Tag: Immigration

  • Bergoglio Says This Is A Grave Sin

    Bergoglio Says This Is A Grave Sin

    Before we get started, there is a bit of disclosure that needs to happen. Namely that your editor is a Catholic. He was raised in an Irish Catholic household, and still regularly attends St Brigid’s for Sunday Mass. Now that’s out of the way, lets discuss what Il Papa said recently.

    At a recent general audience, an informal gathering where the Pope addresses those present, Francis had this to say;

    “There are those who systematically work to push back migrants. When this is done consciously, it is a grave sin.”

    https://twitter.com/VaticanNews/status/1828814295314083948

    While tolerance of immigrants has long been a tenet of the Catholic Church, opposing it has never involved ‘grave sin’.

    https://twitter.com/TFMulliganEsq/status/1828858228953809257

    Bergoglio’s predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement on world migrant day back in 2010. That statement pointed out that those immigrating had a duty and responsibility to integrate into their new hosts societies. And in 1990, before he was Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger lamented ‘the slow suicide of Europe’ because of unfettered muslim immigration.

    I will admit to not being active in Church politics, nor am I much interested in them as they are frankly Byzantine and have little effect on my day-to-day life. That said, even I’m seeing rumor that the College of Cardinals are looking for a way to force the Argentinian bouncer out of the Chair. It’s my opinion that his term as Pope has caused incalculable damage to the Church.

  • House Immigration Bill

    House Immigration Bill

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2/summary

    H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023

    The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, and was published on May 25, 2023.


    Secure the Border Act of 2023

    This bill makes various changes to immigration law, including by imposing limits on asylum eligibility and requiring employers to use an electronic system to verify the employment eligibility of new employees.

    DIVISION A–BORDER SECURITY

    This division requires certain actions related to border security.

    (Sec. 102) This section requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to resume all activities related to constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that were underway or planned prior to January 20, 2021.

    (Sec. 103) This section imposes additional requirements on DHS related to the construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. For example, the bill requires DHS to construct a border wall (including related infrastructure and technology) along at least 900 miles of that border, whereas currently DHS is required to have at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along that border.

    This section also requires DHS to waive all legal requirements necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of the border barriers, whereas currently DHS is authorized to waive such requirements.

    (Sec. 104) This section requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to submit a strategic five-year technology investment plan to Congress.

    (Sec. 105) This section imposes certain documentation and acquisition-related standards on major border security technology acquisitions, generally those that cost at least $100 million based on FY2023 constant dollars.

    (Sec. 106) This section requires CBP to (1) ensure that each CBP officer or agent is equipped with a two-way communication device, (2) fully implement the Border Security Deployment Program (a border surveillance program), and (3) upgrade license plate readers as needed at ports of entry along the northern and southern borders.

    (Sec. 107) This section authorizes retention bonuses for eligible frontline U.S. Border Patrol law enforcement agents.

    The section also requires CBP to maintain an active duty presence of at least 22,000 full-time equivalent Border Patrol agents by September 30, 2025.

    (Sec. 108) This section modifies a provision that exempts certain applicants for CBP law enforcement positions from having to take a polygraph test. For example, this section provides this exemption to certain law enforcement officers, whereas currently the waiver is only available to eligible veterans.

    The waiver provision established by this section is not applicable during periods when CBP certifies that it has met certain staffing requirements.

    (Sec. 109) This section requires CBP to implement a workload staffing model for the Border Patrol and CBP Air and Marine Operations.

    (Sec. 110) This section provides statutory authorization for Operation Stonegarden, a program which provides grants to law enforcement agencies that are (1) in a state with an international land or maritime border, and (2) involved in an active CBP operation coordinated through the Border Patrol.

    (Sec. 111) This section establishes certain requirements for CBP Air and Marine Operations. For example, CBP must ensure that its Air and Marine Operations (1) carry out at least 110,000 flight hours each year, and (2) operate unmanned aircraft systems (drones) on the southern border 24 hours a day.

    (Sec. 112) This section requires DHS to hire contractors to begin eradicating certain plant growth along the Rio Grande River that impedes border security operations.

    (Sec. 113) This section requires the Border Patrol to issue a Border Patrol Strategic Plan to enhance border security.

    (Sec. 115) This section prohibits DHS from (1) processing the entry of non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) arriving in between ports of entry; (2) providing funds to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that facilitate or encourage unlawful activity; or (3) providing funds to NGOs that provide certain services, such as lodging or immigration legal services, to inadmissible non-U.S. nationals who enter the United States.

    (Sec. 116) This section requires DHS to ensure that CBP is, within 14 days of this bill’s enactment, fully compliant with federal DNA and biometric collection requirements at U.S. land borders.

    (Sec. 117) This section requires CBP to periodically review and update, as necessary, manuals and policies related to inspections at ports of entry to ensure the uniformity of inspection practices to effectively detect illegal activity along the border, such as the smuggling of drugs and humans.

    (Sec. 118) This section requires CBP to publish information monthly about CBP encounters with non-U.S. nationals, including the total number of encounters and the nationalities of the individuals encountered.

    (Sec. 119) This section requires CBP to, within seven days of this bill’s enactment, certify to Congress that CBP has real-time access to the criminal history databases of all countries of origin and transit for non-U.S. nationals encountered by CBP.

    (Sec. 120) This section prohibits the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from accepting as proof of identification certain documents, such as a warrant issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or an employment authorization issued by DHS.

    The TSA must collect the biometric information of any individual who (1) seeks to enter the aircraft boarding area of an airport where access is controlled by the TSA, (2) does not present an accepted identification document, and (3) the TSA cannot verify is a U.S. national. The TSA must share this collected biometric information with the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT).

    (Sec. 121) This section prohibits DHS from (1) issuing any COVID-19 vaccine mandate unless expressly authorized by Congress, or (2) taking any adverse action against an employee based solely on the employee’s refusal to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

    (Sec. 122) This section limits the use of the CBP One mobile application or a similar program. Specifically, DHS may only use such an application for inspecting perishable cargo.

