Tag Archives: Illegal Immigration

Where did Rubio, Cruz and Trump stand on amnesty before running for President?

Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain

Here is an article from the non-partisan Roll Call, from way back in April 22, 2013. The title is “Rubio Targets Fellow Conservatives on Immigration”.

Excerpt:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is running a campaign-style press operation to push an immigration overhaul, a fitting move for a politician who needs it to bolster a rumored 2016 presidential bid.

[…]According to multiple sources tracking the immigration debate, Rubio is perhaps the most important senator in lending the group’s effort enough conservative credibility to result in a final bill. Because Rubio’s future political aspirations will certainly be affected by the fate of the looming legislation, the proactive approach his team is taking is helping him take matters into his own hands.

[…]Of course, with each email, Rubio’s commitment to the bill grows stronger. And in a town where perception is almost everything, a daily record of his defense of the bill and attacks on the conservatives trying to kill it is certainly building a perception.

Who were the “conservatives trying to kill it” mentioned in the linked article? Jeff Sessions, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. And now Rubio has the nerve to accuse Cruz of supporting amnesty, after Cruz led the fight against it.

So let’s see what Ted Cruz did to fight amnesty.

 

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty

Ted Cruz

Listen to Senator Jeff Sessions, a hawk on immigration, explain where Ted Cruz was when amnesty was being proposed by Rubio and his Democrat allies:

Legal Insurrection describes what Sessions says:

Sessions states:  “One of the things you’ve been hearing about somehow is a criticism of Ted and how he and what he did with regard to this massive [immigration bill] that they tried to ram through in 2013,” Sessions said. “Let me tell you, I was there. Every step of the way, Ted Cruz was on my side and fought this legislation all the way through.”

Sessions makes an important point during this speech:  “This presidential election is going to decide who runs the White House: the crowd that pushed this legislation or the crowd that opposed it.”

And that, I think, is the crux of this issue . . . and, at least in part, of this election.

And what about Donald Trump? Does he have a record of opposing amnesty?

Donald Trump

Trump was for amnesty back in August of 2013 – according to his own tweet:

Donald Trump tweets about illegal immigration, circa August 2013
Donald Trump tweets about illegal immigration, circa August 2013

If illegal immigration and border security are important to you, then your candidate is Ted Cruz. He is the only one running with the record of fighting against illegal immigration, as well as taking in refugees from countries that are dominated by radical Islam.

Amnesty: Marco Rubio sponsored a bill to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship

Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain

Just two years ago, Marco Rubio sponsored a bill to give people who were in the country illegally a path to citizenship.

Here is the article from the non-partisan The Hill.

It says:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says Sen. Marco Rubio’s “fingerprints are all over” a 2013 immigration bill with a path to citizenship, highlighting the Florida Republican’s ties to a reform effort he has downplayed during his presidential campaign.

“He was not only totally committed, he was in that room with us,” Schumer told CNN when asked how committed Rubio was to the “Gang of Eight” immigration effort. “His fingerprints are all over that bill. It has a lot of Rubio imprints.”

Rubio has drawn fire from conservatives for his role in crafting the Senate’s 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, a 1,200-page measure that would have put an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship and spent $46 billion to tighten border security.The bill passed the Senate but died in the House.

[…]Schumer suggested that Rubio didn’t resist putting provisions in the legislation that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship — the aspect of the legislation that was denounced by the right.

“He understood it, he molded it, he made it a tough path to citizenship,” Schumer, who is expected to be the next Democratic leader, told CNN. “But we all agreed to it, and it would have to be a tough path to citizenship. But he was all for it. “

And in comments made just this week, Rubio reiterated that people who are in the country illegally should get amnesty.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty

What about Ted Cruz?

Ted Cruz actually fought a battle to stop Obama’s executive order amnesty.

Excerpt:

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Jeff Sessions are pushing for a vote to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty in the “Cromnibus” spending bill Friday night, The Daily Caller has learned.

The trio of conservative senators is hoping to get the defund vote onto the Senate floor as a “point of order,” which would force a procedural vote on the issue without Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having to introduce it.

The senators are pushing hard on Capitol Hill for the measure as of early Friday afternoon. If successful, the vote would take place late Friday night, after planned deliberations on the defense budget.

Instead of joining up with the Democrat Chuck Schumer, Cruz joined up with the Republicans. It’s not difficult to tell which person is serious about border security and illegal immigration. It may be that Rubio is the nominee in 2016. But we can do better if we choose Ted Cruz.

Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit crimes than the general public?

Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.
Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.

So we had a case in the news where an illegal immigrant who had been arrested and deported numerous times was allowed to stay in the U.S. thanks to San Francisco’s very Democrat “sanctuary city” policy. All the people running for the Democrat presidential nomination support sanctuary cities, and amnesty for illegal immigrants as well. But how do these policies affect American taxpayers?

