Because of the foresight of a Texas Congressman, President Trump will be able to end certain funding to the largest sanctuary cities plus the entire state of California on his first day as President. Working quietly, Culberson convinced the existing Justice Department to certify those cities as non-compliant with federal law, thereby making them vulnerable to loss of money from Washington.
And if President Trump should get cold feet about tough immigration law enforcement, he should note that a November Rasmussen poll found that large majority of voters favors deportation of illegal alien criminals:
On Wednesday, Congressman Culberson appeared on Fox News to discuss the issue:
ERIC SHAWN: With the imminent arrival of a new administration and a new attorney general to enforce immigration laws, sanctuary cities across the country have potentially to face the risk of losing federal funds if they refused to cooperate with immigration officials. But one congressman took action last July in the Appropriations Committee that uses the power of the purse to deny some Department of Justice funds and he says all that waits to go into action is a simple signature. That congressman joins us now; he is John Culberson of Houston, he is the chairman of the House Appropriations, Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee. Congressman, good to see this morning. So you say this fund cutoff could actually be implemented on day one?
CONGRESSMAN JOHN CULBERSON: Yes Eric, in fact using existing law and the power of the purse, I have seen to it that the top 10 sanctuary cities in America have already been certified as violating existing federal law and therefore everything is pre-positioned for these 10 cities — including Chicago, New York, the entire state of California — they will lose all their federal law enforcement money, if President Trump chooses to, the president can cut off their money at noon on January 20th of 2017. If they do not change their sanctuary policies and hand over criminal illegal aliens in their custody to be deported, their days of receiving federal law enforcement money are over.
SHAWN: Obviously this is something that the Obama administration has not agreed with.
CULBERSON: In fact I, as chairman of the subcommittee in charge of all the money for the Department of Justice, I quietly persuaded Attorney General Loretta Lynch to implement this new policy this past July seventh, so it’s already done. I did it as subcommittee chairman using existing law and the influence of the power of the purse that the founding fathers so wisely entrusted to Congress. I did it quietly and and thoughtfully, and I didn’t embarrass anybody so it’s already done, pre-positioned.
SHAWN: I’m sorry — pre-positioned but hasn’t gone into action?
CULBERSON: Attorney General Lynch has already notified every city and state in the country that unless they cooperate 100 percent of the time with requests for immigration information about criminal aliens in local custody, then those local jurisdictions lose all their federal law enforcement money. That’s already up on the Department of Justice website. It has been official policy since July seventh. I just didn’t make any noise about it because the purpose of this election — America wants us to get it done, to get the job done, so I’ve taken care of it the job is done and President Trump can now cut off their money at noon on January 20th because it’s been policy. . . [cut off]
Breitbart has an explanation of the legal details:
Sanctuary cities and other jurisdictions will now have to choose between protecting illegal aliens and receiving federal law enforcement grants thanks to the work of a Texas congressman.
Texas Representative John Culberson (R-TX) used his position as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science and the congressional power of the purse to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce existing law requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with immigration officials. Culberson announced in February an agreement with outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch to block federal law enforcement grants to jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, Breitbart Texas reported. Since that time, the Texas congressman has been working with DOJ officials to certify the top-ten jurisdictions not in compliance with the law. Continue reading this article
We know that Democrats’ immediate reaction to anyone who disagrees with them is to shriek “Racist!” However, America’s Senator Jeff Sessions being named as the Attorney General does pose a genuine threat to the liberal agenda of turning America into a diverse socialist hellhole — thus the overwrought howls.
Democrats may have learned from the election that traditional Americans cannot be browbeaten into choosing the leftward path, so Dems will need to import even more culturally big-government immigrants like Mexicans to achieve their goals. So the Ds appear to think, judging from their current hysteria.
A genuinely tough immigration enforcer as AG is a threat to Democrat dreams of dominance in politics, and Jeff Sessions must therefore be destroyed.
Interestingly, on Monday Senator Sessions’ one-time Legislative Counsel William Smith appeared on Fox News to discuss his experience of working with the Alabama Republican. Smith was the first African-American Chief Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and was hired by the senator. Smith explained how Sessions “prosecuted the head of the KKK, made sure that he received the death penalty [in a murder case]; he desegregated schools in Alabama and I think you might have a picture of John Lewis and Jeff Sessions walking hand-in-hand across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.”
