells “Sunday Morning”: “If by resistance and stalling she means putting a staff process in place … to ensure the (president) knew all the pros and cons of what policy decision he might be contemplating so he could make an informed decision, then guilty as charged.”]
— Source: CBS

Remember all that ‘chaos’ that was reportedly brewing in Trump’s White House? That wasn’t the ineptitude the Media would have had us believe, that was insurrection.

Pelosi Throws the Haymaker Punch That Will Cost Democrats the White House and Congress in 2020

H/T Western Journal.

Nancy Pelosi(Delusional-CA)is doing her best to help elect a super Republican Majority in both houses and reelect President Trump in a landslide.

Ever since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi uttered into existence the “official impeachment inquiry” on Sept. 24, 2019, Republicans had been demanding the full House vote on a resolution specifically authorizing, as the House had done in the impeachments of former presidents, and establishing fair rules for it.

Weeks later, Pelosi announced she was giving Republicans what they wanted. But, on Halloween Day, Republicans got a trick instead of a treat.

Democrats passed H.R.660, which simply resolved that the House committees continue doing what they were doing and proposed some rules going forward that are far from fair for the man Democrats have accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

In addition to punting on the request for a specific authorization, the resolution denies President Trump some basic rules of fairness.

It gives Democrats veto power over Republicans’ use of the subpoena while placing no limit on Democrats’. It requires House Republicans to submit their witness list to the Democratic committee chairmen for approval with no similar requirement on Democrats. It does not afford the president the right to counsel in the House Intelligence Committee where the bulk of the impeachment proceedings have occurred and will resume. It authorizes the continued use of the top-secret Intelligence Committee even though this has nothing to do with national security and that committee is not intended for and has never been used for impeachments before.

The resolution does require the Intelligence Committee to designate “open hearings,” which have now been scheduled. But because the resolution fails to provide the president with a right to counsel in the Intelligence Committee, these hearings will occur without the president’s counsel and thus deny him the right and ability to defend himself.

Furthermore, Pelosi’s H.R.660 doesn’t undo the damage that’s already been done.

For over a month now Democrats have held closed-door impeachment proceedings without the presence of the president’s attorneys while refusing to allow Republicans the right to call their own witnesses and present their own evidence and, in some cases, limiting Republicans’ right to cross-examine the Democrats’ witnesses.

In what were supposed to be top-secret proceedings, Democrats released the opening statements of certain witnesses and leaked out testimony they believed to be favorable to them, again, while denying the president the right to even participate.

H.R.660 does not and cannot undo nearly a month of secret, one-sided work done by House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee.

Pelosi’s chicanery involving the impeachment vote is nothing new to House Democrats. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff infamously kicked off the “inquiry” by making up words Trump allegedly said during his telephone call with the Ukrainian president.

Because the transcript of the call, and the statements of the Ukrainians themselves, revealed there was no crime, Schiff had to make it up.

Schiff’s fabrication is reminiscent of the former head of the secret police in the Soviet Union, Lavrentiy Beria’s, famous boast, “You bring me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” But over a month into the “official” impeachment inquiry, and many months into the unofficial one, Democrats still have not shown us the crime.

Rest assured, if the president had committed a high crime or misdemeanor Democrats would have put the name of that crime in neon lights on top of the Capitol Building.

Instead, Pelosi went on the late-night talk show of the left-wing Stephen Colbert and tried to explain why she’s impeaching the president. She giggled, laughed and repeatedly said it’s “about the Constitution,” while boasting that she’s “throwing a punch for the children.”

She also stated solemnly that, “No one is above the law,” but then failed to identify what law the president violated. In short, even though she has no evidence of any crime, Pelosi has the power, so she’ll throw the punch.

To add a veneer of legality, she claimed the president “violated his oath.” Whatever that means, it will be enough to impeach in the House. That’s because Democrats have the majority and are licking their chops to take out this president who beat them in 2016.

There is a historical precedent for impeaching a president for non-criminal conduct, however. Former President Andrew Johnson, who like Trump was despised by the opposition party and the media, was impeached by the House for various non-criminal acts, i.e. “high misdemeanors” in the parlance of the Constitution.

But here’s the rub. Pelosi knows her impeachment will die in the U.S. Senate just like Johnson’s and Clinton’s did.

Yet she’ll use these impeachment proceedings, as the country moves into the 2020 presidential re-election, to land as many punches against the president as she can.

Her performance on “The Late Show” reveals the truth.

She’s got nothing. But her impeachment inquiry, although a joke and political stunt to her, is being taken with the utmost seriousness by the president’s 62 million loyal supporters.

Each punch Pelosi throws at Trump hits half of America — the half that put Trump in the White House and kept Congress in the hands of the Republicans in 2016.

And now, thanks to this impeachment, it will happen again.