Breitbart News has the numbers from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Excerpt:

While illegal immigrants account for about 3.5 percent of the U.S population, they represented 36.7 percent of federal sentences in FY 2014 following criminal convictions, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data obtained by Breitbart News.

According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

Now a lot of those convictions will be related to immigration… what happens when we take those out?

The sentencing rate is still higher than normal:

Eliminating all immigration violations, illegal immigrants would account for 13.6 percent of all the offenders sentenced in FY14 following federal criminal convictions — still greater than the 3.5 percent of the population illegal immigrants are said to make up.

All that crime is not only dangerous and expensive, but we have to pay for the fails and law enforcement to catch them, too. Now, let’s review Hillary Clinton’s views on illegal immigration.

The Washington Times reports that she favors amnesty:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Tuesday that if elected, she would try to expand President Obama’s deportation amnesty to more illegal immigrants, saying this administration has left out a number of aliens who deserve to be granted legal status.

Speaking in Las Vegas at a Cinco de Mayo meeting focused on immigration, Mrs. Clinton also called for granting attorneys to illegal immigrants facing the complex immigration system, and said she would like to re-examine detention to ensure more illegal immigrants are released as they await deportation.

Mrs. Clinton delivered on just about every question from immigrant rights activists, who had been pressing her to reject Mr. Obama’s detention policies and go beyond his amnesty.

The Daily Caller reminds us that she also supports sanctuary cities:

Clinton last weighed in publicly on sanctuary cities during the 2008 presidential campaign.

“You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?” Clinton was asked by Tim Russert during a Sept. 6, 2007, debate at Dartmouth College.

“Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she responded.

Clinton said she backed the sanctuary city concept because without it, illegal immigrants refuse to cooperate with police because they are afraid of being deported.

“Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement,” Clinton said. “The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton again expressed her support for sanctuary cities in a 2008 interview with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities?” O’Reilly asked.

“No, I’m not,” Clinton said, eliciting a shocked response from the host.

I’m all for more skilled immigration, but that’s not what is happening on our southern border. If Hillary becomes president, that situation will only get worse.

Study: Obama administration is “having trouble” detecting fraud in asylum requests

Neville Chamberlain Obama: peace in our time
Neville Chamberlain Obama: peace in our time

This is an Associated Press article that I found in U.S. News & World Report.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration is having trouble detecting fraud in asylum requests from immigrants seeking to stay in the United States for their protection, according to a government study released Wednesday.

The Government Accountability Office looked at asylum requests from immigrants who have already made it to the United States and are asking to stay to escape persecution. The report doesn’t address the refugee application process, which also is overseen by the Homeland Security Department but involves people not currently in the United States. The refugee process has become an issue in debate over Syrian refugees.

The 96-page report concluded that neither U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services nor the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees immigration courts, conduct regular fraud risk assessments. The GAO recommended that both do so.

At USCIS, a paper filing system that doesn’t capture key fraud-detection information electronically also is a problem, the study says.

The GAO review found that more than 4,500 people were awarded asylum in 2014 despite being associated with lawyers or document preparers arrested that same year in an immigration fraud investigation in New York.

[…]”This new GAO report adds to mounting evidence that the Obama administration refuses to take the steps necessary to crack down on asylum fraud and protect the integrity of our immigration system,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The Washington Times comments:

GAO investigators found problems at nearly every step of the way: USCIS officers aren’t properly trained to spot fraud; the agency’s fraud-detection unit doesn’t pre-screen applications to weed out potentially bogus ones beforehand; and neither USCIS, which is part of Homeland Security, nor EOIR, which is part of the Justice Department, have a sense for how big a risk fraud is anyway.

More troubling still, the government rarely prosecutes those who commit fraud, so there’s little downside to making an attempt, other than risking being sent back home.

OK, so the government system is broken – that much is clear. But what is the worst that could go wrong if we let a few bad apples in?

Consider this article from National Review.

It says:

Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) want President Obama to release the immigration records of the San Bernardino shooters, arguing they should play a key role in the coming debate over funding the Syrian refugee resettlement& program.

Their request comes as CBS reports that one of the shooting suspects passed the Department of Homeland Security’s “counterterrorism screening as part of her vetting” for a visa. Federal officials maintain that they have a rigorous and effective screening process in place for people from countries such as Syria that have significant jihadist movements, making the immigration records of the San Bernardino shooters a potentially significant piece of the debate over refugee policy.

“We are dealing with an enemy that has shown it is not only capable of bypassing U.S. screening, but of recruiting and radicalizing Muslim migrants after their entry to the United States,” Cruz and Sessions wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The letter reiterates the lawmakers’ longstanding request for the immigration records of twelve other terror suspects, which the Obama administration has failed to release even as the debate over the Syrian refugee crisis has heated up.

“Congress is days away from consideration of an omnibus year-end funding bill that would set the U.S. on an autopilot path to approve green cards, asylum, and refugee status to approximately 170,000 migrants from Muslim countries during the next year,” Cruz and Sessions wrote. “The security task involved is immense, and Congress must have the requested information if lawmakers are to act as responsible stewards of American immigration policy.”

