Mexico: Deported Children Explore Their Cultural Diversity

When illegal aliens are deported from America, the powerful open-borders lobby and left media carry on like it’s the worst thing in the world. In fact, many returns home turn out to be positive, particularly when the destination is Mexico, a wealthy nation that pushes its poor north to pinch a few pesos. Still, Mexico has a growing middle class and resources to deal with returning citizens despite its reflexive complaints toward the US.

Today’s example of positive re-integration into the cultural homeland comes from NPR, and although the segment title says the deported kiddies encountered “challenges,” the situation is one of basic readjustment to a move in locale. All kids hate having to go to a new school where they don’t have any friends and are fearful of not fitting in.

Below, Mexican kids deported from America get acquainted with their cultural homeland.

Of course it’s harder when the kids don’t speak the language, but the brain is remarkably sponge-like in young children and sucks up the new language rapidly. My now-retired bartender was born in Chico but spoke only Chinese when he started the first grade. He said it was tough at first but at the end of the year he was fine. That’s how easy it is for kids to learn languages.

Here’s the four-minute NPR audio:

Another nice thing about the deportations is that they send a message to Mexico that the United States is not their spare country to be entered at will.

Deported Students Find Challenges At School In Tijuana, National Public Radio, April 3, 2017

As President Trump moves to fulfill his campaign promise to deport millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally, they’ll most likely include Mexicans whose children were born in the U.S.. Over half a million of these kids are already in Mexico.

Researchers call them “los invisibles”, the invisible ones, because they often end up in an educational limbo of sorts. Most don’t read or write in Spanish, so they’re held back. Many get discouraged and stop going to school. In some cases schools even refuse to enroll them.

In the border city of Tijuana, however, there’s a model program designed to help these children.

At 20 de Noviembre Elementary, for example, roughly one-tenth of the school’s 700 students were born in the U.S. Administrators and teachers here have embraced kids like Anthony David Martinez, a skinny 9-year-old who recently arrived from Barstow, Calif. That’s where he was born.

Anthony could have stayed in California because he’s a U.S. citizen, but his parents are not. They were forced to return to Mexico and didn’t want to split up the family.

“I was like, ‘Oh no, I’m going to have to make new friends, new school, new everything,’ ” says Anthony.

“But now I’m happy here.”

Anthony’s fourth-grade teacher says his Spanish is “a work in progress,” but he has learned how to read and write in Spanish fairly quickly. It wasn’t easy switching from English to Spanish in class or when doing his homework, says Anthony. He’s still not used to saying the name of his school in English — 20 November. “It’s kind of weird,” he chuckles.

At 20 de Noviembre, children like Anthony are not segregated or put in some corner of the school. They’re paired with native Spanish-speakers and they get lots of one-on-one tutoring to build their vocabulary and grammar in Spanish. To keep them from feeling frustrated or isolated, they’re allowed to mingle with other English-speaking kids during the day so it’s not uncommon to hear English at recess or lunch. There’s no stigma to speaking English because it’s a highly prized skill in Mexican schools. Continue reading this article

California Advances Legislation to Become a Sanctuary State

It’s remarkable the lengths that liberals will go to insult President Trump. A top example must be the politicians of California who are currently speeding to turn the entire state into a sanctuary zone for illegal alien criminals: on Monday the senate passed a bill to create statewide sanctuary status.

Any such renunciation of law and order will rightly be seen by illegal alien criminals as an invitation — welcome to beautiful California, foreign felons!

San Francisco’s sanctuary policy is responsible for the preventable deaths of four Americans — Kate Steinle and three members of the Bologna family — as a result of just one city’s protection of dangerous foreign criminals. Yet state politicians think the policy should be massively expanded.

Plus, it’s not like California residents are clamoring for more illegal alien criminals in their communities: an August poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 74 percent of respondents said local authorities should not be allowed to ignore federal detainer requests. Professor Jack Citrin, the director of IGS, observed about the study, “We found very broad-based opposition to the idea of sanctuary cities.”

Congressman Tom McClintock appeared on a Fox Business show Tuesday and recalled that a twice-deported illegal alien killed two California officers — Sacramento County Deputy Danny Oliver and Placer County Detective Michael David Davis Jr. Representative McClintock further observed that sanctuary “makes our state a mecca for this sort of thing.”