    (Sec. 124) This section requires the Government Accountability Office to study and report to Congress on the costs incurred by states in support of the federal mission to secure the southwest border and the feasibility of reimbursing states for such costs.

    (Sec. 125) This section requires the Office of Inspector General of DHS to annually report to Congress on the economic and security impact of mass migration to municipalities and states along the southwest border.

    (Sec. 126) This section specifies that no funds are authorized to be appropriated for specified DHS activities, including a pilot program for alternatives to detention or purchasing electric vehicles.

    (Sec. 128) This section requires the Office of Inspector General of DHS to report to Congress an assessment of CBP’s ability to mitigate unmanned aircraft systems along the southwest border.

    DIVISION B–IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

    TITLE I–ASYLUM REFORM AND BORDER PROTECTION

    This title imposes additional requirements for asylum eligibility.

    (Sec. 101) This section expands provisions that bar certain individuals from applying for asylum.

    Currently, an individual may not apply for asylum if that individual may be removed to a third country (i.e., a country that is not the applicant’s country of nationality or last habitual residence) if that third country has (1) a full and fair asylum process that the individual could use, and (2) an agreement with the United States allowing for such removals. This section expands this provision by authorizing removal to third countries that do not have an agreement with the United States.

    This section also bars an individual from applying for asylum if the individual traveled through at least one third country before arriving in the United States, with certain exceptions (e.g., the individual applied for and was denied asylum in that third country).

    (Sec. 102) This section modifies the standard for establishing an asylum applicant’s credible fear of persecution.

    Specifically, to find credible fear, an asylum officer must find that the applicant could more likely than not establish eligibility for asylum. Currently, an asylum officer must conclude that there is a significant possibility that the applicant could establish eligibility for asylum.

    (Sec. 103) This section limits asylum eligibility to individuals who arrived in the United States at a port of entry.

    (Sec. 104) This section expands the types of crimes that may make an individual ineligible for asylum, such as a conviction for (1) a misdemeanor relating to the unlawful possession or use of an identification, (2) an offense for driving while intoxicated causing another person’s serious bodily injury or death, or (3) any felony.

    This section further expands this bar to asylum eligibility by broadening the definition of felony to include any crime that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. (Some states have misdemeanors that are punishable by imprisonment of more than a year.) Currently, a felony is generally not a bar against asylum eligibility, though certain felonies, such as one for a particularly serious crime, would bar an individual if the individual constitutes a danger to the community.

    (Sec. 105) This section establishes a duration of six months for an employment authorization for an applicant for asylum. Such an employment authorization may also be renewed for six months or terminated under specified conditions.

    (Sec. 106) This section requires DHS to charge a fee for each asylum application, except for one filed by an unaccompanied alien child. Currently, DHS is authorized but not required to charge such fees.

    The section also authorizes DHS to charge fees for a refugee’s application for employment authorization or for lawful permanent resident status.

    (Sec. 107) This section increases the requirements for qualifying as a refugee.

    Generally, a refugee must have a well-founded fear of persecution based on certain characteristics, such as the individual’s race, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

    The section establishes additional requirements for meeting these criteria. For example, such persecution may not be based solely on (1) infrequently enforced laws or government policies unless there is credible evidence that the law or policy would be personally applied to the individual, or (2) conduct of rogue government officials acting outside their official capacity.

    Furthermore, to be a member of a particular social group, the asylum applicant must establish that the group exists independently of the alleged acts of persecution (i.e., the group cannot be defined solely as the victims of the alleged persecution).

    The section also imposes limits on when DHS or DOJ may exercise discretion in favor of an asylum applicant. For example, favorable discretion may not be exercised, with certain exceptions, for an applicant who (1) has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year before applying for asylum; or (2) failed to file federal, state, or local tax returns.

    (Sec. 108) This section establishes certain situations when an asylum applicant must be considered to have firmly resettled in another country. (Generally, an individual who has firmly resettled in a country that is not their country of nationality is not eligible for asylum.)

    For example, an individual must be considered to have firmly resettled in another country if, after the events giving rise to the asylum claim, the individual resided in a country where the individual was eligible for any permanent or indefinitely renewable legal immigration status, such as refugee status.

    (Sec. 109) This section establishes a statutory definition of what constitutes a frivolous asylum application, whereas currently this definition is defined in regulations. Under this bill, an application is frivolous if (1) it is so insufficient in substance that it is clear that it was filed to achieve another objective, such as to delay removal; or (2) any material elements are knowingly fabricated.

    (Sec. 111) This section requires DOJ to establish procedures to expedite the adjudication of asylum applications from individuals who are (1) subject to formal removal proceedings; and (2) nationals of a Western Hemisphere country subject to sanctions related to Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela.

    TITLE II–BORDER SAFETY AND MIGRANT PROTECTION

    (Sec. 201) This section expands the category of non-U.S. nationals who are subject to expedited removal (i.e., removal without further hearing or review) and addresses related issues.

    Specifically, this section requires expedited removal for individuals who are unlawfully present or who unlawfully entered the United States. (Currently, DHS may, but is not required to, apply expedited removal to unlawfully present individuals who have been physically present in the United States for less than two years.)

    This section also requires, with certain exceptions, detention for individuals who (1) are subject to expedited removal, (2) are subject to expedited removal and have expressed an intention to apply for asylum, or (3) have established a credible fear of persecution and are awaiting consideration of an asylum application.

    If DHS cannot comply with this detention requirement or remove an individual to a safe third country, DHS must return the individual to the neighboring country that the individual traveled through to reach the United States while the individual’s case is pending.

    A state may sue DHS to enforce the requirements imposed by this section.

    This section also authorizes DHS to suspend the introduction of certain non-U.S. nationals at an international border if DHS determines that the suspension is necessary to achieve operational control of that border.

