When globalization was being pitched some years back by economic elites, they admitted outsourcing would send millions of jobs overseas to cheap-labor nations like Red China, but at least there will be lots of jobs in port cities where the billions of dollars in goods are received.
But modern automation and robots are changing that source of employment, as in so many others. Port operators look to the new smart machines to reduce costs by replacing human workers.
The blurb for the following video notes, “Automated ports and container terminals use robotics like automated guided vehicles (AGVs), automated stacking cranes, automatic gantry systems, and automatic shuttles and elevators.”
America certainly does not need to import millions of immigrant workers based on the false premise that a future labor shortage is looming because of boomer retirement, pushed energetically by amnesty huckster Rep Paul Ryan. An amnesty for 11+ million illegal aliens is just the beginning: increasing legal immigration is a top priority for business and left elites, shown by the Senate bill’s doubling of legal immigrants.
Given the robotic revolution that has just begun, the correct number of immigrants is ZERO.
LOS ANGELES — West Coast shippers and dockworkers are struggling to reach a labor agreement as terminal operators replace as many as half of laborers at some ports with robots in the largest technological change in half a century.
The two sides are discussing how to retrain and preserve jobs for dockworkers as automation reduces the number of positions at one Los Angeles terminal by 40 to 50 percent after changes are completed in 2016, according to a Harbor Department report released in April.
“In the U.S., the extent to which automation of container terminals affects the number of longshoremen’s jobs depends on negotiations between the employers and unions,” Neil Davidson, a senior analyst at Drewry Maritime Research in London, said by email. “Employers aren’t simply free to decide to reduce jobs. In addition, it depends on the nature of the automation.”
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association are negotiating a new contract for 20,000 West Coast dockworkers, more than two months after a six-year agreement expired. A strike or lockout could cost the U.S. economy $2 billion a day, according to the National Retail Federation and National Association of Manufacturers.
In addition to automation, the two sides are discussing salaries and work rules. They resolved the issue of health-care expenses, they said in August without revealing details.
Terminal operators at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the largest U.S. port complex, are installing equipment that moves containers from ships to shore cranes and trucks with minimal human labor. The first large-scale automation project is scheduled to be complete at a TraPac Inc. terminal at the Port of Los Angeles in 2016. In neighboring Long Beach, Orient Overseas Container Line Asia Pacific is adding robots as part of a $1.3 billion project to upgrade two container terminals by 2019. Continue reading this article
It’s amazing that otherwise intelligent people chatter on about “future” border security, with the idea that it ought to happen someday soon (yawn), given the world situation of uncertainty and violence. Now the nation is threatened with ISIS jihadists (headchoppers thought to be too extreme by al Qaeda) but little kiddies from Central America still break in daily. The border is wide open, not secure from enemies at all.
Stuart Varney of Fox Business had one of those general “border security” conversations on Friday, but it’s no different from others you hear all the time.
Why is border security something to be achieved sometime in the unspecified mysterious future? Where are the guffaws of disbelief when the administration clearly doesn’t want the border made secure? Most of the illegal crossers will be future Democrats, after all, and only a few want to blow stuff up for Allah — that seems to be the view of the White House. The administration is certainly bent on training the public to accept blatantly open borders as the new normal.
In a Fox interview on Friday, both Neil Cavuto and Senate candidate Scott Brown sounded alarmed about the border chaos, a rarity.
Once, 18 years ago, a person responsible for hardening America’s perimeter actually predicted a date of accomplishment. That was the promise in 1996 from Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Doris Meissner that border security would be a done deal by 2001:
Meissner said that controlling the border is going to be a long- term, step-by-step process. “We’ve always said this would be a three- to five-year effort to build up to what would be needed,” she said.
After the 9/11 attacks on our major cities killing thousands, the Department of Homeland Security was created to protect the nation. (I had always thought that defending America was the job of the Pentagon and the military, but that idea was apparently wrong.)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Technology to replace a now defunct virtual fence project at the Mexican border likely won’t be fully in place for at least another decade, maybe longer, according to the Government Accountability Office. [. . .]
Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, balked at the idea that the high tech gear, which he said is already available to the military, would take more than a decade to be deployed.
“You are talking 10 to 15 years. It took us a decade to put a man on the moon,“ McCaul said. “I don’t understand why it takes so long. You have a crisis going on down there. Everyone knows it. We know how dangerous it is in Mexico, we know how dangerous it is on the border. Why can’t we ramp up this process?“
In the video following, Sheriff Gary Painter of Midland County Texas says, “The border is wide open” and there is concern that jihadists are ganging up in Juarez for an attack.
