Unfortunately, California is a popular place for foreigners of varying legality to relocate which has given us more than 10 million foreigners as fellow [...]]]>
Unfortunately, California is a popular place for foreigners of varying legality to relocate which has given us more than 10 million foreigners as fellow residents.
There’s no question this state is overpopulated in an environmental sense, and water supply is the most immediate and vital issue in this regard. While much of the state’s water goes to agriculture, public service messages will likely be appearing soon on TV urging California residents to conserve water.
So I’m back to catching shower warm-up water in a five-gallon bucket and using it to keep the camellia bush alive.
Wednesday’s Sacramento Bee front-paged the bad news:
Democrats once claimed they supported the environment, but 2020 candidate Joe Biden recently asserted, “We should be able to increase to three million people the people who could come for family reunification” (Joe Biden: ‘Absolutely Bizarre’ to Suggest Limit on U.S. Capacity to Absorb Immigrants, Breitbart.com, February 18, 2020). And family unification is just one category of immigration.
Of course the whole reason foreigners come to America is to increase their income and consumption of consumer goods and physical resources generally. Only the favored phraseology is to “come for a better life.”
Meanwhile, the news shows severe flooding in Mississippi.
But California is dry.
]]>Sierra snowpack withering in California’s dry winter. New satellite image shows the bad news, Sacramento Bee, February 18, 2020
The image is disturbing and leaves little doubt about California’s growing predicament: The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada is a sad whisper of it was a year ago, a withering testament to the lack of precipitation in the state’s increasingly dry winter.
The National Weather Service tweeted satellite images of the Sierra on Tuesday, showing the stark difference between this year and the above-average snowfall from 2019. The mountain snowpack — a crucial element in the state’s annual water supply — is 53 percent of normal for this time of year, according to the Department of Water Resources.
The immediate forecast isn’t promising. NWS meteorologist Emily Heller said there’s a chance of “some light mountain snow this weekend” — perhaps a couple of inches at elevations of 6,000 feet or above. Even that measly forecast is uncertain.
“It’s too early to get everybody’s hopes up,” Heller said.
Three years after former Gov. Jerry Brown declared the official end of the last drought, the lack of precipitation is putting the state on edge all over again.
California needs a healthy snowpack to replenish its water supply in summer and fall, when the precipitation disappears altogether and the state relies on water in its reservoirs. On average, the snowpack provides about 30 percent of the state’s water needs.
The state also needs moisture in the soil to tamp down the wildfire risk. The historic five-year drought killed tens of millions of trees, helping set the stage for the horrific fire seasons of 2017 and 2018. (Continues)
This is the effect of having Democrats writing legislation — public safety goes down the toilet.
Speaking of public safety and legislation, the headliner topic in Tucker’s opening monologue was the bill in the Congress that would award a raft of rights to illegal aliens, including violent criminals. It’s called the New Way Forward Act, aka HB-5383 and is posted on the Congressional website where you can read it for yourself.
The bill is a horror show of protecting foreign criminals while endangering citizens and is sponsored by 44 House Democrats. If the Mexican drug cartels could write a bill, this would be the one. It makes you wonder about some of the lobbyists in Washington, as well as the Dem lawmakers.
Fox News edited part of the segment into text, starting at around 4:30 in the video above where the bill is described:
]]>Tucker Carlson: Criminals would be protected from deportation under bill AOC and other House Democrats back, Fox News, February 6, 2020
At this moment there is a bill pending in Congress called the New Way Forward Act. It’s received almost no publicity, which is unfortunate as well as revealing.
The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats, including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. At roughly 4,400 words, it’s almost exactly as long as the U.S. Constitution.
Like the Constitution, this legislation is designed to create a whole new country. The bill would entirely remake our immigration system, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here, and settle here permanently, with impunity.
You may think we’re exaggerating for effect. We’re not – not even a little.
The New Way Forward act is the most radical single piece of legislation we’ve seen proposed in this country. It makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo.
A document produced by Democrats to promote the bill says: “Convictions … should not lead to deportation.”
Keep in mind, we’re not talking about convictions for double parking. The bill targets felony convictions – serious crimes that send you to prison for years. A press release from Rep. Jesus Garcia, D-Ill., is explicit about this.