In the end, Pelosi’s punch will go down in history as one of the biggest haymakers that missed its mark and ended up knocking out her own political party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Cheers for Refugee Reduction

H/T Town Hall.

President Trump promised to reduce immigration and promise kept.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump approved a new annual refugee cap of 18,000, the lowest since the U.S. program began in 1980. The reduction follows news that America took a pause last month and refused to admit any new refugees. On economic, public safety and national security grounds, this is a very good thing for the 325 million people already in our country. But you wouldn’t know it from the grim headlines and hysterical condemnations by globalist zealots and media sympathizers.

CNN International led the open borders funeral procession last week, with a report decrying, “No refugees will be resettled in the US in October, leaving hundreds in limbo around the world.” U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., hyperventilated that “Donald Trump is trying to destroy the very heart of this nation. I won’t let him.” Social justice group CARE bemoaned this “dark moment in our nation’s history.” Human Rights First complained that Trump’s proposal is “crippling the United States’ status as a global leader in refugee resettlement.”

Heaven forbid citizens in a sovereign nation have an effective say in who comes here, from where and how many. Is one refugee-less month in America such a catastrophe? Calm down, Chicken Littles. Get some perspective.

It is most certainly true that America has a legacy of embracing people from around the world fleeing persecution and war. After World War II, the U.S. helped lead efforts to assist 650,000 displaced Europeans who had fled in fear, were expelled and were victims of Nazi crimes and terror. Congress passed the 1948 Displaced Persons Act to accommodate them. Five years later, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 aided refugees from Italy and East Germany escaping Communist regimes, adding another 250,000 refugees over four years. In the 1950s and 1960s, we welcomed Hungarians, Cubans and Czechoslovakians also escaping Communist oppression. In the 1970s, we opened our doors to an estimated 300,000 political refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The Refugee Act of 1980 created the Office of Refugee Resettlement and office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and raised the annual ceiling of admissions to 50,000.

Under Obama, that number soared to nearly 100,000 annually. The idea that we’ve abandoned our humanitarian leadership role because of this refugee resettlement reduction is ludicrous. Overall, since 1975, the U.S. has resettled more than 3 million refugees. Under Trump, the U.S. still accepted more refugees than any other country in both 2017 and 2018. On top of that, America forked over nearly $1.6 billion to support the U.N.’s refugee resettlement campaign. Moreover, America remains the largest single country provider of humanitarian assistance worldwide. Total U.S. humanitarian assistance was more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2017, covering food, shelter, health care and access to clean water for millions.

That’s enough.

Past refugee admissions don’t lock America into those same levels now or in the future. America’s constitutional duty is to Americans first (“ourselves and our posterity”). The truth is that we’ve been generous to a ruinous, open borders fault. Last year, the Federation for American Immigration Reform tallied refugee resettlement costs to taxpayers at nearly $9 billion over five years.

In my adopted home state of Colorado, a new University of Colorado Boulder study acknowledged that refugees are often “trapped in chronic poverty” after resettlement subsidies dry up and are unable to lift themselves out of dependency on government aid such as public housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Federal statistics show that nearly half of all refugee households receive cash welfare. Chain migration perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

A tiny cabal of government contractors, mostly religious groups cloaking their profit-seeking in compassion and Scripture, perpetuates the refugee resettlement racket. Openly hostile to American sovereignty, these people spread their tax-subsidized syndicate’s wealth to a vast network of subcontractors, often tied to billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, which promote global governance and unfettered migration espoused by the United Nations, European Union and Vatican. These special interests have systematically blurred the lines between legitimate refugees seeking asylum from oppression and economic migrants from Central America clamoring for higher wages or better welfare benefits. They’re indifferent to the national security risks of absorbing large numbers of Muslims whose adherence to repressive sharia and religious jihad is utterly incompatible with our constitutional principles.

Mass migration champions have stretched the definition of refugee so thin that “climate change refugees” seeking relief from uninhabitable environments are now a phenomenon. Nuts. Doesn’t America have enough residents in need of shelter and support? If we let in millions of “climate change refugees,” where do Americans seek refuge when they render our climate uninhabitable?

Only a complete moratorium on immigration would give America the break it needs to regain control of our system. Trump’s refugee reduction is not an apocalypse. It’s a long overdue respite from the world’s wretched refuse that deserves cheers, not jeers.

 

BREAKING REPORT: Hillary Clinton Considering Getting In Presidential Race As Dems Panic

H/T Right Wing Tribune.

Hillary is living in a fantasy world were she beat President Trump in 2016 and she can beat him again in 2020.

Democrats are looking at their field of candidates to take on President Donald Trump and are coming to the conclusion that they are in trouble.

With former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at the front of the pack there is talk about who else could get in and save the Party, The New York Times reported.

When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked.

But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race — but could be lured in.

Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor?

One person even mused whether Michelle Obama would consider a late entry, according to two people who attended the event, which was hosted by the progressive group American Bridge.