Shutting down border anarchy is far more important now, when jihad is on the march. Does the administration have assurances from its sketchy advisors from the Middle East that no attacks are planned? If not, the present open border is a huge gamble of a big terror hit on Obama’s watch that even his poodle media won’t be able to cover up.
On Thursday, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the President’s promised executive amnesty scheduled after the November election. Specifically, Sessions offered Democrats an opportunity to condemn the lawless amnesty by voting on a procedural item that would block the Obama effort to undermine national sovereignty and the Constitutional powers of Congress.
NumbersUSA explained the strategy and unfortunate outcome:
In a procedural vote in the Senate on Thursday, a motion offered by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to allow a vote on Pres. Obama’s executive amnesty fell one vote short of passing, allowing the President to move forward with his promise to grant amnesty to work permits to an estimated 5-6 million illegal aliens after November’s mid-term elections. Five Democrats — four of which face difficult re-election bids — joined the 45 Republican Senators in supporting the motion to move forward with a vote.
With the Senate and House poised to adjourn until after the mid-term elections, the motion was likely the last opportunity for Congress to stop Pres. Obama from moving forward.
“You (the American people) have been right from the beginning. You have justly demanded that our borders be controlled, our laws enforced and that, at long last, immigration policy serves the needs of our own people first,” Sen. Sessions said just before the vote. “For this virtuous and legitimate demand, you have been demeaned, even scorned by the governing class.”
In early-August, the House of Representatives passed a bill offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), H.R.5272, that would have prevented any spending authorized by Congress to be used by Pres. Obama to grant work permits to illegal aliens. The bill would essentially block the President’s plans to issue a large-scale amnesty and prevent renewals of work permits for illegal aliens who benefited through his earlier executive amnesties. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote in an effort to protect both Pres. Obama and Senate Democrats. A recent poll by “the polling company” found that nearly two-thirds of voters oppose Pres. Obama taking executive action on immigration. Senate Democrats would be forced to support an unpopular move by Pres. Obama or rebuke him.
With Sen. Reid’s reluctance to bring the Blackburn bill to the floor, Sens. Sessions and Cruz joined together to offer it as an amendment to the must-pass Continuing Resolution that would fund the federal government through mid-December. Sen. Reid, however, used a procedural move called “filling the amendment tree” that prevents Senators from offering amendments to the bill.
Sens. Sessions and Cruz offered a motion to table the “amendment tree” while making it clear to other Senators that the purpose of the motion was to allow a vote on the Blackburn bill. All 45 Republican Senators and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) cast their votes in favor of the motion and 49 of the 54 remaining Democrats and Independents cast their votes against the motion. With 46 votes in favor, Sen. Reid knew he could allow 4 other Democrats to support the motion and still defeat it since it needed 51 votes to pass. He ultimately allowed Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to vote in favor of the motion, while Sen. Mark Begich (D-Ak.), who also faces a tough re-election, was forced to cast the deciding vote to kill the motion. The motion failed because of a 50-50 tie.
This is the second time Sen. Manchin has broken with the Democrats on the issue of Pres. Obama’s executive amnesties. In early-August, Sen. Sessions offered a similar procedural motion to get a vote on the Blackburn bill, and Manchin was the lone Democrat to support the motion.
The Obama Administration had announced over the summer that it planned on expanding its 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to a larger class of illegal aliens. DACA granted amnesty and work permits to more than 500,000 illegal aliens who met certain qualifications. The President had first promise to take action before the end of the summer, but coming under pressure from several Democrats running in tight races, he announced earlier this month that we would delay the action until after the mid-term elections.
Below, illegal aliens promote “Legalization for All” in Spanish (including Marxists — n.b. Che sign). Obama did promise to “fundamentally change America.”
Senator Sessions’ office posted text of his speech on his website:
“So I have a message today to all the special interests, the global elites, the activists, and the cynical vote-counting political plotters that are meeting in secret at the White House. And the message is this: you don’t get to sit in a room and rewrite the laws of this country… America is not an oligarchy. ‘The Masters of the Universe’ don’t get to meet at the White House and decide how to run this country…
If we leave town without having passed a bill to block this executive amnesty, then it will be permanent stain on this Senate, on the constitutional order, and on the tenure of this entire Senate Democrat caucus.”
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered the following remarks yesterday regarding an effort, which Senate Democrats eventually blocked by a vote of 50–50, to prevent President Obama from moving forward with his plan to implement a unilateral executive amnesty after the November elections:
“In a few moments, Senators in this chamber will cast one of the most important votes they will ever cast in their Senate careers.