Typically, a PC-addled Sacramento Democrat characterized the sanctuary legislation to essentially exempt illegal aliens from law enforcement as a way to “make our communities safer.”

Say, have the bright lights of state government considered how their anti-law-enforcement model of society might affect California’s tourism industry ($122 billion spent in 2015) when word gets out?

‘Sanctuary state’ bill passes California Senate, Sacramento Bee, April 3, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice will stop awarding grants to sanctuary cities, during Monday’s White House press briefing. “Unfortunately some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate the enforcement of immigration laws,” Sessions said. “These policies violate federal law,” he said. 

The California Senate on Monday passed a controversial “sanctuary state” bill that bars local and state law enforcement from using their resources to help federal immigration enforcement.

The 40-member body approved Senate Bill 54, introduced by Sen. President Pro Tem Kevin de León, on a 27-12, party-line vote. It now heads to the Assembly.

We are trying to make our communities safer and be intelligent about this,” de León said. “No rhetoric and no bluster.”

Facing heavy opposition from law enforcement, the Senate leader accepted several amendments to the bill over the last month. Continue reading this article

Islamic Immigration Is Killing Britain

It’s certainly a negative for America that uneducated third-world Mexicans are the top immigrant group, but at least they aren’t culturally hostile polygamous jihadists. Britain is facing death as a nation because of millions of Islamo-immigrants who are more accurately characterized as invaders because they have no intention of assimilating to western values.

Muslims residing in Britain routinely demand sharia law rather than assimilating to the values of the nation they chose to inhabit.

Dale Hurd reports the bad news, though it’s not exactly new news. London is no longer majority white, as shown in the 2011 census where caucasian Britons accounted for only 45 percent of the city’s population. Plus, some of the muslims currently invading open-borders Europe readily admit they hope to recruit converts for allah by any means necessary.

As it happens, yesterday I decided to check on one of my favorite Brits, the singer Vera Lynn. She is a survivor of the heroic Britain of WWII, when she travelled around the world entertaining the troops with patriotic songs like We’ll Meet Again and White Cliffs of Dover. On March 20, she turned 100 and celebrated by releasing a new album. Her life is a measure of how quickly a nation can be destroyed if the people allow politicians to run amok with admitting historic enemies as immigrants. That was the strategy when the Labour Party recruited immigrants to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

One of Vera Lynn’s songs was There’ll Always Be an England, but treasonous immigration has killed that promise.

Islamic Takeover: Why Mass Immigration Signals ‘the End of Britain’, CBN News, by Dale Hurd, March 31, 2017

LONDON – Last week’s terror attack by a British-born Muslim proves again that a radical community exists within Britain. Its goal: create an Islamic nation. And there is a quieter force at work that will likely achieve that desire long before guns, bombs and violence.

This is not Karachi. It’s London.

Britain’s policy of mass immigration has brought what one expert calls “demographic upheaval” to the United Kingdom that could change almost everything.

“Finis Britanniae” – The End of Britain
It’s now a demographic certainty. Someday the white native English will be a minority in their own country, including the native Welsh and the Scots.

It’s just a matter of when.

Professor David Coleman is a supernumerary fellow in human sciences and university professor in demography at Oxford. He’s has written that uncontrolled immigration could lead to “finis Britanniae.”

“Which simply means the end of Britain, and by that, I mean the end of Britain as we know it,” Coleman said.

“The point I was making is the change in the number of people and particularly the change in the origins of people, in their religion, in their cultural background, would make Britain unrecognizable compared with the present time,” he said. Continue reading this article

Treasury Secretary Blunder Sparks Discussion of Automated Future

When Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin remarked about robots taking US jobs that “It’s not even on our radar screen … 50-100 more years,” heads exploded across the tech world. Mnuchin’s comments during an interview with Axios on March 24 [Watch] sparked more than 700,000 responses online as of today, nearly all negative. Some observed that smart machines are already displacing human workers.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers wrote in a March 27 Washington Post piece, Larry Summers: The robots are coming, whether Trump’s Treasury secretary admits it or not:

“Artificial intelligence is transforming everything from retailing to banking to the provision of medical care. Almost every economist who has studied the question believes that technology has had a greater impact on the wage structure and on employment than international trade and certainly a far greater impact than whatever increment to trade is the result of much debated trade agreements.”

Certainly such ignorance is disheartening among highly placed administration officials, especially one who deals with the economy. Automation is likely to be the biggest stumbling block to President Trump’s efforts to return jobs to America.

