Poll: More Than Half of Americans Want Repatriation of Illegal Aliens

Thanks to the Center for Immigration Studies for commissioning a realistic poll about what citizens want done about the millions of illegal aliens in our midst.

Immigration polls are easy to influence by the way the queries are worded, particularly when the liberal media asks questions on the order of, “Should undocumented valedictorians be flogged with a cat o’ nine tails, or should they be given a path to citizenship?”

My fantasy poll questions would be phrased a little differently, like, “Given that a mass amnesty would cost the taxpayers more than $2.6 trillion, would you favor rewarding foreign lawbreakers with immediate work permits allowing them to compete with law-abiding citizens, or should the government require them to return to their homelands?”

The Daily Caller remarked on the squish factor of many mainstream polls:

Immigration reform group says polls showing support for pathway to citizenship are all wrong, Daily Caller, Feb 7, 2013

[. . .] A Gallup poll of adults that was released Feb. 5 showed 72 percent approval among respondents when they were asked “Would you vote for a law that would allow undocumented immigrants living in the United States the chance to become legal residents or citizens if they meet certain requirements?”

But such loose questions — which includes two options, as well as a profusion of vague words, such as “undocumented,” “chance” and “certain requirements” — encourage Americans to express their normal sympathy for immigrants, said Steven Camarota, the research director at Center for Immigration Studies.

“Once you peel that stuff back,” he told The Daily Caller, “what the public generally wants is for illegals to go home and for the law to be enforced.”

The CIS poll was conducted in late January by Pulse Opinion Research. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents were Democrats, 32 percent were Republicans, and 72 percent were white.

Immigration is a “very difficult issue on which to measure public opinion,” said Glen Bolger, a pollster and co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies.

Pollsters should pick their words carefully, and ask a series of 15 or more questions, he said. [. . .]

Clearly, care must be taken in designing a poll on a subject as complex as immigration, which encompasses law, emotions, tribalism, sovereignty and the future of the nation. It sounds like the effort from CIS has accomplished that goal. And results indicate a clear majority of citizens prefers the repatriation option, not rewards for foreign lawbreakers.

Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home; Results of a National Survey, Center Immigration Studies, February 2013

A new poll using neutral language — and avoiding the false choice of conditional legalization vs. mass deportations — finds that most Americans want illegal immigrants to return to their home counties, rather than be given legal status. The findings also show a very large gap in intensity, with those who want illegal immigrants to head home feeling much stronger about that option than those who would like to see illegal immigrants receive legal status.

• Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.

• There is an enormous gap in intensity between the two views on immigration. Of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent indicated that they felt “very strongly” about that view, while just 35 percent of those who want illegal immigrants to get legal status said they felt very strongly about this view.

• One reason the public may prefer that illegals head home is a strong belief that efforts to enforce immigration laws have been inadequate — 64 percent said that enforcement of immigration laws has been “too little”, while just 10 percent said that it had been too much, and 15 percent said it was “just right”. Continue reading this article

ICE Union President Testifies Immigration Enforcement Is Over

Sean Hannity, one of Fox News’ top amnesty enthusiasts, appeared surprised by the testimony of former ICE director Julie Myers Wood and ICE union president Chris Crane about the Obama administration’s non-enforcement of America’s borders and sovereignty. Permissiveness in those areas makes the entry of terrorists easier — who knew?

“It kind of takes my breath away,” Hannity said during an interview with Crane after the agent reported that only convicted felons may now be deported under Obama’s directive, and agents who insist upon following the law are punished.

Does Hannity think the Obama’s henchmen will do enforcement any better under the amnesty the Fox broadcaster supports?

What’s somewhat more newsworthy is Crane’s statement that after Obama’s re-election, orders of non-enforcement went from verbal to written. The President doesn’t have to pretend any longer.

There should be no surprise about these facts about non-enforcement: Fox Radio reported last August that an ICE agent was suspended for arresting a dangerous illegal alien, so extreme non-enforcement is not exactly news.

Also, Chris Crane was one of the agents suing the government for non-enforcement of immigration laws in ICE Agents v. Napolitano. That case moved forward when a judge ruled in January the agents have standing to sue.

Finally, here is a video of Chris Crane’s testimony from Tuesday’s hearing in the House, helpfully posted at Senator Sessions’ YouTube channel:

:

Danish Critic of Islam Narrowly Escapes Assassination Attempt

It’s dangerous to tell the truth about hostile Islam in Europe these days. Free speech campaigner Lars Hedegaard (pictured) had a close call on Tuesday when a man pretending to deliver a package tried to shoot the 70-year-old writer at his Copenhagen home. The intruder fired a shot but missed, and ran away after Hedegaard punched him in the face.