    (Sec. 202) This section requires DHS to take all actions necessary to reopen or restore all ICE detention facilities that were in operation on January 20, 2021.

    TITLE III–PREVENTING UNCONTROLLED MIGRATION FLOWS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

    (Sec. 302) This section requires the Department of State to seek to negotiate agreements with Western Hemisphere countries on cooperation and burden sharing on issues related to asylum seekers and immigration.

    (Sec. 303) This section requires the State Department to periodically brief Congress on the process of its negotiations pursuant to the previous section of this bill.

    TITLE IV–ENSURING UNITED FAMILIES AT THE BORDER

    (Sec. 401) This section statutorily establishes that there is no presumption that an alien child (other than an unaccompanied child) should not be detained for immigration purposes.

    Specifically, the section states that the detention of such minors shall be governed by specified sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and not any other provision of law, judicial ruling, or settlement agreement.

    (A 1997 settlement agreement, commonly known as the Flores agreement, imposes requirements relating to the treatment of detained alien minors, including requiring such minors to be released or placed in a nonsecure facility after a certain amount of time in detention.)

    If an adult enters the United States unlawfully with their child, DHS must detain the adult and child together if the only criminal charge against the adult is for unlawful entry.

    This section also prohibits states from imposing licensing requirements on immigration detention facilities used to detain minors or families with minors.

    TITLE V–PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

    (Sec. 502) This section modifies the treatment of unaccompanied alien children, including by requiring DHS to remove such children, with some exceptions, from the United States.

    Current law authorizes DHS to remove an unaccompanied alien child to their country of nationality or last habitual residence if that country is next to the United States. This section (1) eliminates the requirement that the country is next to the United States; and (2) requires DHS to remove the child, whereas currently DHS is authorized to do so.

    This section also authorizes immigration officers to permit such a child to withdraw their application for admission into the United States even if the child is unable to make an independent decision to withdraw the application.

    This section also establishes and modifies deadlines for the handling of unaccompanied alien children. For example, if the child is a victim of a severe form of human trafficking or has a credible fear of persecution, the child must be placed in formal removal proceedings and have a hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of screening.

    Furthermore, before DHS places an unaccompanied alien child with an individual, the Department of Health and Human Services must provide DHS with certain information about the individual, including the individual’s social security number and immigration status. DHS must initiate removal proceedings if the individual is unlawfully present.

    (Sec. 503) This section tightens the eligibility requirements for Special Immigrant Juvenile visas (immigrant visas for qualifying non-U.S. nationals under 21 years of age who are in the United States and have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent).

    Currently, an otherwise eligible individual may qualify for the visa if the individual cannot reunite with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment (i.e., an individual may qualify even if reunification with one parent is possible). Under this section, an individual shall not qualify for the visa if reunification is possible with any parent or legal guardian.

    TITLE VI–VISA OVERSTAYS PENALTIES

    (Sec. 601) This section increases the civil penalties for unlawful entry into the United States and establishes criminal penalties for overstaying a visa.

    An individual apprehended while unlawfully entering the United States shall be subject to a fine of at least $500 and up to $1,000 (currently at least $50 and up to $250).

    If an individual overstays a visa (or otherwise fails to comply with the conditions of a visa) for 10 days or more, on first offense the individual shall be subject to fines or imprisonment for up to six months, or both. For subsequent violations, the individual shall be subject to fines or imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

    TITLE VII–IMMIGRATION PAROLE REFORM

    (Sec. 701) This section limits the authority of DHS to grant parole (temporary admission into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit that is granted on a case-by-case basis).

    Under this section, DHS may not grant parole based on eligibility criteria describing an entire class of potential parole recipients.

    This section restricts DHS from granting parole to non-U.S. nationals who are already in the United States, with specified exceptions, such as for certain individuals who already have an approved petition for a family-sponsored visa and are the spouse or child of an active duty member of the Armed Forces.

    The section further restricts the authority of DHS to grant parole, including by limiting (1) what constitutes granting parole on a case-by-case basis, (2) the authority to grant parole to purposes laid out in the section, and (3) the length of the parole period that may be granted to an individual.

    (Sec. 702) This title takes effect 30 days after enactment of this bill, with specified exceptions.

    (Sec. 703) This section authorizes persons (individuals or entities), states, and local governments to sue the federal government for failing to comply with this title’s requirements if the person or government bringing the lawsuit suffered at least $1,000 of financial harm as a result of the failure.

    TITLE VIII–LEGAL WORKFORCE

    This title requires employers to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system modeled after the E-Verify program and addresses other issues related to employment eligibility.

    (Sec. 801) This section requires all employers to use the electronic employment eligibility verification system established under section 802 of this bill. The section also makes other changes to the requirements for employers to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of new employees, such as by imposing additional limits on the documents which may be used to verify an individual’s identity and employment eligibility.

    This section establishes procedures related to the verification system’s use. For example, if the system provides a tentative nonconfirmation of an individual’s identity or work eligibility, the individual may challenge the result by using the system’s secondary verification process. If the individual does not challenge the tentative nonconfirmation, the result shall become final.

    An employer may not rescind an employment offer or fire an employee for a tentative nonconfirmation until the result becomes final.

    If an employer hires (or does not fire) an individual after a final nonconfirmation of identity or employment eligibility, the employer must inform DHS that it has done so. Failure to inform DHS shall constitute a failure to meet requirements to verify employment eligibility. Hiring or not firing an individual with a final nonconfirmation shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the employer has failed to meet the eligibility verification requirements.

    This section phases in the requirement to use the new system to verify new hires. The first group of employers required to use the system, nonagricultural employers with 10,000 or more U.S. employees, must do so beginning six months after this title’s enactment. Employers with fewer employees are subject to later deadlines. Agricultural employers must start using the system beginning three years after this title’s enactment. DHS must grant a one-time extension to this deadline upon request to employers with 50 or fewer employees.