Garcia brags that the bill will break the “prison-to-deportation pipeline.” How does the bill do that? Under current U.S. law, legal U.S. immigrants can be deported if they commit an “aggravated felony” or a “crime of moral turpitude” – that is, a vile, depraved act, like molesting a child.
Under the New Way Forward Act, “crimes of moral turpitude” are eliminated entirely as a justification for deportation. And the category of “aggravated felony” gets circumscribed too.
What does that mean?
Consider this: Under current law, immigrants who commit serious crimes – such as robbery, fraud, or child sexual abuse – must be deported, regardless of the sentence they receive. Other crimes – less severe ones like racketeering – require deportation as long as the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence.
But if this bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the president, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation. None.
And one crime – falsifying a passport – will be made immune from deportation, no matter what. Because apparently 9/11 never happened, and we no longer care about fake government documents.
If you just renewed your driver’s license to comply with the Real ID Act, you must feel like an idiot. Under the proposed legislation, the minimum prison sentence for crimes that still require deportation would rise from one year to five.
We checked the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to federal data, crimes like car theft, fraud, and weapons offenses all carry average prison sentences of fewer than five years. And that’s just looking at averages. There are people who commit rape, child abuse and even manslaughter and receive sentences of fewer than five years. Lots of them.
If the New Way Forward Act becomes law, immigrants who commit those crimes and receive those sentences would remain in the country. They’ll all be eligible for citizenship one day, too.
But even that is understating the law’s effect. Even a five-year prison sentence won’t necessarily be enough to secure deportation. The bill would grant sweeping new powers to immigration judges, allowing them to nullify a deportation order.
The only requirement is that “the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” In other words, anti-American immigration judges – and many of them are exactly that – would have a blank check to open the borders. No vote required.
Sound shocking to you? We’re just getting started. Current U.S. law makes drug addiction grounds for deportation, because why wouldn’t it? This bill would eliminate that statute.
Current law also states that those who have committed drug crimes abroad, or any “crimes involving moral turpitude,” are ineligible to immigrate here. The New Way Forward Act abolishes that statute.
A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately. And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it wouldn’t be a crime – because, and you were waiting for this, the bill also decriminalizes illegal entry into America, even by those previously deported.
According to a document promoting the bill, criminalizing illegal entry into America is “white supremacist.”
By this point, you’re beginning to wonder if we’re making this up. We’re not. In fact, we’re barely halfway through the bill.
The legislation doesn’t just make it harder to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes. It doesn’t just make it easier for criminals to legally move here. The bill would also effectively abolish all existing enforcement against illegal immigration.
To detain illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have to prove in court that the illegal immigrants are dangerous or a flight risk. But of course, ICE wouldn’t be allowed to use a detainee’s prior criminal behavior as proof he or she is dangerous. That’s banned.
ICE would have to overcome even more hurdles if the detainee claims to be gay or transgender, under 21, or can’t speak English and an interpreter isn’t immediately available.
In other words, it would be much harder to arrest an illegal alien than it is to arrest you. They’re the protected class here. You’re just some loser who’s paying for it all.
But believe it or not, we saved the nuttiest part for last. What could be more destructive than changing U.S. law, specifically to allow rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers to stay in America? How about this: Using taxpayer money to bring deported criminals back into America.
That’s right. This bill would not only abolish your right to control who lives in your own country, but it invents a new right in return: the “right to come home.”
The bill orders the government to create a “pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in the United States,” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law.
The Department of Homeland Security must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens into the United States. Who will be eligible for these free flights? Tens of thousands of people kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes. Sexual abuse. Robbery. Assault. Drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking.
From 2002 to 2018, 480,000 people were deported for illegal entry or reentry into America. And under this bill, you’d have to buy them all a plane ticket to come back. The tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars, and that’s before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals’ free health care, too. Which they plan to.
The New Way Forward Act fundamentally inverts every assumption you have about America. Under this legislation, the criminals are the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate. It’s racist, just like the country you live in, and the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest area for the world’s worst predators and parasites.
This is a big deal. It’s hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less pass them into law. Yet, remarkably, the press has ignored it. Scores of Democrats have backed it, but the bill hasn’t been mentioned in The New York Times, or on CNN, or even in self-described conservative outlets like National Review.