Muslim immigration has created a major threat to free speech and safety of western persons who wish to practice it. Probably the best known case was the 2004 murder of Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street, where he was killed by a Muslim angry about Submission, van Gogh’s film critical of Islam’s cruelty to women.

In 2010, five Muslims were arrested for plotting a mass murder at the office of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which famously published a series of controversial Mohammed cartoons. Another close call was the axe-wielding Somali attack on cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who managed to escape into his “panic” room until police arrived.

These are just a few of the Islam-inspired anti-free-speech incidents prior to the attack on Hedegaard.

In January, Hedegaard began publishing his weekly newspaper, the Dispatch International, which reports the stories about Islam which the mainstream press fears to cover. He is also president of the Danish Free Press Society.

Canadian journalist Michael Coren discussed the case with Diana West:

For background on Hedegaard and the Dispatch International, the Oct 12, 2012, episode of Stakelbeck on Terror is useful:

‘The bullet flew past my ear’: Danish anti-Islam writer, 70, narrowly survives doorstep assassination attempt, Daily Mail, February 5, 2013

A writer and outspoken critic of Islam narrowly escaped being shot dead after he opened his door to a would-be assassin posing as a delivery man at his home in Denmark.

The gunman rang the doorbell of 70-year-old Lars Hedegaard’s apartment in Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, under the pretext of delivering a parcel, but when the writer opened his front door the hitman pulled out a weapon and fired a shot that just missed Mr Hedegaard’s head.

According to Mr Hedegaard, who described how the bullet ‘flew past’ his right ear, said the sniper fled after the writer punched him in the face causing him to drop his gun.

Mr Hedegaard, who heads up a group that claims press freedom is under threat from Islam, said the attack had left him shaken but not injured.

Police in Copenhagen confirmed they were searching for the suspect, described as a ‘foreign’ man aged between 20 and 25. Continue reading this article

Senator Rubio to Give Bilingual (Spanish) Republican Response to SOTU

The Republican Party’s designation of Sen Marco Rubio as its voice of the diverse future is looking worse all the time. Not only is he the crown prince of the Senate amnesty plot, er framework, but now he has been chosen to give the Republican response to the President’s State of the Union speech — in English and Spanish.

Memo to the Senator: Americans do not want to be a “bilingual” nation, with Spanish holding the same cultural and legal importance as English. We still expect immigrants to learn our language as well as embrace our national values. A 2010 Rasmussen poll found that 87 percent supported English as the official language. We still believe in assimilation as a necessary component to immigration, otherwise the nation breaks down into ethnic and linguistic ghettos, which is what has in fact happened under decades of lawlessness.

If Sen Rubio wants to be a conservative leader of America, then he should represent traditional values of sovereignty, the English language and American culture.

Rubio to deliver GOP response to SOTU in both English and Spanish, Daily Caller, February 6, 2013

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio will deliver the GOP response in both English and Spanish following President Obama’s State of the Union Address on Feb. 12.

House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced that they have selected the Florida senator, considered a rising star in the Republican Party, Wednesday.

“He’ll deliver a GOP address that speaks from the heart to the hopes and dreams of the middle class; to our party’s commitment to life and liberty; and to the unlimited potential of America when government is limited and effective,” Boehner said in a statement.

Rubio has in recent weeks been at the forefront of the immigration debate, as one of the more vocal advocates for the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” proposal for immigration reform. Continue reading this article

Is Obama Effectively Misleading Voters about Amnesty?

The administration has done a successful job of spinning its proposed amnesty as focused on citizenship, something the illegal aliens care nothing about. An indication is contained in the video below, in which Rep Trey Gowdy reports that his conservative constituents would be open to an amnesty if the government could institute border and workplace security.

Do Gowdy’s South Carolina voters understand that illegals get the benefit they value the most, namely the ability to work legally, immediately following the bill’s signing?

The work permit is the amnesty.

Clearly our side has a lot of educating to do.

House Immigration Hearing on Tuesday

The House Judiciary Committee has posted information about Tuesday’s immigration hearing, and the line-up of speakers is somewhat concerning. Usually the majority party gets to choose 3 out of 4 witnesses per panel, but the upcoming group appears unduly friendly to Obama’s amnesty and general immigration permissiveness, although I admit not every name is familiar to me. But there are hints, like job titles.

I phoned C-SPAN a little while ago and the fellow with whom I spoke said hearing coverage decisions are made late in the day before the event, but he thought they might cover it given the current interest about immigration in the news.

But I hear on good authority that the hearing “should” be webcast on the House Judiciary site.