It’s curious to see black American leaders (particularly media elites like Al Sharpton) gripe about the nation’s most dedicated immigration enforcer, when a shutdown of the open border would benefit blacks probably more than any other group. Deporting the Mexican job thieves would open many blue collar occupations in construction and similar industries like home renovation. But black leaders care little for actual improvement in the lives of the people they claim to represent, judging from their policies.
Columnist Byron York calls the Sessions nomination a “nightmare” for Democrats because he is the “most determined, and most knowledgeable opponent of comprehensive immigration reform” and is the perfect person to obliterate Obama’s anti-America non-enforcement strategy.
President-elect Trump’s transition team knew that nominating Jeff Sessions for Attorney General would set off controversy. Democrats and their allies in the press have at key times in the past called Sessions a racist — they’re now using the Alabama senator’s full name, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, to heighten the Old South effect — and now, as they oppose Trump at nearly every turn, they’ve turned to race again.
Here’s why the effort to stop Sessions is likely to intensify as his confirmation hearings near. Sessions is the Senate’s highest-profile, most determined, and most knowledgeable opponent of comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats are particularly anxious about immigration because of the unusually tenuous nature of President Obama’s policies on the issue. Those policies can be undone unilaterally, by the new president in some cases, and by the attorney general and head of homeland security in other cases. There’s no need for congressional action — and no way for House or Senate Democrats to slow or stop it.
There are extensive, and in some cases, strict immigration laws on the books, passed by bipartisan majorities of Congress. Obama wanted Congress to change those laws. Congress declined. So Obama stopped enforcing provisions of the law that he did not like. A new administration could simply resume enforcement of the law — a move that by itself would bring a huge change to immigration practices in the United States. No congressional approval needed.
There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law. And more.
Many of those laws have been loosened or, in some cases, completely ignored by the Obama administration. A Trump administration would not need to ask Congress to pass any new laws to deal with illegal immigration. If there was a presidential order involved in Obama’s non-enforcement, Trump could undo it, and if there were Justice Department directives involved, Sessions could undo them, and if there are Department of Homeland Security directives involved, the still-to-be-nominated secretary could undo them.
“It will be possible for the Trump administration to dramatically increase enforcement of immigration laws by using what is now on the books,” notes Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates reducing immigration into the U.S. Continue reading this article
It’s amazing that liberals believe they are superior moral beings, while at the same time they don’t mind the carnage that results from their beloved policy of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, including violent criminals.
But since Donald Trump, a strong enforcer of immigration law, has been elected president, San Francisco is determined to protect the foreign lawbreakers rather than defend the public safety of the citizens. It’s not like there’s no cost to this liberal insanity: San Francisco has four preventable deaths on its conscience — if it had one.
Plus, open borders and morally bankrupt cities don’t just attract moochers and gangsters from south of the border, they also entice America’s jihadist enemies. Former INS agent Michael Cutler made that point during a Newsmax interview from November 15:
“Look at the warnings that we’ve had from John Brennan, the head of the CIA, from James Comey, the head of the FBI, saying that ISIS was abetting terrorists in the refugee flows and finding other means to come here and kill us, and we’ve seen it time and again. . . These are failures of the immigration system and it’s the immigration laws and our borders that our first and last line of defense.”
The Chronicle’s big story includes not only the predictable baloney of sob stories, but it also notes the desire of the Public Defender for $5 million in taxpayer funds to legally protect illegal aliens — so citizens would again be forced to pay for their dispossession and decreased safety.
Just days after Donald Trump was elected America’s next president, Mayor Ed Lee stood with a line of top city officials on City Hall’s grand marble staircase to promise that San Francisco will uphold its 27-year-old sanctuary city laws protecting people who are in the country illegally.
“We have been and always will be a city of refuge, a city of sanctuary, a city of love,” Lee told the crowd gathered for a unity ceremony on Monday. “We promise to be a city that’s always welcoming. There are no walls in our city!”