Tech-savvy billionaire Mark Cuban is one of Mnuchin’s critics and he appeared on a Fox News show on Saturday morning. Regarding the manufacturing revolution that the world faces, he explained “We’re going through a greater technological change over the next four to five years than we’ve seen over the last 30.”

Cuban also agreed with Bill Gates’ proposal that robots should be taxed, despite that idea being contrary to conservative business ideology.

Automotive manufacturing has become largely automated, disappearing a jobs category that employed millions of Americans.

The long term outlook for human employment in the automated future is grim according to experts. Oxford researchers forecast in 2013 that nearly half of American jobs were vulnerable to machine or software replacement within 20 years. Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi believes that in 30 years humans will become largely obsolete, and world joblessness will reach 50 percent. The Gartner tech advising company believes that one-third of jobs will be done by machines by 2025. Forrester Research Inc. has a more optimistic view, that there will be a net job loss of 7 percent by 2025 from automation — less, but still serious. The recent PwC forecast was only slightly less severe than the Oxford numbers.

It would be nice if Washington were aware of the economic revolution occurring now and getting worse. It’s a big deal when a major chunk of the workforce becomes unemployable: the unemployment rate during the worst of the Great Depression was 25 percent, but prognosticators put the level of technological unemployment at up to half in just a few decades.

At least the government could severely prune back on immigration since additional workers are the last thing America needs.

Mexico Attempts to Civilize Mexican Men’s Behavior toward Women — Good Luck with That!

Mexican men are widely known as being sexist swine, and they have a history of tormenting Mexican women on public transportation: the government reports that 65 percent of women in the capital city have been sexually harassed on buses or trains.

The latest foray into civilizing the lecherous Mexican man is the installation of “penis seats” on the Mexico City Metro, which is supposed to send a message of awareness, or something.

Below, Mexico City commuters find the penis seat to be. . . odd.

The current social experiment is not the first. I reported in 2006 that the Mexican government produced TV spots showing sex dolls in the workplace to make the point that women are not sex objects (Sex dolls fight Mexican machismo, BBC). That media campaign seemed rather unclear in its message, to be kind.

My understanding of psychology is that edgy art presentations don’t change behavior, but immediate negative reinforcement does. Why couldn’t the Mexican government give women commuters free pepper spray and tasers? There’s nothing like associating an unwanted behavior with a swift pain: that sort of training works.

Women-only buses were gratefully received in Mexico when introduced in 2008, but there were only a few, and having a separate safe bus system for women is probably unworkable.

Unfortunately for America, Mexico is the largest contributor by far to our diverse gaggle of immigrants, particularly the illegal variety. Twelve million was the number of actual immigrants as of 2014, and that doesn’t count the many millions of cultural descendants.

The BBC reports that the new seat “sparks debate” but debate doesn’t normally change behavior, does it?

Mexico City metro’s ‘penis seat’ sparks debate, BBC News, March

When a new style of seat suddenly appeared on Mexico City’s metro system, it was labelled as inappropriate, uncomfortable, humiliating and embarrassing.

It was supposed to be.

The seat, moulded to include a protruding penis and chest, was designed to highlight sexual harassment experienced by female passengers.

The explanation next to the men-only label read: “It is uncomfortable to sit here, but that is nothing compared to the sexual violence that women suffer on their daily journeys.”

The seat is not a permanent fixture, but part of a campaign launched by UN Women and the Mexico City authorities called #NoEsDeHombres, which aimed to highlight sexual harassment on public transport. Continue reading this article

Rasmussen Poll: Voters See Illegal Immigration in Terms of More Crime and Taxpayer Ripoff

A recent survey highlighted the differing views of members of the two parties regarding unlawful immigration. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats are rather unconcerned, while Republicans believe the systemic invasion of foreign job thieves and criminals is causing serious harm to the nation.

Voters Measure Illegal Immigration in Major Crime, More Tax Dollars, Rasmussen Reports, March 29, 2017

Voters tend to view illegal immigrants as the source of more major crime and a big drain on taxpayers’ wallets.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America. Nearly as many (41%) say it has no impact. Just seven percent (7%) feel illegal immigrants actually decrease the amount of serious crime. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-nine percent (49%) still believe illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget, although that is down from 67% when Rasmussen Reports first asked this question in March 2010. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say illegals are not a big strain on the budget, up from 23% seven years ago, while 14% are undecided.