The hearing, titled “America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of Laws against Illegal Immigration” is scheduled for 10:15 am EST on Tuesday, Feb 5.

The committee has already included the witnesses’ written statements:

Witness List

Panel I

Vivek Wadhwa
Director of Research, Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University

Michael Teitelbaum
Senior Advisor, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wertheim Fellow, Harvard Law School (Also Commissioner and Vice Chair
, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform 1991-1997)

Dr. Puneet S. Arora
Chairman of the Board, Immigration Voice

The Honorable Julian Castro
Mayor, San Antonio, Texas

Panel II

Julie Myers Wood
President, Guidepost Solutions LLC

Chris Crane
President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees

Jessica Vaughan
Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies

Muzaffar Chishti,
Director of the Migration Policy Institute’s Office at New York University Law School Office

Amnesty: It's the Work Permit, Stupid

It’s disappointing to see smart people like Pat Buchanan misstate the point of the current amnesty dust-up by talking about a “path to citizenship,” a phrase he used twice in the brief clip below, as if that were the goal of unlawful foreigners.

Millions of illegals don’t endanger their lives crossing the hazardous Arizona desert so they can become American citizens and participate in our wonderful elections. They come for the immediate gratification of more money in the very near future.

Of course, the Democrat party and the raza bunch want the foreigners as voters ASAP in order to expand the political power of leftists and ethnic tribalists.

But the illegals themselves are here for the money, period. And any free stuff they can mooch from Uncle Sucker.

The promise of Marco Rubio and the Gang of Eight that illegals would get probationary legal status with an accompanying work permit on day one has been played expertly by raza propagandists, with help from naive triangulators like Senator Rubio.

The little migrants will have to wait years to get a real green card and be on the “path to citizenship” but meanwhile they can remain here and work legally. That’s hardly going to the real back of the line, like in Manila or Mexico City, where would-be legal immigrants continue to wait long years for entry.

Below, the Senate Gang of Eight has some familiar faces from 2007, along with similar provisions to the amnesty legislation of that year.

But the public yammering is mostly about the “path to citizenship” not the immediate bonanza of the employment keys to the kingdom. (Although Ann Coulter commented that Rubio’s plan is a “wolf in wolf’s clothing” and assessed the ability to live and work legally in the US as “the Hope Diamond of the universe.”)

In addition, much discussion has also been conveniently funneled toward the border security tar baby, definitely a stubborn pustule in the national flesh, however workplace security is far more central to the employment magnet. No jobs, no mobs of illegal aliens here to steal them. We need to focus more on the central issues and not the extraneous.

For starters, repeat this phrase until it takes hold:

The work permit is the amnesty.

Spanish-speaking Home Invaders Get Second Amendment Treatment

The one good thing about the firearms debate ginned up by Obama’s gun grabbers is the increased reporting of successful instances of self-defense showing up in the media. Most don’t get reported at all; the press prefers to broadcast the bad news that includes guns.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson of UCLA said, “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year.” Other estimates put the number in the millions.

Today, for example, I saw two examples of armed self-defense that made me smile.

It is particularly sweet when a 70-year-old man, a high school basketball coach, can use his gun to protect himself and two young players. The criminals doubtless saw an old man and two teen girls as an easy mark, but the coach’s handgun reversed that scenario.

Martin Luther King Jr. High School coach shoots attackers, WXYZ-TV Southfield Michigan, Feb 2, 2013

(WXYZ) – Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women’s basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.

Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.

The man who shot the attackers was 70 years old, according to police. [. . .]

Further south, a Magnolia, Texas, mom named Erin faced three Spanish-speaking thugs who broke into her house, where she managed to plunk one, though the other two escaped.

The wonders of firearms against diverse criminals!

In the video below at the 1:41 point, Erin says “They started talking to each other in Spanish. . .”

Home invasion suspect arrested after woman opens fire, KPRC – Houston, January 29 2013

MAGNOLIA, Texas – A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.

“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

“When I saw three of them, I knew I was in a lot of trouble. I said, ‘The TV is the most expensive thing I own. You could take that through the front door and go with it,’ and they said, ‘No, the money, the money,'” said Erin.

Erin said she had to think fast as the men headed towards her son’s room. The mom said she distracted the men as she rushed to get her gun.

“Somehow the way it happened, as they were going down the hallway, I told them sometimes I keep money under the mattress, which is not true. But I needed to get to where my gun was,” she said.

The men followed her to her bedroom.