Other mayors, including those in Portland, Ore., Seattle and Chicago, made the same pledge in the days after the election. Trump’s top immigration adviser, Kris Kobach, promptly fired back. A co-author of Arizona’s controversial 2010 immigration law, Kobach tweeted “End #SanctuaryCities” and shared part of an interview he had done on Fox News.
“They’re just thumbing their noses at federal law and putting their own citizens in danger,” Kobach said of mayors like Lee. Trump, he said, “has made it very clear he cares about the victims of these illegal alien sanctuary cities.”
On Friday, it was announced that Trump’s pick for attorney general is Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has opposed nearly every immigration bill to come before the Senate in the past 20 years and has opposed even some legal immigration programs.
Trump has pledged to immediately deport millions of immigrants once he takes office in January. He has also said he will strip sanctuary cities and counties, which number more than 300, of all federal funding if they continue to shield immigrants who did not come to the country legally.
In San Francisco, which receives about $1 billion in federal funding each year, city officials say they know they must quickly turn their pledges into concrete action. Among the efforts expected or possible:
• Public Defender Jeff Adachi wants $5 million annually for his office to provide representation for people facing deportation — legal aid they are not currently guaranteed. He said he hopes to have a proposal before the Board of Supervisors in the next few weeks. Continue reading this article
The media ignore strong indicators of the continuing failure of Muslim immigration like the Minnesota terror trials. Somalis come here, chirping they came for “a better life,” but the young men want to go to the Middle East and Africa to kill for allah. What happens when many more of them decide there are plenty of infidels in America to murder? For example, nine persons were stabbed in September in a shopping mall jihad attack.
A news story from a couple months ago reported the US had admitted nearly 100,000 Somali refugees since 9/11. That number sounds low, since the government doesn’t like keeping count of the unfriendlies it imports against the will of the American people.
The Somalis pictured below (Guled Ali Omar (sentenced to 35 years), Abdirahman Yasin Daud (30 years) and Mohamed Abdihamid Farah (30 years)) were some of the nine aspiring jihadists sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
On Saturday, Fox News had a brief report about the Somali sentencing, including a clip of Iraq veteran Pete Hegseth visiting Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis, where he had a hard time finding Somalis who could speak English.
Prosecutors doubt remorse, and the judge warns of terror cell.
Seeking to send an emphatic message that there is “no doubt” about the depth of terrorism recruitment in the Twin Cities, a federal judge on Wednesday sentenced the final three of Minnesota’s ISIL conspiracy defendants to the sternest prison sentences yet handed down in a Minnesota terrorism case.
“It’s clear, and I’ve stated it the last two days … this community has to understand that there is a jihadist cell in this community — its tentacles spread out,” Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Davis told a packed courtroom. “Young people went to Syria and died.”
Davis concluded three days of hearings by sending defendant Guled Omar to prison for 35 years, and sentencing two others — Mohamed Farah and Abdirahman Daud — to 30 years each. The three were the only defendants to plead not guilty and go to trial, where a jury in June convicted them of charges including conspiracy to commit murder outside the United States. They were also convicted of conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the same charge on which six others pleaded guilty and were sentenced this week.
Addressing Davis earlier in the afternoon, one of the prosecutors called Omar, 22, “not redeemable,” and said he presented a unique case because he watched his older brother leave Minnesota to join the Somali terror group Al-Shabab, then applied those lessons to advise the current group as its emir, or leader. Continue reading this article
President-elect Trump’s policy of immigration enforcement has alarmed many on the left, but as is explained in the report below, border walls are becoming more common across the globe as chaos spreads and countries want to keep enemies out.
MARTHA McCALLUM: President-elect Donald Trump vowing during his campaign to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. The two countries have had portions of fencing and walls sort of in different spots along the border there for some time. More than 60 countries mostly in Europe are now installing barriers at their borders to keep people out, mostly because of the refugee crisis that they have been experiencing. William La Jeunesse from Los Angeles with more on this morning.
WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE: Martha, the irony is politicians say fences don’t work until they need one. Europe has more than four times more barriers today than they did in the Cold War, and anyone who lives on our southern border, along with agents who patrol it, will tell you that walls work.
DONALD TRUMP: We will build a great wall along the southern border.