    Employers must also use the system to reverify individuals on limited periods of work authorization (e.g., a work visa) no later than three days after the authorization expires. This requirement is subject to the same phase-in schedule as the requirement for verifying new hires.

    This section also requires employers to use the system to verify the identity and employment eligibility of certain previously hired individuals, such as (1) federal or state employees who were not previously verified under E-Verify, and (2) individuals using a Social Security number that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has flagged for a pattern of unusual use.

    Employers may voluntarily choose to use the system before being required to do so by this section, subject to certain requirements.

    An employer who has made a good faith attempt to comply with this section’s requirements shall be deemed to be in compliance unless the employer (1) does not to correct a failure after being informed by DHS of the failure, or (2) has engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of this section’s requirements.

    DHS may extend the deadlines in this section by six months by certifying to Congress that the verification system will not be fully operational within six months of this title’s enactment.

    (Sec. 802) This section requires DHS to establish and administer an employment eligibility confirmation modeled after the E-Verify system.

    The system must (1) respond to electronic inquiries concerning an individual’s identity and authorization to work in the United States; and (2) maintain records about such inquiries, including the responses to the inquiries.

    The system must provide an initial response to an inquiry within three working days. For cases where the initial response is a tentative nonconfirmation of the individual’s employment eligibility, the system must have a secondary verification process which, if used, must provide a final result within 10 working days of the initial response, with extensions available on a case-by-case basis.

    DHS and the SSA must establish methods to provide and update the information required for the system to respond to inquiries.

    DHS may authorize or require a person responsible for critical infrastructure to use the verification system if doing so would help protect the critical infrastructure.

    An individual who alleges that they lost a job or job offer due to an error by the verification system may (1) seek compensation only through the Federal Tort Claims Act, and (2) injunctive relief. Such an individual may not bring a class action lawsuit. (Sec. 803) This section requires individuals and entities that recruit or refer individuals for employment, including union hiring halls and public or private labor service agencies, to use the verification system when recruiting or making a referral.

    (Sec. 804) This section establishes that an employer (or an entity that recruits or refers for employment) who uses the verification system in good faith is not liable for employment-related actions taken in good-faith reliance on the information provided by the system. (Sec. 805) This section preempts any state or local laws relating to the employment and employment eligibility verification of unauthorized non-U.S. nationals.

    States and localities may take certain actions to enforce this title’s provisions, including using its business licensing authority to penalize businesses for failing to use the verification system.

    (Sec. 806) This section repeals the provisions that established the E-Verify pilot program. It also establishes that any reference in federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that refers to the E-Verify pilot program is deemed to refer to the verification program established by Section 802 of this bill.

    (Sec. 807) This section increases the civil monetary penalties for hiring, recruiting, and referral violations involving unauthorized workers and establishes that failing to use the verification system established by this title constitutes such a violation. The section also increases the criminal penalties for engaging in a pattern or practice of such violations.

    DHS may debar an individual or entity from receiving federal contracts and grants for repeat hiring violations (including failures to use the verification system) or a criminal conviction for such a violation.

    DHS shall also establish an office to (1) receive information from state and local agencies about potential hiring, recruiting, and referral violations involving unauthorized workers, and (2) investigate claims based on such information.

    (Sec. 808) This section establishes that an individual who knowing misuses a document meant to establish work authorization is subject to fines, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. (Currently, the statute in question only refers to misusing identification documents.)

    (Sec. 809) This section requires DHS and the SSA to enter into an agreement by October 1, 2023, to provide funds to the SSA for the full costs of its responsibilities under this title.

    (Sec. 810) This section requires DHS to establish programs to combat fraud related to the employment eligibility verification system established by this title.

    Specifically, DHS must, in consultation with the SSA, establish programs to (1) block Social Security numbers with unusual use patterns in the system, (2) allow individuals to suspend or limit the use of their Social Security numbers or other identifying information in the system, and (3) allow parents to suspend or limit the use of their child’s Social Security number or other identifying information in the system.

    (Sec. 812) This section requires DHS to establish at least two pilot programs that use different technologies for verifying the identity and employment eligibility of new employees.

    (Sec. 813) This section requires the Office of the Inspector General of the SSA to find unauthorized workers by auditing cases involving (1) a worker disputing wages reported on their Social Security number, (2) a child’s Social Security number being used for work purposes, or (3) an employer with many workers with mismatched Social Security numbers or names. The SSA must report these audits to Congress.

    (Sec. 816) This section nullifies two Department of Labor final rules related to H-2A (temporary or seasonal agricultural workers) visas.

    The first final rule is entitled Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in the United States and was published on October 12, 2022. This rule makes various changes to the program, including by (1) modifying rules relating to what constitutes joint employment and when employers are treated as joint employers; and (2) requiring rental accommodations used to house H-2A workers to meet applicable local, state, or federal health and safety standards.

    The second final rule is entitled Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States and was published on February 28, 2023. This rule makes changes to the methodology used to set adverse effect wage rates, including by using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage surveys in certain instances. (Generally, the minimum wage for an H-2A worker is the highest of the adverse effect wage rate, the applicable minimum wage, the prevailing wage for that occupation in that area, or any agreed-upon collective bargaining wage.)

  • Redistribution

    Redistribution

    The Senate has written a “bipartisan” immigration bill. Truthfully, it is more appropriately a funding bill. It has little to nothing in it to resolve the invasion at our borders.

    Your truly took the liberty of cutting and pasting a copy of the appropriations in the legislation and making a few changes in the appropriations. Basically, I followed the Democratic policy of redistribution.

    All are welcome to make your own redistribution.