With this vote, Senators will make a simple but vital decision. It is a decision that will steer the future course of this nation.
With this vote, Senators will decide whether their allegiance is to President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, and the open borders lobby, or whether their allegiance is to the American worker, the constitutional order, and our sovereign nation’s immigration laws.
The choice could not be more clear. Do we, as a nation, have the right to control our own borders? That is the question every Senator will be answering today. Continue reading this article
When the “at-risk youth” are Somali immigrant boys dreaming of headchopping for Allah, then special programs must be developed to appeal to their delicate ethnic sensitivities. Anyway, that’s the plan for the feds to discourage young jihad wanna-bes from joining ISIS.
Minneapolis-St. Paul is practically the jihad capital of America, at least for Somalis — not to forget Dearbornistan and the active community of unfriendlies there.
Somali immigrants are nothing but trouble and remarkably resistant to socialization. Even the ones who don’t leave to pursue jihad are often engaged in gangs and violent crime.
Rather than trying to civilize persons from a hostile religious culture who are only here for the money at best, why doesn’t Washington realize its mistake and stop Muslim immigration, particularly from Somalia?
Unfortunately no such sanity is forthcoming: RefugeeResettlementWatch reported in September that 7600 Somalis were admitted to the US in 2013.
Interestingly, there’s no taxpayer cost given for the new outreach program, the purpose of which is to protect us from the immigrants Washington deposited into American communities.
WASHINGTON — The Twin Cities were one of three muncipalities in the country that will participate in a pilot program to boost outreach in the Islamic community in effort to combat recruitment of naturalized Americans by the terrorist group ISIL, Department of Justice officials said Wednesday.
The pilot project will “bring together important Minnesota law enforcement, religious, and community leaders to expand outreach to Minnesotans,” according to Sen. Al Franken’s office, which has urged the Obama administration to deliver additional resources to Minnesota.
Two men with Minnesota ties were killed fighting for ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, in the Middle East. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions has a plan to throttle Obama’s executive amnesty (now promised to occur after the election) which would be a direct attack on US sovereignty, national security and American workers during the jobless “recovery.” The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo IDs and Social Security numbers for millions of foreign lawbreakers.
Senator Sessions’ plan is to use a procedural vote in the Senate to force a vote on legislation that would block President Obama’s planned effort to unlawfully give executive amnesty to millions.
Today would be a good time to phone Democrat senators and urge them to vote in favor of Sen. Sessions’ motion to table the amendment tree as a statement against Obama’s dictatorial amnesty.
The strategy is pretty wonky stuff, explained in Breitbart:
Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is drawing a line in the sand on immigration on a procedural vote on Thursday, he announced in a Senate floor speech Wednesday afternoon.
Sessions is focusing on a procedural vote through which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs to bring the Continuing Resolution to the floor and is working to paint the vote as a decision on whether or not to bring the House-passed immigration bills to the floor. The House bills were intended to prevent President Obama from extending unilateral amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Reid has blocked every effort by Senate Republicans to hold a vote on the matter. Continue reading this article
Last Sunday New York City’s annual Muslim Day Parade was held, as always, scheduled near the 9/11 anniversary for maximum screw-you-America effect.
Pamela Geller appeared on Sun TV’s Source program with Ezra Levant to discuss the appalling sights and behavior. The theme of the parade was supposed to celebrate the shared values of Islam and America (heh), but the event exuded threats and Islamic supremacy.
Exhibited parade items included a lynched female mannequin in the back of a pickup, Muslim men in black brandishing weapons (fake?), and real girls being held in a cage. Levant asked about the caged girls, “Is that the Boko Haram float?”
The Swiss people have shown in several national referenda that they do not want their orderly society overrun with costly or hostile foreigners. But an African refugee mother and her seven children have put a major financial burden on the town of Hagenbuch (population 1,084 in 2013) in the Zurich canton.
The Eritrean family is getting the deluxe refugee plan — the house is cleaned by professionals, four of the kids have been bundled off to an orphanage and a team of social workers work six days per week to help the mom and remaining kids shop, cook and take guided tours. The cost is around $64,000 monthly.
No wonder villagers are irate, since their taxes may be raised by at least 5 percent to maintain all this luxury for a family of inept foreigners whom nobody local invited.
One astute resident observed that the money being spent on one family could help many more if spent on do-gooder projects abroad.