If a lone Republican state legislator from Minot, N.D., had proposed a bill this extreme, that would remake America this completely, the president himself would be expected to answer for it.
CNN would demand the president “disavow,” even if he knew nothing about it. But when one-fifth of the Democratic caucus backs a bill demanding that you pay to import illegal alien felons, it’s a non-event in American media. They don’t think you should know about it. That’s dangerous.
Whether the press cares or not, these are the stakes of the 2020 election. A growing wing of the Democratic Party views America as essentially illegitimate – a rogue state, in which everything must be destroyed and remade: our laws, our institutions, our freedoms, our history and our values. That’s the point of all this, of course. An entirely new country, in which resistance is crushed, and they’re in charge forever.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Feb. 6, 2020.
It’s unlikely, for example, that CNN and MSNBC are showing [...]]]>
It’s unlikely, for example, that CNN and MSNBC are showing clips of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler expressing disgust with the impeachment process in 1998 when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the dock.
According to Pelosi, Republicans were consumed with “hate” because they voted to impeach President Clinton. Randy Bill got caught after he lied under oath about having sex with a young intern, Monica Lewinsky.
But now, Speaker Pelosi has announced an impeachment based on the sketchiest of evidence, and compared her action to those of the Founders’ “urgency of protecting and defending our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, in the words of Ben Franklin, to keep our republic.”
Tucker Carlson showed relevant clips of leading Democrats’ flip-floppery:
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Well, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are in charge of impeachment this week, but they had pretty different opinions on the subjects just not that long ago, a few decades ago. One Democrat currently in Congress is about to tell us why he disagrees with impeachment today.
But first, Trace Gallagher has to look back at Pelosi and Nadler’s view on this suddenly very relevant topic. Hey, Trace.
REPORTER TRACE GALLAGHER: Hey, Tucker, and what makes this so rich is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that no one is above the law. Most legal analysts even on liberal media outlets acknowledge it would be very difficult to make a case that President Trump broke the law.
But back in 1998, President Clinton actually did violate the law and when House Republicans voted to impeach, Pelosi said it was based solely on hatred. Watch:
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CA: Today, the Republican majority is not judging the President with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the investigation of the President, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear — privacy, fairness, checks and balances have been seriously violated.
And why? Because we are here — we are here today, because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer.
GALLAGHER: Also, back in 1998, Pelosi went on to say that President Clinton was not impeached for one single thing, but for all of the GOP grievances against him.
And speaking of selective political memory, in ’98, New York Congressman Jerry Nadler said impeachment was quote, “bad for the country.” Watch:
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-NY: An impeachment of a President is an undoing of a national election, and one of the reasons we all feel so angry about what they are doing is that they are ripping from us, they are ripping asunder our votes. They are telling us that our votes don’t count.
GALLAGHER: So for the record, in 1998, Nadler said impeachment was bad for the country. In 2019, he says it vindicates the Constitution — Tucker.
CARLSON: Amazing. That just made my night. Trace Gallagher, thank you for that.
Well, until just the other day, Democrats appeared to be divided on the question of impeaching the President. This week, they appear to be nearly unanimous. But a few you holdouts are warning that an impeachment push is a mistake, bad for the country and possibly counterproductive politically.
There’s not much wrong with his survey of Democrat diversity, but I would quibble with his assessment of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand saying she is young at [...]]]>
There’s not much wrong with his survey of Democrat diversity, but I would quibble with his assessment of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand saying she is young at 52. In fact, among her peer group in the US Senate she does qualify as young, since the average age of members as of December 2018 was 61.8 years, a decade her senior: Kirsten is just a kid in Senate years.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Howie Carr is a radio host. You can visit him at thehowiecarrshow.com. He is a keen watcher of American politics. We’re happy to have him tonight.
So Howie, let’s go through in order. Some of these candidates, I would say Cory Booker, no one really believed he was going to be the nominee, but who knows, but some of them.,Joe Biden, for example. People were betting big money that he would win. I want to go through the list. You tell me what happened. Joe Biden.
HOWIE CARR: Yes. Well, as Gore Vidal once said, Tucker, “No talent is not enough.” I mean, he just has no political instincts. He showed it again. In the 1970s, he gave all these interviews to newspapers about how he liked working with the segregationist senators. And everybody thought, “Boy, he’s lucky there’s nothing on videotape or audio tape of him saying this.” So what does he do, Tucker?