As on nearly all issues related to illegal immigration, there is a sizable difference of opinion between Republicans and Democrats. Seventy-four percent (74%) of GOP voters and a plurality (44%) of voters not affiliated with either major political party say illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime, but only 16% of Democrats agree. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Democrats think it has no impact.

Similarly, while 78% of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters believe illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget, just 21% of Democrats share that view. Most Democrats (62%) disagree. Interestingly, a plurality (48%) of Democrats considered illegal immigrants a major budget strain in 2010, along with 73% of unaffiliateds. Continue reading this article

Fox Chatterbox Eric Bolling Reveals His Amnesty Plan

Since Donald Trump was elected president, does immigration enforcement now seem too mean-spirited when cute anchor kids might be separated from deportable parents? (Funny how Mexican family values don’t include keeping parents and kids together when there is free stuff to be gleaned from generous-stupid America.)

A February Rasmussen poll headline read, Support for Deportations Plummets, although no further details were given in the brief report. Are some supposed conservatives getting cold feet about law and borders when the real thing actually happens occasionally?

During Thursday’s Outnumbered program on Fox News, Eric Bolling, who generally talks up the conservative position on issues, spouted off with his simple rubber-stamp amnesty solution for the illegal alien problem. In a segment where the group’s discussion was focused on sanctuary cities, Bolling just had to share:

ERIC BOLLING: I have honestly a common-sense solution to the immigration issue, and I’ve said this before. The DMVs — there’s probably 50 or 60 of them in each state, maybe 10 or 15 in each state. Create little harbors, make those embassies where, if you’re an illegal, you can walk into this area, the DMV or whatever you call it, and you’re not going to get arrested or deported, but you’re going to get documentation of who you are. It’s not a path to citizenship: it’s a path to legality. You’ll pay your taxes, you’ll be able to stay here, and eventually you can go back to the end of the line to become a citizen.

That program would be very attractive to Mexican axe murderers and cartel criminals: just get a little paper in the DMV and voila — you’re legalized and documented! Sketchy foreigners could essentially get a new identity under the Bolling Plan. Dangerous or useless aliens get to stay and earn American dollars, which is what they came for, not to participate in the political process. The ability to work legally is the real amnesty.

Gang background? No problema in Eric Bolling’s DMV Amnesty Plan.

New Evidence Shows that Automation Is a Threat to Jobs and Wages

A new automation report has been published and it tackles the measurement of a vital trend, namely the amount of robotization that has already occurred.

As has been noted here, in 2013 the Associated Press published a series documenting how the Great Recession had prompted many businesses to invest in technology, thereby killing middle-class jobs and slowing the recovery.

AP IMPACT: Recession, tech kill middle-class jobs, January 23, 2013

NEW YORK (AP) — Five years after the start of the Great Recession, the toll is terrifyingly clear: Millions of middle-class jobs have been lost in developed countries the world over.

And the situation is even worse than it appears.

Most of the jobs will never return, and millions more are likely to vanish as well, say experts who study the labor market. What’s more, these jobs aren’t just being lost to China and other developing countries, and they aren’t just factory work. Increasingly, jobs are disappearing in the service sector, home to two-thirds of all workers.

They’re being obliterated by technology. . .

Automotive manufacturing is now performed largely by robots.

The new report, titled Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets is a thorough and wonky 91 pages, aimed at a technology and university audience. Fortunately there are tech explainers around to translate the analysis-speak into regular English. Plus, the charts included in the piece below are enlightening, particularly the first one which shows that robots have been increasingly used in American factories and elsewhere for decades.

Interestingly, the article begins with the automation warning from the outgoing President Obama, who nevertheless was the Immigrationist-in-Chief whose liberal policies admitted huge numbers of superfluous foreigners to compete with Americans, for example three million immigrant workers in 2015 alone. But in his final weeks he noticed the automation job threat. Oh.

With millions of humans being replaced by smart machines, importing immigrant workers is surely a foolish and obsolete policy that should be consigned to the ash heap of history.

Compelling new evidence that robots are taking jobs and cutting wages,, March 28, 2017

In his final speech as US president, Barack Obama warned of the “relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle-class jobs obsolete.” Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has said that governments will need to tax robots to replace forgone revenue when human workers lose their jobs.