The linked article following has a good video that is not friendly to being embedded.
A village in the Swiss canton of Zurich has expressed anger over the situation of just one refugee family. To carry on supporting a mother from Eritrea and her seven children, authorities aim to increase taxes, media report.
Just over 1,000 people live in the village of Hagenbuch, which is forced to spend over 60,000 Swiss francs (around US$64,000 euro) a month on the family – 30 percent of the monthly expenses for the entire village.
The authorities are pondering a tax increase of at least 5 percent, Blick newspaper reported.
“I don’t know where to turn. I think we have no other choice but to raise taxes,” Mayor Therese Schlaepfer told the daily.
She also expressed her anger at the fact that immigrants have only rights and no obligations. According to the mayor’s words, the situation is causing the obvious outrage of the villagers as well.
A woman from Eritrea and her seven children moved to the quiet village three years ago, with a visa allowing her to stay in Switzerland for five years, and the possibility to extend it later. Continue reading this article
I hate to be un-positive about anyone’s efforts against illegal alien amnesty, and genuinely hope the Texas senator has become more educated about immigration in the intervening year. Obama’s promised amnesty is an evil attack on foundational American principles about law and sovereignty. But radical changes to the jobs marketplace caused by smart machines mean that far fewer legal immigrants are needed for the economy of the near future.
The leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, is a rare politician calling for a moratorium of immigration, because of the harm to society as he remarked: “Four million net migrants in the last 13 years to Britain represents an astonishing social change, and one that people simply don’t want.”
When the Swiss voted in a national referendum to limit immigration, Farage observed that the outcome was “wonderful news for national sovereignty and freedom lovers throughout Europe.”
Farage rues the lawlessness that immigration has brought, like polygamy and FGM which are not prosecuted in Britain. He believes preserving a nation’s cultural identity is more important than the economy.
When asked by Thomas for tips for Tea Party conservatives, Farage thought they might have to leave the Republican party to be more influential. The GOP has not been the voice of working people the way Reagan was. Most voters are not business owners or investors and those citizens are looking for a party that will represent their concerns.
Farage opposes gay marriage, but argues that the UK has effective civil partnerships. He fears the EU court may require churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Although Democrats often play to their base, modern Republicans seem ashamed of the 40% of registered voters who support the tea party. Likewise, similar constituencies felt ignored in the United Kingdom — until Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) entered the political realm.
Farage has been a Member of the European Parliament since 1999 and his party is now showing surprising growth as middle-class Britons rebel against the EU, open borders and an oppressive government.To put it simply, Farage wants to take his country back!
In an exclusive 24 minute video interview filmed on September 4 in Washington, D.C., Farage exudes self assurance, spunk and principle as a leader unafraid of the European Union “the emperor has no clothes.” From reading the tea leaves in Europe, Farage believes fewer people are enamored with the growing, centralized, bureaucratized state based out of Brussels.
Asked about his view of America’s stature in the world with President Obama, Farage said, “I’m a guest here and, don’t want to be rude, but it looks a little rudderless.” Referring to Obama as a “lame duck,” Farage said it “seems to me the chap is on the golf course every day. In terms of respect or fear of America, it is diminishing with this President.” Continue reading this article
What does it take to get a lawbreaking terror-connected foreigner deported these days? The question comes up regarding the case of Ailina Tsarnaev, a sister of the Boston Marathon bombing brothers. She was charged in August with aggravated harassment for threatening to “put a bomb on you” to an unnamed woman. Yet this stupid-generous country allows her to remain.
Judge Jeannine Piro probed the deportation question on Sunday. Unfortunately, the State Department has a lot to say about the deportation of people they admitted under asylum rules. Former U.S. Spokesman at the United Nations spokesman Rick Grenell observed that it would help if some member of Congress raised a stink about the case.
Below, Ailina Tsarnaev, making a court appearance.
A sister of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was arrested in New York on Wednesday after allegedly threatening a woman in a domestic harassment case, saying, “I have people that can go over there and put a bomb on you.”
Ailina Tsarnaev of North Bergen, N.J., was arrested at a police station in New York City Wednesday afternoon, charged with one count of aggravated harassment. She was released with a summons to return to a criminal court in Manhattan on Sept. 3, said police Lieutenant John Grimpel.
Grimpel said the victim of Ailina Tsarnaev’s alleged threat has a child with the father of one of Tsarnaev’s children. Grimpel did not elaborate on the nature of the dispute.
Tsarnaev told police she is 21, though she is believed to be three years older.