“I was pretending to move the mattress. It’s really heavy, so I was trying to move their attention to the mattress because they wouldn’t take their eyes off of me. I needed a split second for them to take their eyes off of me. I said, ‘It might be under here.’ They started talking to each other in Spanish and then a roll of duct tape came out,” said Erin. Continue reading this article

Mali Citizens Are Thrilled to Be Rid of Barbaric Sharia Law

Last spring a force of jihadists and Tuaregs swept through northern Mali and pushed out government forces. They then set about instituting Islam’s cruel sharia law, using punishments like public executions, amputations and floggings.

Jihadists began beating locals for smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. The Islamists bought children to be used as soldiers and stoned to death an unmarried couple. The sharia enforcers amputated hands of accused thieves.

“And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands.” Quran 5:38

This is the system of “justice” which Allah’s gangsters want to institute everywhere. The next time someone says that cultures are the same the world over, you can recommend a sharia vacation.

Malians therefore celebrated when the French army chased out the Muslims oppressors. They were happy to return to normal pursuits, like playing music which is a big part of Mali culture.

Timbuktu residents welcomed French and Malian troops for their liberation from 10 months of barbaric Islo-oppression.

The BBC noted the relief felt by Malians:

Yacouba Toure and a couple of his friends have gathered around his crackling radio in Mali’s historic city of Timbuktu, soon after French-led troops captured it from militant Islamists.

They are sitting on the dusty steps of a hair salon, feet tapping to the rhythm of music.

“Music is a pleasure for us,” Mr Toure says.

“We can now dance and do whatever we want: We can walk together with women, we can shout, we’re the young people of Timbuktu, this is what we like doing.”

Music was banned under the strict Islamic law that militant Islamists imposed when they took over the ancient desert city last year.

The CBN sent a reporter to the Malian town of Gao to check on the changes.

Mali Town Celebrates Exit of Islamic Terrorists, CBN, February 1, 2013

North Africa is the newest hot spot in the fight against Islamic terrorism. The spread of radical Islamist groups has the United States and the West concerned it could become a base for terror networks.

That’s why French forces are in Mali, driving Islamic terrorists out of the northern towns they’ve occupied for more than a year.

Gao residents danced in the street, celebrating their town’s liberation from the intruders.

But their joy soon turned to anger, with Mali citizens looting Islamic police headquarters and lashing out against any sign of the 10 months of oppression they endured.

During that time, Islamists amputated the hands of two men for supporting the Malian government.

“Islamic police cut (off) my hand and showed it to the crowds,” one man said.

Another said, “Jihadis tortured me for three months before hacking my hand off in front of everyone.” Continue reading this article

Obama's Open Door for DREAMers -- a National Security Threat?

Of all the harmful policies Obama has brewed up in the last four years, one of the most concerning from a national security perspective is his catch-and-release amnesty for anybody claiming to be a DREAMer kid. Any semi-young person caught crossing the border illegally merely has to say he is covered by Obama’s administrative amnesty:

“Prosecutorial discretion for dreamers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are if an alien says they went to high school, then let them go,” [Border Patrol union leader Chis Crane] said at a press conference with GOP senators.

It wouldn’t be that hard for al Qaeda or similar jihadists to tutor some of their top bomb guys about how to act Mexican and say “I’m a Dreamer,” then funnel them across the southern border into the defenseless United States. The terrorists wouldn’t have to be convincing — as the Border Patrol complains, there is no requirement of any proof at all. All DREAMer claimers get in. Is that a welcome mat for enemies or what?

Terror experts have pointed out for years that America’s southern border is a weak link and is noticed as such by our Islamic enemies. Hezbollah has set up shop in Mexico and appears to find common cause with narco-traffickers. Now retired Rep. Sue Myrick warned about Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and his policy of providing easy transit for Iranians and other enemies to reach the US via Mexico.

A recent article in the Arizona Republic spelled out the Chavez plotting in some detail:

Threats on our doorstep, Arizona Republic, January 26, 2013

[. . .] Few Americans know that these threats on our doorstep can be traced back in large measure to the narco-state that has taken root in Venezuela under the reckless regime of Hugo Chavez.

This hostile government is managed by Cuba’s security apparatus, funded by China, armed by Russia, and partnered with Iran, Hezbollah, and Colombian and Mexican narco-traffickers.

U.S. authorities and prosecutors have gathered fresh, compelling evidence implicating senior Venezuelan officials — including Chavez himself — in the drug trade. Chavez has also forged an important strategic alliance with Iran to allow that radical regime to evade international sanctions and to advance its asymmetrical threat against the United States. Iran’s terror proxy, Hezbollah, is hosted in Venezuela, where it is actively engaged in narco-trafficking in the Americas. [. . .]

A reminder of the threat was underlined by a Wednesday item in security analyst Bill Gertz’ column:

Inside the Ring: New al Qaeda threat, By Bill Gertz, Washington Times, January 30, 2013

A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on the United States and the West.