If the past is prologue, these concerns are warranted.

In a recent study (pdf), economists Daren Acemoglu of MIT and Pascual Restrepo of Boston University try to quantify how worried we should be about robots. They examine the impact of industrial automation on the US labor market from 1990 to 2007. They conclude that each additional robot reduced employment in a given commuting area by 3-6 workers, and lowered overall wages by 0.25-0.5%.

A central question about robots is whether they replace human workers or augment them by boosting productivity. Acemoglu and Restrepo’s research is a powerful piece of evidence on the side of replacement. So, brace yourself: According to the International Federation of Robotics, there are already between 1.5-1.75 million industrial robots in operation, and some observers expect that number to more than double by 2025.

But not all robots are created equal. For their study, the economists use the definition of the International Organization for Standardization, which defines industrial robots as machines that are automatically controlled, reprogrammable, and multipurpose. By this definition, an elevator is not a robot, because it cannot be made to do anything besides shuttle people from floor to fl

Industrial robots are most commonly used in the automotive industry, which accounts for 39% of robot usage in the US. It’s no surprise, then, that workers in America’s Midwestern carmaking capitals have been the most affected by automation.

Assessing the impact of robots on jobs is no simple task. Advances in other kinds of technology, the spread of the internet, and increased trade with China and Mexico also led to changes in the US labor market over the period studied by the economists.

In order to isolate the effect of robots, Acemoglu and Restrepo used a clever statistical trick. They collected data on adoption rates of industrial robots in Europe, and then analyzed what happened to American labor markets by comparing industry trends with their equivalents in Europe. This isolated the changes likely caused by the spread of robots, and not some other factor peculiar to the US.

However you measure it, the short-term impact of automation has been wrenching for many workers. Yet, history also suggests that fears of new technologies leading to persistently high unemployment are unfounded. Over the long term, markets always find a way to make use of humans’ skills. Assuming this time really isn’t different, they probably will again.

Self-Driving Cars Advance toward Automated Future -- with Bumps along the Road

The big auto companies — and a few techies like Google — are locked in competition to see who will dominate the coming self-driving market and the automated transportation future. The companies may imagine that cities will buy whole fleets of autonomous cars which will replace the privately owned vehicles that clutter up the streets and parking garages — and yes, the transportation landscape could work out that way to some degree. Or perhaps many people won’t want to give up private ownership of their vehicle because a car can also be a closet for necessary stuff, as I experienced as a commuting college student. Either way, utopian city planners fear (or hope) that overpopulation will lead to a parking armageddon in cities, and community cars owned by the government will save the day.

Below, a self-driving car navigates a Pittsburgh bridge as part of the years-long testing process.

At the other end, where the one percent live, some car designers visualize a deluxe living room on wheels for rich customers, like a Rolls Royce model, called an “amazingly ludicrous self-driving luxury vehicle.” A recent Bentley prototype has a holographic butler to serve as an interface with the machinery — user-friendly for the uber-wealthy.

Anyway, there’s big money being poured into the self-driving project, like the $1 billion pledged in February by Ford over five years to maintain its technical expertise at a high level. Therefore, any bumps along the way — namely accidents — that may slow progress to the industry-approved future are worrying to the people in charge.

A recent report from Fox News included some interesting facts, in particular that a human driver needs to take control of the car on average every eight-tenths of a mile. That frequency of human intervention doesn’t seem very self-drivey. Perhaps the technology still needs a lot of improvement before it’s ready for mass use.

WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE: Self-driving cars and trucks are still at least 3 years away, but the road getting there has had more than a few bumps. The latest — Friday in Arizona when a driver illegally made a left turn crashing into a self-driving Uber SUV. Two employees inside escaped injury.

UBER DRIVER: I hope this bring new jobs, I hope it brings convenience, safety.

LA JEUNESSE: Uber’s self-driving program arrived in Arizona in December after a dispute in California over mandatory accident reporting. Unlike California, Arizona doesn’t require a special permit for self-driving vehicles.

VOLVO SPOKESMAN: Once you are in self-driving mode, we want to make sure that you feel you still have control of the vehicle.

LA JEUNESSE: About six companies test autonomous cars in 13 states. And while there is no central repository of accident data, in December an Uber SUV did not see a stop light in San Francisco and sailed through a crosswalk. Last February a Google autonomous car sideswiped a bus while trying to pass. In May, a Tesla driver died in a self-driving crash, but investigators could not attribute it to the auto-pilot system.