LA JEUNESSE: Whether you call it a wall or fence, border barriers are booming not just in the US.
DR. REECE JONES: At the end of World War II, there were less than five border walls anywhere in the world; as late as 1989 when the Berlin wall came down, there about 15 border walls. Today there are almost 70. Continue reading this article
It’s pretty safe to assume that hate crime hoaxes — particularly regarding Muslims — will explode off the charts during the Trump administration. Varieties of faked hate have been roiling communities and college campuses for years with no let up. One count finds 100 hate crime hoaxes in the last decade, and the Trump presidency is sure to inspire even greater phony-baloney victimhood.
Kassim Alhimidi murdered his wife Shaima Alawadi (whose photo he holds) and blamed the crime on some hateful American. Alhimidi is now serving 26 years to life in state prison.
Speaking of Robert Spencer, he takes up the topic of fake hate in his most recent 5-minute explainer about several crimes that never happened as described by Muslim “victims.” Do police in Islamic nations not do detailed investigations of crime? Muslim immigrants seem to expect their word to be taken at face value by authorities, which does not happen here.
It’s a recurring and strange phenomenon: anti-Muslim hate crimes that turn out to be none of those words.
This one was especially egregious and heartbreaking — or at least that’s the way it seemed. The Huffington Post headlined its story with this:
Islamophobia Just Drove This Boy And His Family Out Of America
There was just one catch: none of it was true. The article began this way:
“I’m done with the U.S.,” Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani’s wife told him on Friday. Seeing her youngest son, just 7 years old, walk off the school bus bruised and battered that afternoon outside their apartment building in Cary, North Carolina, was the final straw.
It seems that the Usmanis’ son, “little Abdul Aziz, a first-grader and the youngest child of Usmani and Binish Bhagwanee, was traumatized.” The trauma came from bullying by his schoolmates that specifically focused upon the boy’s Muslim faith:
[He] told his parents a classmate had tried to force him to eat food that wasn’t halal. When Abdul Aziz refused, five of his classmates ganged up on him, making fun of his name. They punched him in the face, kicked him in the stomach, and twisted his arm while calling him “Muslim” again and again, Usmani said.
But there were problems with the story from the beginning. If Usmani’s claim were true — “They keep beating him all the way from school to home on the bus” — then the boy would have suffered extensive injuries, and the bus would have been in an uproar, as anyone who has ever ridden a school bus knows. Instead, after an investigation, school officials announced:
No students who were interviewed witnessed an altercation. The bus driver did not witness an altercation. The child did not report to the bus driver any injury.
On Tuesday, open-borders globalist Paul Ryan was unanimously nominated to be Speaker of the House for another term even though he has strongly opposed Donald Trump’s policies of immigration enforcement and restructuring anti-American trade deals.
Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert had a few words with Ryan during the caucus meeting about the Speaker’s agenda versus that of the President-elect. Gohmert fears that Ryan will not provide strong leadership for Trump’s pro-sovereignty policies. He discussed those issues on Fox Business Network on Wednesday.
FBN host Ashley Webster asked, “Is this party really as unified as Paul Ryan would have us believe?”
Gohmert responded, “I would like to think that it is but and Politico was not accurate: I was not yelling at Paul Ryan yesterday. I was forcefully making my position known, but it may have felt like my voice is getting loud, but my point was that for all of Paul’s career since I’ve been here he has supported trade agreements, he totally supported the TPP, wrote an article about it, co-wrote it, then he as far as what I would call amnesty and some call it not, he has supported some form of amnesty since I’ve been aware of him.
So I wanted to hear from Paul how all of a sudden two of the most important planks in Trump’s platform were going to be able to be carried out by a guy who has been totally 180 degrees opposed to those positions. And all I got was, you know, give me a call and we’ll talk about it. I had hoped in front of the whole conference to talk about these things.” [Spare video]
Tuesday’s front page had some fine examples of the same old liberal swill, with headlines like “Furor over Trump’s Pick of a Hard-Right Advisor” and “New Strategist in White House a Provocateur from the Fringe” — both referring to advisor Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart.com, who is the current target of their rage.
