Don’t Back Down on Border Security

from the Resurgent:

Stand Fast, Mr. President

Democrats across America are currently declaring racist the very policies they supported under Barack Obama. It was not racist or immoral when he decided to add border barriers. It was not racist or immoral when George W. Bush did. It was not racist or immoral when Bill Clinton did. But Democrats are so invested in believing the worst about President Trump that they are willing to reject the very policies they supported only a few years ago. read more

WND Exclusive – ANOTHER COMPROMISE PLAN FOR THE WALL

by: Brent Smith for World Net Daily:

I’ve heard many conservative commentators and pundits speaking about Trump’s national emergency powers and how he should use them.

Top of the list appears to be this scenario.

Negotiations, if you can even call them that, have gone nowhere. So, it’s posited, Trump will appear to back down and agree to end the shutdown – after which he will then invoke his presidential authority under the 1976 National Emergencies Act, [50 U.S.C. 1601, 1621, 1622] and declare a national emergency on the border, secure funding from a number of government sources and get the wall built.

Rather, Trump should declare an emergency prior to signing an agreement to end the government shutdown. Anything less would be ill-advised. read more

Witless Jim Acosta Makes Trump’s Border Barrier Argument for Him

Jim Acosta makes Trump point a border walls/fences, etc! Question is – does he know how foolish he looks, or is it a case of bad press is better than none at all.

from the American Spectator:

You must first watch this brief one-minute video clip.

[Rather than make you link to Big Jim’s Twitter page, here’s the clip]:

read more

Congress Already Granted Trump the Power to Build the Wall

from Conservative Review:

Yes, the president has the authority to build the wall

Presidents are free to deploy our troops to 140 countries without congressional authorization and build all sorts of wall and infrastructure in these countries, yet we are told a president can’t take a basic defensive action to repel an invasion of our own country: the construction of a wall twice authorized and even mandated by Congress. In reality, while it would be better for Congress to explicitly fund a new wall, the president is right to leverage the debate by threatening to use power Congress has already delegated to at least begin constructing portions of the wall. Whether we agree with such delegation or not, there is no more appropriate situation in which it should be used than with our own border. read more

Trump Can Use his Veto Pen and Bully Pulpit to End Illegal Immigration

The question is…will he?

from Conservative Review:

The American taxpayer is ALWAYS the Forgotten Man — especially in the immigration fight

The president will never have as much leverage or a better impetus for a budget fight than he does now. Will he finally demand action and use his veto for leverage?

On December 8, the government will face its final budget deadline with Republicans in control of the trifecta of government. A budget, at its core, is an expression of our values. There is no greater value more relevant to this budget deadline than protecting the taxpayers from the high cost of illegal aliens invading our border, draining our schools and communities, and flooding us with the most deadly drugs and gangs that help fund international terrorism. It’s high time for Trump to finally take his case to the American people in dramatic fashion and threaten to veto any bill that fails to address the border crisis, not just from the standpoint of funding the border wall, but also ending the invasion permanently. read more

Republicans Must get Back to a Safety and Security Platform

If we want to win back the House, retain the Senate and give the president another four years, Republicans must get back to what we know – Security.

In August, Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review posted a 25 point safety and security platform to run on an win. As recent polls prove, this platform is a sure winner across the entire spectrum of reasonable voters.

Poll results in key States proved that Trump’s stance on immigration was spot on:

Arizona: 35% “too tough;” 58% “about right/not tough enough”

Texas: 43%-52%

Georgia: 35%-60%

Florida: 41%-54%

Sadly, few ran on this platform. It’s time for candidates in the 2020 races to take heed and win.

from Conservative Review:

25 no-brainer immigration plans to make America safer — and win the election

Republicans are bleeding their traditional suburban voters at a quick pace. They are without a narrative and nearly out of time to make a difference for this election. When they return from summer recess, they have one final opportunity to either make a big play on the top issue on voter’s minds. Or they could simply monkey it up by running out the clock while they are losing.

According to recent polls, immigration is the top concern of voters. And for good reason. It touches on every important economic, security, and cultural issue voters care about, and unlike other issues, it is amazingly simple to solve. We can choose our own immigrants, period.

Here is a list of 25 ideas, most of which have already been introduced as legislation, that are political winners and will completely reorient the narrative of this election. This is not a complete list of the best ways to deter illegal immigration and reform the broader system, but they are all commonsense reforms that are easy to communicate and would effectively deter illegal immigration without touching on certain sensitivities of weak GOP members (assuming they really want to solve the issue). As you are reading through them, imagine the powerful ads that could be created to expose all the Democrats opposing them, particularly those senators up for re-election in red states.

Border Security

1) Fund the wall with foreign aid from home countries of illegal aliens: H.R. 6657, sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., would reduce foreign aid to countries whose nationals are apprehended at the border by $2,000 per illegal. The funds would be directed to an account for the border wall. In addition, it would levy fees on foreign remittances and raises certain fees for visa applications, with the funds going towards a salary raise and restoring overtime pay for border agents.

2) El Chapo Act: H.R. 2186, sponsored by Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would capture the criminal forfeiture funds of wealthy drug smugglers to be used for the border wall.