THOMAS FREY, DA VINCI INSTITUTE: All the things that go wrong in the driverless car world are going to force us to create a much more safe and durable system.

LA JEUNESSE: According to the website Recode, Uber’s 43 self-driving cars travel up to 20,000 miles a week, but a human must still take control approximately every eight-tenths of a mile.

CHRISTOPHER HART, NTSB CHAIRMAN: The theory that if you remove the driver, you remove driver error — there are several defects to that theory. First of all, the automation has to work. If the automation doesn’t work, then what? If the automation fails, will it fail safe?

FREY: Airplanes are much safer than car transportation today. It’s going to take a while before we get driverless vehicles to the same level of safety as air transportation.

LA JEUNESSE: Now as for that accident Friday in Arizona, police did cite the human driver for failing to yield to the computer-sided car, and Uber is back in the test markets. . . Tempe, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.

America’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions Moves Against Deadly Sanctuary Cities

Attorney General Sessions appeared at the beginning of Sean Spicer’s daily press briefing on Monday to speak about the administration’s seriousness regarding the withdrawal of federal funds from communities that choose to protect illegal aliens rather than citizens.

Unsurprisingly, Sessions noted that these bad policies have deadly consequences, including the preventable death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a five-times-deported Mexican. Sessions’ Senate career included a recognition of the human cost of immigration anarchy, and crime victims of illegal aliens were a topic in his Attorney General hearing.

Kate Steinle was shot dead as she strolled with her father on a San Francisco pier by a habitual illegal alien criminal whom the city had protected from deportation.

In January, President Trump signed an executive order promising to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. General Sessions tightened the legal screws today.

Stiffer measures will likely be needed since outliers like San Francisco promise to defend foreign lawbreakers using taxpayer funds. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is seeking legislation to jail law enforcement officials for refusing to enforce the law against illegal aliens — which may be the level of punishment required to restore immigration enforcement throughout America.

Here’s the Sessions statement:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks Announcing Sanctuary Jurisdictions, Monday, March 27, 2017

Good afternoon.  The Department of Justice has a duty to enforce our nation’s laws, including our immigration laws.  Those laws require us to promptly remove aliens when they are convicted of certain crimes.

The vast majority of the American people support this common-sense requirement.  According to one recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities.

Unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate the enforcement of our immigration laws.  This includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws.  For example, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime.  The charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder.

Such policies cannot continue.  They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets.

We all remember the tragic case of Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed two years ago in San Francisco as she walked along a pier with her father.  The shooter, Francisco Sanchez, was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

Just eleven weeks before the shooting, San Francisco had released Sanchez from its custody, even though ICE had filed a detainer requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up for removal.  Even worse, Sanchez admitted that the only reason he came to San Francisco was because of its sanctuary policies. Continue reading this article

Rasmussen Poll: Only 35 Percent of Voters Want to Live in a Sanctuary City

Funny how the world looks different from the back of a limo, and powerful liberals have made it clear that they see the safety of illegal aliens as being more important than that of American citizens. For example, even following the recent high school rape committed by illegal aliens, Maryland’s Democrat-run House of Delegates nevertheless voted to become a sanctuary state.

Unsurprisingly, most citizens don’t like the idea of their town being made into an anything-goes freebie flophouse for illegal alien grifters. Obviously, the sanctuary designation is a dangerous welcome mat for criminals. Crime is a job some Americans will do, and we therefore don’t need to import lawbreaking foreigners to perform it for us.

The majority of Americans don’t want to live in a sanctuary city, according to Rasmussen’s detailed and informative poll.

35% Want to Live in a Sanctuary Community, Rasmussen Reports, March 24, 2017

The rape of a 14-year-old girl in a Maryland suburban high school by two older students who were in this country illegally has moved the sanctuary city debate back on the front burner. Most voters don’t want to live in a community that shields illegal immigrants from the government, and many question the safety of such communities.

Elected officials in many communities have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and 35% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the community they live in declaring itself a sanctuary community. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% oppose their community declaring itself a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

A plurality (48%) of Democrats favors living in a sanctuary community, but only 27% of both Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.