    • Foreign Aid Commitments:
      • $60.06 billion in support for Ukraine amidst Russian aggression
      • $14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel
      • $2.44 billion to address U.S. Central Command operations and conflict-related expenses in the Red Sea
      • $10 billion in global humanitarian assistance *excluding Iran
      • $4.83 billion to support Indo-Pacific allies against Chinese encroachment
      • $2.33 billion for displaced Ukrainians and other refugees worldwide *[b]only for women and children 16 and under[/b]
    • Border Security and Immigration Provisions:
      • $20.23 billion for border operations, policy enforcement, and narcotics interdiction
      • Introduction of the Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence (FEND) Off Fentanyl Act
      • $400 million for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program
      • Provisions for government intervention at varying thresholds of border encounters
      • Work authorizations for illegal aliens

    Redistribution of 60.06 billion of the Ukraine money as follows:

    Additional 6 billion to the 14.1 for Israel

    Additional 8 billion to the 2.44 billion to U.S. Central Command operations and conflict related expenses in the Red Sea

    Additional 10 billion moved to border operations for enforcement to prevent illegal entry

    Additional 5 billion moved to border operations for narcotics interdiction 

    5 billion in grants to citizens, whose land is on the border, for installing walls, fencing, concertina wire and other obstacles to prevent illegal entry to the US across their property

    9 billion to ICE to be used for the tracking and deportation of criminal illegal immigrants

    The remaining 20 billion goes to Ukraine with the caveat of clear accounting of expenditures of the funds. 

  • No Border, Say Goodbye to…

    No Border, Say Goodbye to…

    No Border, Say Goodbye to America

    by Brian C. Joondeph for American Thinker

    Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman scolded the Wall Street Journal for cheerleading an open-border immigration policy. “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” he warned.

    This leads to a “transfer state,” as the Heritage Foundation describes, the government taxing the upper and middle classes, transferring money to lower economic classes via subsidies and benefits.

    In other words, “The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels.”

    Heritage makes the assumption, “It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family.”

    What happens when that ratio changes to one financially sound family supporting not one, but two, three, or more families through ever-increasing taxes and families to support?

    Which is why a welfare state in an open-borders country will eventually reaching a tipping point. Are we already there?

    As reported by Fox News’s Griff Jenkins, “Encounters with illegal immigrants at the southern border have topped over 300,000 in December.” Do the math. That’s 3.6 million per year, more than the population of every U.S. city except Los Angeles and New York.

    251281_5_.jpg

    YouTube screen grab

    How many migrants are not encountered? Those are called “gotaways” and Border Patrol estimates 1,000 per day, or 365,000 per year. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas acknowledges, “600,000 illegal ‘gotaways’ crossed border in 2023, calls immigration system broken.”

    These are estimates. But the real number is unknowable. Let’s say a million gotaways a year, making the total 4.6 million migrants a year, more than the population of L.A. added to America each and every year.

    As most migrants are unskilled, unable to speak English, many illiterate and unemployable, they are by necessity, supported by American taxpayers for food, shelter, education, travel, health care, and clothing.

    What does that cost? “NYC’s daily per-person cost to house migrants climbs to nearly $400.” What about health care? California plans to provide free health care insurance to all illegal migrants, at an annual cost of about $4,000 for each adult.

    According to Judicial Watch the “Net cost of illegal immigration is greater than the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of 15 different states.”

    Clearly this is not sustainable. U.S. national debt recently topped $34 trillion. With the current interest rate on the debt at about 3 percent, interest on the debt is more than $1 trillion per year. Interest alone consumes about a quarter of the $4.4 trillion in annual federal receipts, more than defense spending.

    We will be borrowing money to pay the interest on previously borrowed money. Economist Herbert Stein observed, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop“.

    The something is America as we know it.

    There is no interest in securing our national border. In a hyper-partisan Washington, D.C., this is one of few examples where Republicans and Democrats actually agree.

    Democrats want new voters. Their policies and leaders are not so popular these days. Some 63 percent of likely U.S. voters think the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction, according to Rasmussen Reports. Only 24 percent of voters strongly approve of the job President Biden is doing.

    Creating a new dependency class of tens of millions of potential voters serves Democrat electoral interests. Republicans don’t mind ceding power to the Democrats as long as their wallets are thick with cash.

    Open borders provide cheap labor for the Chamber of Commerce Republican establishment. GOP lawmakers are rewarded with generous campaign contributions and other financial perks in exchange for looking the other way from an open border.

    U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson visited the U.S.-Mexican border with a gaggle of Republicans, huffing and puffing about what a “catastrophe” exists at the border. So what? Lots of talk but no action.

    Going back to his predecessor Paul Ryan, Republicans have fought Trump on building a border wall and applied no pressure on Biden to secure the border. They could defund any responsible agencies including Homeland Security and Customs and Border Enforcement until the border was secure.

    They will probably vote to reward DHS with a new building, rather than holding them accountable, as they did with the weaponized and corrupt FBI. The DHS secretary, rather than securing the homeland per his job description, blamesclimate change rather than his inaction and incompetence.

    The power of the purse and impeachment are unknown or enigmatic concepts to Congressional Republicans. Instead, the Republican Speaker is “advocating” for solutions. What a tough guy he is.

    Financial ramifications are a fraction of the problem. What about the fact that there are millions of young, military aged men, from all over the world, including countries not friendly to U.S. interests, unvetted, with unknown backgrounds or intentions, now in this country?

    How many are, as Trump would describe, “bad hombres”? Intent on crime or terrorism? 

    The number of Chinese migrants crossing into America has risen dramatically.

    If 4 million to 5 million migrants come to America each year, and 10 percent are troublemakers, that’s 450,000, the same size as the active duty U.S. Army.

    Our enemies would not need to attack us from the outside, their militaries may already be embedded in America.

    Is this migration? Or an invasion? And why is it being allowed, facilitated, and encouraged?

    Rasmussen Reports ran a poll on X where 93 percent of respondents agreed that, “The current situation with migrants at the border with Mexico is an ‘invasion’ of the United States.”