Look here. If you expect to be able to hold people accountable for failure to perform, that is much easier to do with the private sector than it is with government. There have been plenty of major screw-ups in the Obama administration. Massive security leaks, cover-ups, arms smuggling to Mexican drug cartels, Iran deal side deals, leaking the names of agents and the details of our allies’ plans. And on and on and on. We have to learn from these failures not to put our trust in government promises about how serious they are with national security. Their lack of seriousness about criminal illegal immigrants killed Kate Steinle, for example. The only solution to their stupidity and carelessness is to not let them have the power to do anything.

Are Christians who use other people’s money to help others “generous”?

Gross public debt, Democrats control spending in 2007
Gross public debt, Democrats control spending in 2007

Normal Americans who work for a living know that you cannot be generous with someone else’s money – you have to earn your own money and give your own money away if you want to be “generous”. And this is actually what the Bible says – be generous to others with your own money. There is no support in the Bible for discharging your obligations to people in need by having a secular leftist government subsidize their abortions, etc. But many Christians escape the need to be generous with their own money by voting for the secular government to take someone else’s money. This way, they can have the feelings of being generous without having to make the sacrifice themselves.

So here are my points in response to this “stolen valor” view of generosity, which seems to be so popular with dependent professors and dependent pastors who do not work in the private sector.

First, illegal immigration and refugee asylum typically costs us money, since unskilled immigrants and asylum’d refugees do not typically pay as much in taxes as they using in taxpayer-funded benefits.

Evidence:

  • Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
  • In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
  • At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
  • In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)

Meanwhile, the same people who want big government to help the poor probably do not even realize that the national debt has doubled under Obama to $20 trillion, as of January 2017. Now do the people who want to give away all these benefits via big government intend to pay for it with their own money as the Bible says? No, they intend to pass the costs onto generations yet unborn via the national debt. They want to feel generous themselves, but with someone else’s money. There is a word for that – we call that slavery. It turns out that big government Christians really are in favor of slavery. They want to force the next generation to work tomorrow, so that they can feel generous today.

Government not serious about protecting the public

Second, we know that big government cannot be trusted to deport criminals, because we saw that on display in the Kate Steinle affair, where an illegal immigrant who had many prior convictions was released to commit worse crimes. If you think that illegal immgrants get deported after committing serious crimes, you really need to reconsider how trustworthy government is about border security.

For example, Senate Democrats blocked a bill to crack down on sanctuary cities.  Although amnesty and asylum for refugees sounds good, it relies on big government being serious about enforcing the law, and protecting the public. During the Obama administration, we have seen the Snowden leak, the Clinton private e-mail server which was hacked by foreign governments, the Benghazi coverup, the arms smuggling to drug cartels by the ATF, the China hack, the wikileaks leak by gay private Bradley Manning who got a taxpayer funded sex change, etc.

Previously, we saw how the parents of the Boston bombers were granted asylum as Chechen refugees. That was a failure of national security. And the FBI has already explained that our procedures for vetting refugees is inadequate. The refugees, by the way, are selected by the United Nations and a Muslim organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. So it’s just wishful thinking to think that this is a priority for the government. And recall that about 5 seconds after Obama bragged about how he had “contained” ISIS (Islamic State), the Paris attack happened. Democrats do not care about national security, so we cannot trust them to vet refugees. The people who want Syrian refugees to come in are depending on big government to take national security seriously. But we have zero evidence that they can do that.

Here’s Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton focused on her real enemy – Americans who disagree with her – in a campaign speech on Thursday.
In a statement her own campaign Tweeted out as her marquee comment, Clinton declared: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The UK Daily Mail describes Clinton as “reading her speech at a brisk clip from a teleprompter at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City,” but slowing down to mock Republicans over the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” which “Republicans often accuse President Barack Obama of purposefully avoiding.”

The Daily Mail cheekily notes that Clinton “referred repeatedly to ‘radical jihadism’ as a global scourge, but didn’t explain how the concept of jihadism is consistent with the notion that adherents of the world’s second largest religion are wholly uninvolved.”

Remember, this is the person who sent and received classified e-mails on a private unsecure email server, and blamed a terrorist attack on a YouTube video – for political gain. And it’s people like her who are promising us that they are serious about deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, and vetting refugees who are coming from Muslim countries.

What I have found in asking people who want amnesty and asylum for refugees is that they are incredibly uninformed about things like the national debt, the costs, the risks, etc. I don’t see why people trust the government to enforce border security law, deport lawbreakers, and vet refugees carefully. I think people who clown around advocating for policies based on their feelings and a misreading of the Bible need to be more cautious and humble. You don’t know how the world works, so shut your ignorant mouths before you get more people killed, and pass more debt onto the next generation. If you want to do something for refugees, do it yourself. If you want to do something for the poor in other countries, do it with your own money.