Forty percent (40%) of all voters believe sanctuary communities are less safe than communities that do not protect illegal immigrants from federal authorities. Seventeen percent (17%) say sanctuary communities are more safe, while 35% think the level of safety is about the same.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on March 22-23, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Fifty percent (50%) of voters said in November that the U.S. Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. That was down from 62% in July 2015 just after the highly-publicized murder of a young woman in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Fifty-two percent (52%) still want to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities.

Most voters have favored punishing sanctuary cities in surveys since 2007. New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. are among the numerous cities that now refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Continue reading this article

New Research: Automation Could Grab More Than a Third of US Jobs by Early 2030s

A new report came out last week forecasting the likelihood of automation taking human jobs. The study comes from PwC (Price Waterhouse Cooper) and can be seen online at UK Economic Outlook where the section about international automation begins on page 30.

The upshot is not quite as dreary as the 2013 Oxford study by Frey and Osborne which estimates nearly half of US jobs vulnerable within 20 years. Nor is the new investigation as hopeful as the 2016 paper from Arntz, Gregory and Zierahn titled The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries which found a significantly lower number for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations (listed in

Here’s a snip of the PwC text leading up to an explanatory chart:

This debate was given added urgency in 2013 when researchers at Oxford University (Frey and Osborne, 2013) estimated that around 47% of total US employment had a “high risk of computerisation” over the next couple of decades – i.e. by the early 2030s.

However, there are also dissenting voices. Notably, Arntz, Gregory and Zierahn (OECD, 2016) last year re-examined the research by Frey and Osborne and, using an extensive new OECD data set, came up with a much lower estimate that only around 10% of jobs were under a “high risk of computerisation”. This is based on the reasoning that any predictions of job automation should consider the specific tasks that are involved in each job rather than the occupation as a whole.

In this article we present the findings from our own analysis of this topic, which builds on the research of both Frey and Osborne (hereafter ‘FO’) and Arntz, Gregory and Zierahn (hereafter ‘AGZ’). We then go on to discuss caveats to these results in terms of non-technological constraints on automation and potential offsetting job creation elsewhere in the economy (though this is much harder to quantify).

The following chart compares the PwC findings with the earlier reports:

The chart illustrates the comparison of estimates well, but leaves out the all-important time projection, which is the first key point, found on page 30:

Our analysis suggests that up to 30% of UK jobs could potentially be at high risk of automation by the early 2030s, lower than the US (38%) or Germany (35%), but higher than Japan (21%).

The mid-range PwC estimate is still very tough at 38 percent job loss — during the worst point of the Great Depression in 1933, America’s unemployment rate was 25 percent.

In addition, the US government’s immigration machine remains stuck on auto-pilot, importing more than one million legal immigrants annually. Why continue this outdated policy when workplace opportunities are about to shrink dramatically? It’s not like America needs workers for the factories, when the US has lost more than seven million factory jobs since manufacturing employment peaked in 1979, yet production is barreling along at near-record levels. Advanced machines are propelling a manufacturing revolution.

So America doesn’t need to import foreign workers at all going forward. In fact,

Automation makes immigration obsolete.

This kind of immigration-fueled population growth needs to stop. Hordes of unemployed foreigners are unlikely to be peaceful when jobs disappear.

Plus, it’s disappointing that the Treasury Secretary is so clueless about technology, as reported in La Times:

Robots could take over 38% of U.S. jobs within about 15 years, report says, Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2017

The automation of factories is a big factor for job loss in the U.S.

More than a third of U.S. jobs could be at “high risk” of automation by the early 2030s, a percentage that’s greater than in Britain, Germany and Japan, according to a report released Friday.

The analysis by accounting and consulting firm PwC focused primarily on the economic outlook in Britain, but it included a section on automation in Britain and elsewhere.

In the U.S., 38% of jobs could be at risk of automation, compared with 30% in Britain, 35% in Germany and 21% in Japan.

The report emphasizes that these estimates are based on the anticipated capabilities of robotics and artificial intelligence by the early 2030s, and that the pace and direction of technological progress are “uncertain.”

The key issue is not that the U.S. has more jobs in sectors that are universally ripe for automation, the report says; rather, it’s that more U.S. jobs in certain sectors are potentially vulnerable than, say, British jobs in the same sectors.

For example, the report says the financial and insurance sector has much higher possibility of automation in the U.S. than in Britain. That’s because, it says, American finance workers are less educated than British ones. Continue reading this article

Page 5 of 255« First...34567...102030...Last »