The Times also continued its bashing of the citizens, as shown by the following gem:
The “America That Hates” refers to citizens who are rightly suspicious of Muslims living among us who sometimes take up jihad as instructed in the koran to murder infidels. The followers of allah have been killing non-believers for 1400 years, but the Times apparently thinks we live in a post-history time where previous beliefs and animosities no longer apply, even as ISIS commits brutal atrocities daily in the name of religion. Recent jihad activity like the mass murders in Orlando (50 dead) and San Bernardino (14 dead) remain in the public’s mind.
Hopefully President Trump will end the insanity of Muslim immigration. Indeed, a Rasmussen poll from last year found that a plurality of voters agreed with a temporary ban — which could be a very long time if a chill in jihad is the metric.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said it would not allow Muslim Americans to be intimidated and called on President-elect Donald J. Trump to defend their constitutional rights.
DUNDALK, Md. — Ra’ad and Hutham Lalqaraghuli are no longer sure which America they’re a part of.
Is it the hateful country they confronted a few weeks before the presidential election, when someone left a note at their door that said, “Terrorist Leave no one wants you here”?
Or is it the generous country of welcoming strangers who heard about their ordeal and showered them with gifts and cards with positive messages?
The victory of President-elect Donald J. Trump has intensified their whiplash. After a year in the Maryland suburbs, having arrived with their four children as refugees from Iraq, they find themselves comparing the threats they fled with those that might still emerge.
There’s nothing like a big happy crowd of Americans to inspire allah’s soldiers to fantasies of wholesale slaughter, and Macy’s Thanksgiving parade has the added attraction of innocent children to be blown up. ISIS’ English-language magazine Rumiyah recently suggested that the event would be a swell opportunity for a Nice-France-style mass hit and run, according to a New York Post report:
“The method of such an attack is that a vehicle is plunged at a high speed into a large congregation of (non-believers), smashing their bodies with the vehicle’s strong outer frame while advancing forward — crushing their heads, torsos, and limbs under the vehicle’s wheels and chassis — and leaving behind a trail of carnage,” the article said.
As a result of such attacks, New York City is gearing up for another holiday as one of the top terror targets on earth with another style of murder added to its threat list.
This year’s parade is the 90th and is a premiere event for New York City that attracts millions to the heart of Manhattan. Last year’s parade had a lot of security, including 2500 police officers to protect spectators from jihadists. Authorities promise more for the 2016 event.
Below, New York police provided security for the 2015 Thanksgiving parade.
Major public events, from the Super Bowl to the Boston Marathon, continue to require more extensive security, and we rarely see the full dollar cost for public safety in these big affairs. If the citizens knew how much government spends to protect us from extreme diversity, they might question the idea of welcoming historic enemies (i.e. Muslims) as immigrants.
Security expert Sebastian Gorka appeared on Fox News Monday morning, and he gave a three-minute briefing on jihad activities in this country and around the world. He emphasized, “Since the Caliphate was declared just two-and-a-half years ago from Mosul, we have killed or arrested 124 ISIS terrorists here in America.”
Why does the government welcome potential enemies inside the gates? Hopefully President Trump will end this insanity as promised.
Australians are fortunate to live in an island nation where the big ocean is their border. As a result, their navy functions as the border patrol and invaders get plunked on offshore islands. Now Obama has volunteered to rescue them, even though jihadists have openly stated they use refugee flows to insert active terrorists into the West.
As is often the case with Muslims, those residing in Australia have shown little willingness to assimilate to the culture and values of the nation’s population.
Below, Muslims in Sydney rioted over a film that portrayed them as violent.
President Obama rushed the investigative process to admit as many unscreenable Syrians as possible before the end of his reign. Now he is forcing Americans to accept mostly Muslim foreigners that Australia won’t take.
CANBERRA, Australia – The United States has agreed to resettle an unspecified number of refugees languishing in Pacific island camps in a deal that is expected to inspire more asylum seekers to attempt to reach Australia by boat, officials said on Sunday.
One of Donald Trump’s campaign promises was to bring back manufacturing jobs by renegotiating trade deals which have been disadvantageous to American workers and also by improving the business environment generally.
On Thursday, the Trump jobs strategy was discussed on the Fox Business channel, including renegotiating NAFTA and rejecting the Trans Pacific Partnership.