Her brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, is awaiting trial in federal court, accused, along with his older brother, Tamerlan, of setting off the April 15, 2013, bombs at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured more than 260. Continue reading this article
It’s unfortunate that spying is necessary in a free country, but when the government admits enemies in the name of immigration diversity then snooping is needed to keep the public safe.
And why not chill on counter-terrorism, New York voters may have thought during the election. After all, bin Laden was dead and al Qaeda was defeated, according to Obama. It would be safe to have a far-left peacenik mayor, right? What could possibly go wrong?
Jihadis must be amazed at their luck: Obama has opened up America’s southern border so even little kids can break in and Mayor De Blasio has substantially dismantled New York City’s crack counter-terrorism system.
Now Baghdadi has an enthusiastic army of headchoppers armed with American military equipment, plus a bank balance of a couple billion dollars with an oil field income of $2 million per day. He’s got motivation, resources and a target, making ISIS a serious threat to America in general and New York City in particular.
Now former member of the 9/11 Commission John Lehman says de Blasio is “taking his eye off the ball” at the worst time — which is a kind assessment because it assumes the mayor’s eye was once on the ball of protecting the city.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey concurred that disbanding the existing effective counter-terrorism program is bad policy, noting “I think we’re all less safe.”
Both Lehman and Mukasey agreed that De Blasio’s subversion of the federal Real ID system (recommended by the 9/11 Commission) to a lower-scrutiny city ID program for illegal aliens was dangerous.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is coming under sharp criticism for making decisions that may have undermined the effectiveness of his police department’s counter-terrorism operations.
Thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks on Manhattan, prominent security experts say de Blasio has made fighting terrorism a lower priority in order to appease the communities that helped elect him.
“A classic case of taking your eye off the ball at the worst possible time is Mayor de Blasio in New York,” said John Lehman, a former member of the 9/11 Commission.
He said de Blasio is failing to take seriously enough the new threat posed to New York and other major American cities by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has reportedly trained dozens of American jihadists.
“At the very time when the threat suddenly emerges in a whole new additional form focused on the U.S., he decides to end some of the most effective programs in the country in the NYPD counterterrorism unit,” Lehman said.
“He has reassigned people and vehicles and special equipment to non-counterterrorist activities,” he added.
The liberal Democratic mayor has come under fire for several controversial decisions since succeeding Michael Bloomberg, who created a massive counterterrorism unit during his three terms as mayor.
In April, de Blasio disbanded a special unit tasked with conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslim groups suspected of radical ties.
Michael Mukasey, who served as U.S. attorney general from 2007 to 2009, said the unit was instrumental in mapping out possible terrorist ties within Muslim communities.
“They weren’t simply conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslims. They were mapping communities, figuring out where someone from Lebanon or Yemen or any of the other hot spots would go if they wanted to come to this country and find refuge,” he said. Continue reading this article
But lawbreakers mostly come for American jobs and more money (aka “a better life” in lib speak).
If illegals live in fear about being deported, they certainly don’t act like it. Illegals are busted for drunk driving all the time, so they can’t be too concerned about getting the hook. A Google search for Illegal Immigrant Drunk Driving Arrest found 3.7 million results. Case closed on the fear argument.
Illegals aren’t clamoring for citizenship or the vote — that noise is coming from the Democrat Party. An official work permit is the real amnesty, and illegals would like to have that very much, although clearly most are getting along fine without genuine “papers.”
If millions of unlawful foreigners weren’t making money and successfully coping with American society, they would leave. Their length of stay shows amnesty is not needed, and would only reward and incentivize lawbreaking.
The number of immigrants living illegally in the United States has leveled off in recent years, but those who remain are more likely to have far deeper ties to the country than they did a decade ago, according to a report released Wednesday.
The study from Pew Research Center found that half of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants have lived here for at least 13 years and as many as 4 million have U.S.-born children.
The findings offer the most detailed portrait yet of the undocumented population and come as President Obama is weighing options about how he could use executive authority to remake his administration’s deportation policies amid mounting pressure from advocates to stem the breakup of immigrant families.
“These new estimates show that today’s unauthorized immigrants have lengthier ties to the U.S. than those in the past,” said Mark Hugo Lopez, Pew’s director of Hispanic research.
Immigration advocates have said that the administration, which has deported more than 2 million immigrants, has contributed to millions of people living in constant fear of removal from communities in which they’ve lived for many years. Opponents of relaxed immigration policies say unauthorized immigrants broke the law to get here and compete for jobs with American workers in a still-weak economy. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.