“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?’” Leah Daughtry, a Democrat who has run two conventions, said.

“There’s more anxiety than ever,”  journalist and wife of Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Connie Schultz said to The Times.

“We’re both getting the calls. I’ve been surprised by some who’ve called me,” she said of the people calling them to get in the primary.

Former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said that there was real concerns over Biden’s lack of fundraising and management of funds.

“Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary — but that they were skeptical there would be an opening, according to Democrats who have spoken with them,” The Times said.

“Former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who associates say has wondered aloud about whether he should have run and has found it hard to watch Mr. Biden’s missteps, has also been urged to get in.

“But he still thinks the former vice president, who was once his longtime Senate colleague, is the party’s best nominee.

“Another Obama administration official who weighed a campaign at the start of the year, former Attorney General Eric Holder, is considering a last-minute entry but has conceded it may be too late, according to a Democrat familiar with his thinking,” it said.

Those who have spoken to Hillary Clinton say that she has the same concerns about the Party’s front runners but that she would only get into the race if Biden was severely weakend.

But it is hard to ignore the numerous media appearances and Twitter wars she has been involved in for the past month.

If she were to enter the primary campaign, after there have been debates, it would be interesting to see what the Democrat voters think.

A Tale of Two Fingers

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

When former Gov.Jan Brewer(R-AZ)pointed her finger at former President Obama(Delusional-IL)it was racist and disrespectful.

But when Speaker Pelosi(Delusional-CA)points her finger at President Trump(R-NY) she was giving it to the President while in a room full of men.

Media praise Nancy Pelosi for mimicking Jan Brewer’s ‘racist’ gesture.

Waving your finger at the president of the United States is disrespectful only if the president is a Democrat, according to members of the media.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) received positive coverage when she and other Democratic leaders stormed out of a meeting with President Donald Trump. Trump later tweeted a picture from the meeting that showed Pelosi standing and pointing her finger at the president. Cable news anchors and reporters appeared to be enthralled with the “iconic” photo. They described Pelosi as “giving it to the president of the United States” and stressed how she was “standing in a room full of men.”

When former Arizona governor Jan Brewer wagged her finger at former president Barack Obama, the incident was portrayed as “disrespectful” and a political stunt to sell more books. The Republican governor met Obama on a tarmac in 2012, where the two were seen in a tense conversation. An infamous photo was taken, showing Brewer pointing a finger in the president’s face. The narrative surrounding this photo was not about a strong female leader standing up to a man, but about a racist attack on the Oval Office.

“All that many saw in that famous photograph was a white woman wagging her finger at the first black president,” former CNN anchor Jack Cafferty said.

“The idea that someone could do that to the president is so off-putting,” MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart said of Brewer’s behavior.

“Even if you don’t like someone, you don’t do that,” CNN anchor Don Lemon said.

Brewer herself acknowledged the difference in the media coverage between her and Pelosi.

Jan Brewer

@GovBrewer

The news media hails @SpeakerPelosi as a hero for pointing her finger at @POTUS @realDonaldTrump but when I stood up to @BarackObama I was vilified as rude and racist. Such Hypocrites!

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
56K people are talking about this

 

 

WHOOPS: Fake News NBC Apologizes For Botched POTUS Quote That Made Him Seem Uncaring

H/T Clash Daily.

Fake News NBC actually admitted they misquoted President Trump.

Is the end of the world near?

Do you ever wonder why do none of these ‘mistakes’ ever accidentally paint the President in too POSITIVE of a light. Could it be that they aren’t really mistakes?

After a long series of foreign policy successes that even the Media(D) couldn’t spin into failures, the Media(D) thinks they see an opportunity with the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds.

It was the perfect lose-lose situation for them. If he had left US troops in harm’s way, he would have been denounced for recklessly throwing away the lives of US citizens… and for what?

If he realized those troops would not serve as a deterrent to a long-telegraphed move against Turkey’s regional rivals (seen by the Turks as ‘terrorists’), and he moved them out, he could be scapegoated as failing to protect the Kurds.

This is the media’s favorite game to play with Republicans. It’s a foreign policy ‘Do you still beat your wife scenario.

The left is quick to shout any sort of bad news that frames his decisions as a failure, and sometimes they won’t even vet it, first.

We reported on years-old footage from USA that was supposedly a Turkish attack on Syria. We’ve seen a woman claiming her small child had been killed — even though that child was seen to be blinking on camera.

Dems, including some 2020 wannabees, rushed to pin that (still-living) child’s blood on Trump’s hands.

And now, here’s another example.

Here is NBC’s original tweet. Notice the tone of ambivalence to the cost of human lives that is implied in it.

Here’s the correction… if you can call it that. (The damage of the original tweet, after all, is already done.)

That’s a pretty important distinction, don’t you think?

What do we predict any honest observer of this pattern will be saying in response?

That, or they’ll join the movement of youth cutting their cable completely.