    KanekoaTheGreat on X summed it up well:

    On President Biden’s inaugural day, he introduced policies that incentivize illegal immigration:

    • Paused Deportations

    • Suspended “Remain in Mexico”

    • Stopped Border Wall Construction

    This surge in illegal immigration is a national security crisis, costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions per year. Major U.S. cities, grappling with the escalating financial burden, are slashing budgets for essential services such as fire, police, sanitation, and education. President Biden holds the power to halt this crisis that is draining America’s resources.

    This was no accident. Elon Musk correctly observed, “At this point, there is no question that this administration is actively facilitating illegal immigration.”

    There’s more trouble besides an open border. Energy costs are up, and we are no longer energy-independent. America is fighting two proxy wars, in Ukraine against Russia, and in Israel against Iran. North Korea, China, and Taiwan are on deck.

    Inflation has devastated middle class families. Homes are unaffordable. Personal and national debts are unsustainable. And finally, the cultural wars have destroyed Americans’ minds and sensibilities.

    This deliberate effort to destroy America has a name. It’s the Cloward-Piven strategy, named after two communist sociology professors at Columbia University,

    The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

    1. Overload and Break the Welfare System

    2. Have Chaos Ensue

    3. Take Control in the Chaos

    4. Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force

    Number 1 is currently ushering in number 2. Number 3 will be determined next November. Donald Trump is the only hope to break the sequence. Another term of the architect Barack Obama, via Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom, or Michelle Obama, will guarantee number 3 and 4, and then it’s lights out for the America of the past 250 years.

    Closing our border and enforcing existing immigration law would be a good place to start. Continuing on our current path is the “fundamental change” that Obama promised, and goodbye to America as we know it.

  • America’s Founders…

    America’s Founders…

    With the immediacy of an onslaught of illegal immigrants, reading some thoughts of the founders on immigration seems timely.

    America’s Founders Didn’t Support Open Borders, And Neither Should We

    BY: HELEN RALEIGH for The Federalist

    ‘The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits.’

    There is little evidence that the founders advocated for a free-for-all, open-door immigration policy.  

    From the very beginning, even in the absence of immigration law, the founders knew America had to set boundaries. Their top three concerns were the qualifications, assimilation, and allegiance of newcomers. The founders emphasized the moral character and contributions newcomers would bring. 

    Not only should new migrants have good moral character, but they should also place “high importance to the respectability and character of the American name” and do their best to “preserve its good fame from injury,” as Rep. James Jackson, a Democratic-Republican from Georgia, said in 1790. The founding generation didn’t want convicts and criminals as new immigrants.  

    George Washington preferred skilled new immigrants, such as “useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” James Madison wanted the “worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us,” so they can “increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”  

    How can a new immigrant increase the wealth and strength of a community? Rep. John Laurance clarified:  

    Every person who comes among us must do one or the other; if he brings money, or other property with him, he evidently increases the general mass of wealth, and if he brings an able body, his labor will be productive of national wealth, and an addition to our domestic strength. Consequently, every person, rich or poor, must add to our wealth and strength, in a greater or less degree. 

    Assimilation Strengthens and Protects  

    The United States was founded upon specific ideas and moral principles, as expressed by the eloquent words of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson believed that “it is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together.”  

    He feared that if new immigrants believed different ideas, then “with their language, they will transmit [them] to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”  

    Benjamin Franklin shared Jefferson’s concerns. Some people today accuse Benjamin Franklin of being anti-immigration because of the disparaging words he said about German immigrants. In fact, Franklin was anything but opposed to immigration. He published the first German newspaper in America, the Philadelphische Zeitung, in 1732. Franklin was not against immigration; he was concerned that a lack of assimilation would be harmful to immigrants’ happiness and damning to the unity and longevity of the republic.  

    George Washington expressed a similar concern: that immigration does not benefit America when immigrants congregate and “retain their language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”  

    Instead, he firmly believed that new immigrants or their descendants should, “by an intermixture with our people … get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”  

    Immigrants Must Pledge Allegiance 

    No matter what drives them to America, some immigrants retain residual loyalty to their countries and cultures of birth. To become Americans, the founders believed immigrants needed to give up prior allegiances and pledge an oath of fidelity to the U.S. In Alexander Hamilton’s words:  

    The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.  

    John Quincy Adams, in an 1819 letter to Moritz von Furstenwarther, a German citizen who was considering moving to the U.S. and had asked Adams for a job, stated that the U.S. is a land “not of privileges, but of equal rights.” Thus, Adams warned Furstenwarther that new immigrants like him:

    Must cast off the European skin, never to resume it. They must look forward to their posterity, rather than backward to their ancestors; they must be sure that whatever their own feelings may be, those of their children will cling to the prejudices of this country, and will partake of that proud spirit. 

    Citizenship Isn’t Cheap

    While some founders believed an oath of allegiance and a declaration to stay in America were sufficient for citizenship, others did not want to give out citizenship too cheaply.  

    They pointed out that some foreign sailors had voted in Philadelphia’s assembly elections after taking oaths of allegiance and then left America, having never intended to stay. This kind of practice not only results in election fraud but also threatens the “safety of a republic” because a foreigner who rejects American principles and ideas would vote against them. 

    Therefore, some founders thought “some security for their [immigrants’] fidelity and allegiance was requisite besides the bare oath.” The additional security the founders sought was property ownership or residency.  

    Property ownership has been used to distinguish citizens from aliens since the Roman Empire. Some founders wanted to “see the title of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as was that of a citizen of old Rome.”  

    During the House of Representatives debate on immigration law in Philadelphia in 1790, the majority of the founders regarded it as essential that an individual have a period of residency in the U.S. prior to gaining citizenship. Residency achieved two purposes, according to Rep. Michael Stone: 

    First, that he should have an opportunity of knowing the circumstances of our Government, and in consequence thereof, shall have admitted the truth of the principles we hold. Second, that he shall have acquired a taste for this kind of Government. And in order that both these things may take place, in such a full manner as to make him worthy of admission into our society.