As I wrote in a 2014 blog (”Manufacturing Is Returning to US, but Automation Means Fewer Hires”), reshoring is already occurring, but it has been based the cost savings of smart machines. Unfortunately for citizens, business’ movement to automation went undiscussed during the presidential campaign. A robot-assisted American in a reshored factory might do the work of several workers abroad without machine helpers. And the returned plant won’t have nearly as many workers as the original US manufacturer, simply because of increased efficiency from improved technology.
Machines are doing more of the nation’s work, and particularly so in factories where repetitious tasks can easily be performed by smart robots. Human workers are just a lot less necessary for production than they used to be a few years ago.
So President Trump’s reshoring project is likely to be disappointing in the number of jobs returning to America: it won’t be his fault, but as the nation’s leader, he should know about the technological revolution that threatens to undermine the traditional economic order of producers hiring workers.
The automation of factories is a big factor for job loss in the U.S.
As the election results rolled in last night, it became increasingly clear that America — and the world — would never be the same. The American people overlooked all of Republican nominee Donald Trump’s faults and elected him to office in the belief that he will fix the nation’s deep-seated problems of inequity and injustice. And they rebelled against the business interests and corruption that they believed Hillary Clinton represented.
Trump’s victory was enabled by technology — everything from his use of social media to Clinton’s email scandals to Russian hacking. But advancements in technology and how they reshape our economy may also keep him from delivering on some of the major promises that made him so popular during the campaign season.
The truth is that, over recent decades, the rich have been getting richer. Power has shifted to Wall Street and business. Globalization has caused the loss of millions of jobs in the United States. Some white Americans have also been terrified at the changing complexion — and values — of the country. Trump very smartly played to these fears and promised his supporters what he knew they wanted: greater economic opportunity by bringing back jobs shipped overseas.
But those jobs, many in the manufacturing sector, are increasingly done by technology. Machines are learning to do the jobs of manufacturing workers; artificial intelligence-based tools are mastering the jobs of call-center and knowledge workers; and cars are beginning to drive themselves.
Over the next decade, technology will decimate more jobs in many professions, inequality will increase and more people will be disadvantaged.
Some robots already cost less to operate than the salaries of the humans they replace, and they are getting cheaper and better. Boston Consulting Group predicts that, by 2025, the operating cost of a robot that does welding will be less than $2 per hour, for example.
That’s more affordable than the $25 per hour that a human welder earns today in the U.S., and even cheaper than the pay of skilled workers in the lowest-income countries. Continue reading this article
During Donald Trump’s victory speech, some of the best praise went to the Senate’s faithful defender of law and borders, Jeff Sessions. As the President-Elect (!) thanked several important people on his team of advisors and surrogates, he recognized Sessions to the applause of all in attendance:
“The first man, first senator, first major, major politician. Let me tell you, he is highly respected in Washington because he is as smart as you get. Senator Jeff Sessions. Where is Jeff? A great man.”
Below, Senator Sessions responds to Donald Trump’s recognition.
Here’s President-Elect Trump’s victory speech:
Hopefully, this attention signals that improved immigration enforcement remains high on the Presidential to-do list. Fortunately the candidate Trump’s website contains a thorough section about how immigration can be fixed to serve the American interest. Obama has been mucking up enforcement for eight years, so the list is rather long with all the policies that must be repaired.
However, the central issue of how many immigrants is not addressed, but decades of ceaseless foreigner inflow have made the public care about the number. A CIS poll from earlier this month found that 54 percent of likely voters want legal immigration reduced by at least half to 500,000 or less. The Trump statement mentions the immigration number only obliquely, saying he would, “Reform legal immigration. . . keeping immigration levels within historic norms.”
Prioritize the jobs, wages and security of the American people.
Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.
Protect the economic well-being of the lawful immigrants already living here by curbing uncontrolled foreign worker admissions
Select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in the U.S. and their ability to be financially self-sufficient.
Vet applicants to ensure they support America’s values, institutions and people, and temporarily suspend immigration from regions that export terrorism and where safe vetting cannot presently be ensured.
Enforce the immigration laws of the United States and restore the Constitutional rule of law upon which America’s prosperity and security depend.
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.