Read more

Obama’s Gonna Let Me Go

Illegal Immigrant Apprehended at Border: ‘Obama’s Gonna Let Me Go’

Illegal Immigrant Apprehended at Border: Obamas Gonna Let Me Go

MISSION, TX – APRIL 11: A U.S. Border Patrol agent guards a suspected drug smuggler on April 11, 2013 in Mission, Texas. Border Patrol agents with helicopter support from the Office of Air and Marine broke up a smuggling shipment of marijuana being transported across the border from Mexico into Texas. In addition to heavy drug smuggling in the area, Border Patrol agents say they have also seen an additional surge in immigrant traffic in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley sector since immigration reform negotiations began this year in Washington D.C. Credit: Getty Images

It seems even illegal immigrants seeking to cross over the U.S.-Mexico border are following the current immigration debate. Linda Vickers, who owns a ranch in Brooks County, Texas, told WOAI that she witnessed one man being arrested on her ranch and that he told the border agent Obama would let him go.

“The Border Patrol agent was loading one man up, and he told the officer in Spanish, ‘Obama’s gonna let me go’,” Vickers said.

Meanwhile, Border Patrol agents report that some immigrants will even ask, “Where do I go for my amnesty?” while they are surrendering.

Continue Reading

The Naïveté of Conservative Politicians (part two)

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Yesterday, I released part one: If you missed it, you may read it here.

 Continuing with Senator Marco Rubio’s attempt to convince us to follow him to the immigration promised land.

Rubio says we must first modernize our legal immigration system. I frankly don’t know what that even means, because no one, including Rubio, ever explains whsorry-its-the-lawat is so wrong with our current immigration laws. I do know one thing. We have thousands of immigration laws and most, if not all, are not enforced.

Is it just me, or does anyone else recall these politicians taking an oath to uphold the laws on the books? What a naïve notion, I know.

Rubio says he supports family-based migration. Family migration sounds to me, a bit like chain migration, where one family member is admitted and drags the entire family along with him. Not good.

He says, “We need a functional guest worker program so that, in times of low unemployment and rapid economic growth, our industries have the labor they need to continue growing.”

Times of low unemployment? Rapid economic growth? What, is he joking? As more and more progressives on both sides of the aisle gain a death grip on our government, low unemployment and private sector growth won’t be a concern.

Rubio adds, “Over 40% of our illegal immigrants entered legally and overstayed their visas. That’s why we need to have a complete system of tracking the entry and exit of visitors.”

I suppose the 40% just go underground after their visas expire? Not hardly. I’m sure we already have methods of finding them, our government just chooses not to. If one were to look hard enough I’m sure they would find a law pertaining to this that simply isn’t being followed. Also, anytime you hear a phrase like “complete system” oLatinos for Obamar “comprehensive system”, think “purposely-complicated” system with a ton of loopholes hidden in it.

Rubio says, “And we need to achieve control of our borders. This is not just an immigration issue; this is a national security and sovereignty issue. The southern border is actually divided into nine separate sectors. There has been progress made some sectors and not enough on others. We need to establish the high probability of intercepting illegals crossing in each of these sectors in a timely and effective manner.” Hooray! I finally, completely agree. I don’t agree that it needs to be part of a “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”. It should be a standalone initiative and nothing should be done before this is achieved. When a boat springs a leak you don’t start to bail first, you plug the leak first and then bail the water out. We need to plug the leak first.

Rubio goes on to explain, “We have to deal with those who are here without documents. I am not happy about the fact that we face this problem. But we do. Most of these are people who will be here for the rest of their lives with or without documents, so it is in our best interest to deal with them and to make sure this never happens again.”

And… He’s completely lost me. The entire statement is a crock and that “can not do” attitude is quite attractive also. So the right hand of the Republican Party concedes that 11 million criminal aliens will spend the rest of their lives in America. At the same time, the left hand claims to be able to prevent it from ever happening again. Do I have that correct?

Frankly, I don’t need to hear anymore from Sen. Rubio or any other politician that tells me, with a straight face, that we can allow these illegals to stay and somehow prevent others from coming in. It didn’t work in ‘86 when the lefties lied to Reagan about securing the border and it’s not going to work now.deport

I also just laugh at the want to enact new legislation. What good will new laws do if we already have laws up the wazzoo our ruling class chooses not to follow? More worthless laws won’t help.

I don’t wish to sound defeatist but until we rid ourselves of progressive representatives and an administration that fancies itself a monarchy, we have zero chance of accomplishing what needs to be done. That being, the sealing of our borders and the expulsion of all whom illegally entered our country and any offspring born here after the fact.

But, you may say; I’ve heard it would be impossible to find them all and extremely expensive to even try. Well, you’d be wrong on both counts. Last year Homeland Security admitted that it would be possible to find and deport all illegals but would cost over $135 billion. We couldn’t afford that, until you find out that it costs around $115 billion per year (and climbing) to keep them here. So, suck it up, spend the money and deport them. Then spend several more billion to really secure the border and in two years the entire endeavor has paid for itself. Problem solved. Then, and only then can we begin to work on a legal immigration system that will actually benefit us.

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.