    Founders extensively debated how long residency should be. Some suggested two years, while others suggested five years or even longer. But all agreed the residency requirement should be long enough to “give a man an opportunity of esteeming the Government from knowing its intrinsic value,” which “was essentially necessary to assure us of a man’s becoming a good citizen.”  

    Hamilton, the most famous immigrant to America, opposed limiting any congressional office to either native-born Americans or immigrants who met the residency requirement. People suspected later that he was trying to make himself eligible for the U.S. presidency.  

    Hamilton’s actual argument at the Constitutional Convention showed he was more concerned about ordinary immigrants. He pointed out, “Persons in Europe of moderate fortunes will be fond of coming here, where they will be on a level with the first citizens. I move that the section be so altered as to require merely citizenship and inhabitancy.”

    The majority overruled Hamilton’s proposal by requiring future U.S. House Representatives to meet a seven-year residency requirement, U.S. senators a nine-year residency, and presidents a 14-year residency.  

    Personally, my feeling is we should close ALL immigration for a minimum of 12 months!! That feeling includes foreign student visas! Additionally, a concerted effort should be made to deport any illegal immigrant caught by any law enforcement agency. Frankly, the current events are not immigration. It is, to all intents, an invasion!

  • How Russia Uses….

    How Russia Uses….

    This is a very interesting practice.
    For me, having zero knowledge of anything Ukrainian and hearing Putin mention the ethnicity of certain regions of Ukraine, it may provide an outlook.

    How Russia Uses Immigration and Naturalization to Grow State Power

    Ryan McMaken for Mises.org

    While the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s expansion has been a central issue in the Russian decision to go to war with Ukraine, this is certainly not the only issue. Moscow has repeatedly maintained that a central factor in its decision was the protection of ethnic Russian minorities in eastern Ukraine from human rights abuses committed by the Ukrainian state.

    This justification for military intervention has used more than once in recent decades. We saw similar tactics used in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both in Georgia. The Russian annexation of the Crimea in 2014 used similar rhetoric. Moreover, the Russian state has justified military interventions on grounds that it was protecting the local political independence and autonomy of these minority groups from their respective states’ central governments.

    Notably, the Russian regime extended citizenship to the populations of the separatist regions in question either before or after the military intervention in each case. This was done by granting passports to the residents of each region en masse, in a process called passportization.

    Most recently, this has also been done in eastern Ukraine, where passportization—as in Georgia—helped set the stage for military intervention.

    This use of citizenship and naturalization as a tool of foreign policy helps to illustrate some of the geopolitical implications of the existence of unassimilated ethnic or linguistic minorities within a state’s borders. These realities also call into question what are often overconfident assumptions that ethnic minorities will “assimilate” and abandon political allegiances with foreign states. In fact, as the Russian efforts in these areas suggest, the process of assimilation can actually be thrown into reverse, with disastrous results for those who are on the losing end of these changes.

    A Brief History of Passportization

    The Russian passportization effort stems from an apparent shift in the Russian regime toward incorporating Russian ethnics and other sympathetic groups—and the territories they inhabit—into a de facto or de jure union with the Russian state. Some have attributed this strategy specifically to Vladimir Putin, to whom has been attributed the so-called Putin doctrine of “Once Russian, always Russian.”

    This doctrine, to the extent that it actually exists, is nonetheless heavily constrained by political realities. Even if Moscow has big plans for reclaiming numerous parts of the old Soviet Union, the fact is Moscow does not possess the military capability to do so. The fact Moscow’s occupation efforts in Ukraine are limited to the south and southeast is only the latest evidence of this. Rather, efforts to bring new territories under Moscow’s sway have only worked in areas where the Russian state has first turned a sizable portion of the local population into Russian citizens via the passportization strategy.

    The Russians did not invent the idea of basing citizenship on ethnicity or cultural bonds. Broadly speaking, the idea that a regime has duties toward subjects living outside its own geographic jurisdiction is an ancient one. Citizenship and state control have not always been tied to physical location, as they are in the modern system of territorial states.

    Nonetheless, the Russian state has apparently adapted the notion for modern use. The current passportization tactic began approximately twenty years ago. As explained by the Verfassungsblog:

    Since 2002 Russia started its passportization policy and intensified it in the contested regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia. Both regions fought wars of secession from Georgia during the early 1990s with Russian covert support, and in both regions, peacekeeping operations including Russian troops were deployed. By 2006 already 90% of the population of Abkhazia and South Ossetia held Russian passports. The Georgian refusal to allow the Abkhazian population to use a neutral UN laissez-passer contributed to the demand for Russian passports. Moreover, both Abkhazia (since 2005) and South Ossetia (since 2006) allow for dual citizenship only with Russia.

    (Passportization has also been a significant development in Transnistria, a separatist region of Moldova that lies on the southwestern Ukrainian border.)

    Similar tactics were then used in the Donbas region of Ukraine after 2019:

    Five years after the self-proclamation of the separatist “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk in spring 2014, Russia decided in April 2019 to allow residents of the separatist-controlled, Russian-backed parts of these two Ukrainian regions to become Russian citizens via a simplified procedure with Presidential Decrees 183 and 187. In July 2019, the fast-track procedure was extended to residents of the Donbas territories controlled by the Ukrainian government. By mid-August 2021, the approximate number of newly passportized Donbas residents appeared to be about 530,000—around 250,000 in the LPR and 280,000 in the DPR. Internationally, these passports are not recognized as valid travel documents.

    In each case—Georgia in 2009 and Ukraine in 2022—this reverse assimilation of ethnic Russians was followed by military action to secure the territories newly populated by Russian citizens.