The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”

The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.

“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.

The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”

Under a section of the post on the method of the attacks, the unidentified writer said the strikes would be “group and lone-wolf operations, in addition to the use of booby-trapped vehicles.” Continue reading this article

Robert Rector: New Amnesty Will Cost Trillions of Taxpayer Dollars

A few sovereignty defenders like Senator Jeff Sessions have begun to pipe up about mega amnesty’s mind-blowing cost to be paid by unwilling citizens, a message that hasn’t broken through to the dinosaur media.

Unsurprisingly, the Opravda media is more concerned with the politics of the scheme rather than the national effect of Mexicanizing our culture and shredding the importance of citizenship, not to mention the dollar amount to be paid for self-destruction.

In 2007, Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector authored an important study, Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion. Now he is back, saying the increased costs everywhere, including Obamacare, will drive the price tag even higher. Incidentally, Rector is also an expert on welfare costs and is particularly qualified to understand the intersection of low-skilled immigrants and welfare use.

Rector says he is currently preparing a new report with updated figures. Hopefully that paper will be finished soon. Meanwhile, we have his recent remarks to ponder. In particular, why does this government insist upon importing and subsidizing poverty when we are $16 trillion in the hole already?

Expert: Bipartisan immigration reform plan will cost trillions, Daily Caller, January 31, 2013

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, expects the bipartisan immigration reform proposal, which includes a path to citizenship, will end up costing taxpayers more over time than the trillion-dollar calculations he testified to during debate over the 2007 immigration reform bill.

“[The proposal] seems to be virtually identical to the 2007 bill and would be extremely costly to the U.S. taxpayers,” Rector told The Daily Caller in a Wednesday interview. “Granting amnesty or legal status to illegals will generate costs in Medicare and Social Security alone of $2.5 trillion above any taxes paid in.”

According to Rector, the majority of the undocumented immigrants who would eventually be legalized by the legislation are largely uneducated, and therefore more likely to be dependent on government assistance. Fifty to 60 percent of the new immigrants are high school dropouts, and 75-80 percent have no more than a high school degree.

“It’s not like they pay in a lot when they are young, and they take it out when they’re old. They are in fiscal deficit every year of their lives,” Rector explained. “For example, the typical household headed by someone who does not have a high school degree, as I said in that paper in 2007, got back then $30,000 in benefits and paid $10,000 [in income and consumption taxes]. It’s a net cost of $20,000. That would be significantly higher now.”

Rector’s numbers, he noted, were from 2007, which means that now the cost will higher due to the increase in benefits programs and number of undocumented.

“We don’t know how many there are,” Rector said of the 11 million undocumented immigrant figure. “You can say all these costs will be significantly higher in this bill than in the 2007 bill.” Continue reading this article

Arizona Rancher: Border Is Not Secure

When the Gang of Eight amnesty Senators outlined a framework for their anti-sovereignty scheme, a basic piece was the commission that would decide when the Mexican border was secure. That board would consist of governors, community members, and attorneys general living on the Southwest border.

An inquiring mind might ask whether those community members would include ranchers, who are the ground-zero frontline experts of illegal border crossers. A report from last fall quoted Texas rancher Dr. Mike Vickers as saying, “The border is not secure; it’s dangerous. We’re in a war zone here. Washington is just a mass of deception. There’s absolutely no truth to what they’re saying.”

A more recent observer is Nogales, Arizona, rancher Dan Bell, whose border-front property is assaulted daily by drug smugglers and illegal aliens. A couple broken strings of barb-wire supplied by Washington doesn’t keep out the invaders, interestingly enough.

Rancher: Mexican border isn’t secure, CNN, January 29, 2013

Dan Bell owns a cattle ranch in Nogales, Arizona, that sits right on the border with Mexico. He’s been on the property his whole life and has seen firsthand the violence and tragedy that stem from issues with illegal immigration.

“I don’t believe there’s a day that goes by – either illegal immigrants or somebody smuggling contraband drugs,” Bell told CNN’s Gary Tuchman. “There’s always somebody coming across.”

A tall fence lines some of Bells’ land, but mostly the only thing dividing the two countries is a rickety barbed wire fence that can easily be climbed; he makes repairs to it himself.

It would be difficult to build the tall, protective fence along the entire border because of the mountainous topography.

When asked if he considers the border secure, Bells says it’s not. “We do need to focus on making sure that we have boots on the ground, that we have the technology available to us, that we have infrastructure to actually get to the border and patrol it.”

Page 108 of 217« First...102030...106107108109110...120130140...Last »