    Encouraging Immigration into Crimea

    When Moscow annexed the Crimea in 2014, the order of events was slightly different. In the case of the peninsula, annexations preceded widespread passportization, but Moscow benefited from the fact the Crimean population was already overwhelmingly ethnic Russian and sympathetic toward Russia. Crimean residents that did not have Russian passports received them soon after the annexation was executed. Moreover, to ensure the annexation had “staying power” the Russian regime encouraged immigration of ethnic Russians into the Crimea. Some sources estimate that more than a hundred thousand Russian migrantshave resettled on the peninsula in the wake of the annexation, while a similar number of anti-Russian residents have left.

    Demographics and Legal Citizenship Matter

    It is important to note that in these cases, the extension of Russian citizenship was not simply a formality. Russian citizenship has come with access to social benefits through the Russian state, such as pensions, and recipients of the new passports have in many cases also been able to vote in Russian elections. Moreover, Russian citizenship brings with it a right to immigrate to Russia, which is a step up for many residents of the territories targeted for passportization. Russia’s GDP (gross domestic product) per capita, after all, is nearly twice that of Ukraine. Many residents of eastern Ukraine have elected to migrate to Russia following passportization. This has helped to buttress Russia’s population in a time of demographic decline.

    For the most part, passportization has served an important geopolitical purpose for Moscow: it has fundamentally changed the demographics of each targeted region, increasing the proportion of residents that are closely tied to the Russian state and fostering a larger role for Moscow in these areas that were formerly controlled by other states.

    In each case, Moscow was only able to carry out these efforts because the pro-Russian minority groups were never “assimilated” or integrated into the linguistic and ethnic majorities. This created cleavages in the Ukrainian and Georgian populations that Moscow was able to exploit.

    The Limits of Western Ideas about Minority Populations

    In the West, where institutions (i.e., governments, markets, schools) are richer, stronger, and consequently better able to integrate minority groups, this phenomenon of reverse assimilation is not nearly as plausible. In much of the world, however, weak states bordered by larger and richer states are quite susceptible to efforts by foreign states to entice residents with offers of citizenship and access to foreign labor markets and foreign social benefits. Georgia and Ukraine—relatively poor and isolated states—are prime examples of where this strategy can work.

    These developments also illustrate the limits of many proimmigration bromides about immigration. Residents of the wealthy West tend to have great confidence that ethnic minority groups are all on a clear path to integration and that all ethnic groups within a state will all enthusiastically work together to peacefully unify. It is also assumed that ethnic minorities within states are extremely unlikely to destabilize local regimes or pose any sort of real geopolitical threat. This is very often—if not usually—not the case outside the wealthy West.

  • Ginger Vs MaryAnn

    Ginger Vs MaryAnn

    With more than 240,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Homeland security policy is coordinated at the White House by the Homeland Security Council.

    Biden signs Executive Order reversing many of the Immigration policies made during the prior Trump Administration and discontinues the construction of the Wall. Press Secretary Psaki indicates DHS is not the White House’s responsibility, nor is the word crisis appropriate when discussing the southern border – interesting.

    https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1369363942015987722?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1369364561489494017?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1369368114933215238?s=20

    Trump Administration – Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany in May, 2020 ……watch at time stamp 1:26 forward. Speaking of opening the flood gates.

    Comment: Intentional chaos and suffering.

  • Coyote Wranglin’

    Coyote Wranglin’

    Incumbent Dar’shun Kendrick is running this year for re-election to the Georgia House of Representatives, District 93. Ms. Kendrick has been sitting in the Georgia House of Representatives since 2011. From her official biography (italicised content, added):

    ‘She current (not my typo, that’s the word as spelled in her official Georgia House Rep biography) serves as the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, the Juvenile Justice Committee, Interstate Cooperation Committee and the Small Business Development Committee. She also serves as chair of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus’ Special Committee on HBCUs and co-chair of the Georgia Future Caucus, a bipartisan group of legislators under the age of 40. In 2018, her peers elected her as the Chief Deputy Whip for the House Democratic Caucus. In 2019, she was appointed to the National Black Caucus of State Legislators Telecommunications, Science and Technology Committee. Additionally, in 2019, she started the first bipartisan Technology, Innovation & Entrepreneurship Caucus of the Georgia House of Representatives.’

    During her Summer vacations, 38 year old Ms. Kendrick enjoys piddling around with her other jobs as a corporate attorney and an investment advisor. Free time is dedicated to starting all manner of minority owned and served businesses. Ms. Dar’Shun Kendrick is one highly educated, motivated, informed up and comer! Er . . . maybe?

    Last nights Presidential Debate showed us the depth of Kendrick’s educated outrage when it comes to children, or immigration, or hating Donald Trump. During the debate segment on immigration, President Trump responded to accusations of recklessly wrenching children from their mother’s bosoms by noting how not all of the currently (that is how it is supposed to be spelled) unclaimed children brought into the US of A are toted in with their parents. Many are transported over the border as the cargo of cartels and coyotes. GA State Representative/Corporate Attorney/Investment Advisor/Super Democrat Chick Dar’Shun Kendrick was aghast at such a proclamation, and tweeted her befuddled disgust:

    https://twitter.com/DarshunKendrick/status/1319459569073008641

    From images of Wiley Coyote, catapults and canines doing their best PhotoShopped stork impressions, selfless people have been sacrificing their own time in effort to educate the poor thing. She’s not alone, however. Other experts on the Mexican border situation – people who know walls won’t work and putting children into cages is the worst thing to happen to children since Truman Capote – also seem to be ignorant of the term coyote, as used to describe somebody paid to smuggle human beings from Mexico into the United States of America.

    https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1319460648431046658?s=20

    Sickening and David Hogg . . . that’s harmonic. If you’d like to feel like a genius this evening, click here for an article on the Daily Wire where those who tweet while daring to keep ‘coyote‘ oppressed via monolithic definition processes are justifiably being exposed, for our pleasure. Some of the responses to these angry declarations of disgust seem to be balancing out the comical idiocy with comedic genius . . . there’s hope! 😄