He goes out and he says it on audio tape and videotape that he likes working with Jim Eastland and Herman Talmadge. I mean, the guy is totally, totally clueless.
He was for the Hyde Amendment before he was against it. He was against reparations before he was for it. He was against busing before he was for it. He is a joke. You’re right.
CARLSON: You’re right, that’s about the crispest summation I can imagine. What about Beto O’Rourke? For a moment, it really did seem like Beto was the guy. I mean, he was our Bobby Kennedy. Now, he’s a joke. Why?
CARR: Well, I think you know, they always talk about the glass ceiling for women in politics, Tucker. I think there’s also a glass ceiling for gigolos. You know, there’s only so far you could rise.
John Kerry married two heiresses, but he never could reach the height. Beto O’Rourke who has changed his name — first name — over the years, obviously, we’ll get to that later on with other candidates. But he married the only child of a guy worth $500 million.
So, I think he’s very soon going to go into his real calling in life, which his son-in-law.
CARLSON: He’s been a good son-in-law. So, what happened to Kirsten Gillibrand?
CARR: Well, here’s another person, Tucker. I’m always a little suspicious of someone who changes their name from when they were in high school or college to when they’re on the ballot.
She used to be — when she was at Dartmouth, she was named Tina Rutnik. Now, her name is Kirsten Gillibrand. I just have suspicions about people like that. She is also somewhat as you say, she has jettisoned everything that she ran for when she was seeking her first seat in Congress in upstate New York.
And, you know, you also shouldn’t tell lies that people can see. I remember when she announced, Tucker, she said, “I’m a young woman.” And I thought to myself, “I’m going to look her up on Google. See how old she is.” She is 52. I’m sorry. You know, maybe. . .
CARLSON: She is older than I am, and I am not young. I totally agree. And quick, what happened to Spartacus? Cory Booker?
CARR: Spartacus is — I’m also suspicious of people who have fictional characters in their life story. You know, I mean, Barack Obama had the composite girlfriend. Cory Booker has this guy T-Bone. He is a fictional drug dealer, and he tries to portray himself as a man of the street, as you said, he went to Yale Law School, he went to Stanford. He is a Rhodes Scholar.
And you know, the other thing, Tucker, as you as you well know, you can’t — TV is a cool medium. You can’t be yelling, and he was up there, Spartacus, “This is my Spartacus moment.” Well, Tucker, as we all know, Spartacus got crucified. I mean, come on. Cory Booker? Who are you kidding?
CARLSON: Yes, watch the end of the movie. Find out what happened to him. Howie, great to see you tonight. Thank you.
CARR: Always a pleasure, Tucker.
For my money, the general innumerateness about world population growth as an immigration factor was the worst failing. The Democrats believe in open [...]]]>
For my money, the general innumerateness about world population growth as an immigration factor was the worst failing. The Democrats believe in open borders to the world and free healthcare to all comers — but do they know (or care?) that the number of humans on earth is now more than 7.7 billion, more than double that on the original Earth Day in 1970? Of those billions, many are poor and might like to live in Freebie America.
When a moderator requested of the candidates, “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide [medical] coverage for undocumented immigrants,” all responded affirmatively.
So how many world citizens would avail themselves of the abundant free stuff under a President Kamala Harris — one billion? Two?
The cartels that run the profitable border invasion would love to arrange a massive increase.
Foreigners have already transported themselves here illegally to mooch first-world healthcare at great cost to the unwilling American taxpayer. One memorable example was Mexican Ana Puente, who scrounged three liver transplants in California a decade ago when “The average cost of a liver transplant and first-year follow-up is nearly $490,000, and antirejection medications can run more than $30,000 annually.”
Now the Democrats want America to be the World’s Welfare Office rather than the national home of the citizens.
Tucker Carlson explained some of the memorable Democrat crazy talk:
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Well, good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. This is our last day in Kyoto, Japan. We’re having an interview with the President after the show. We will bring you the whole thing on Monday. We’ve been following closely what’s happening back in the homeland in the US.
Last night of course, marked the second straight Democratic primary debate. A lot of what passes for heavy hitters on the left were in attendance. Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders. On the question of immigration at least, they all seemed in total agreement.
[Video plays with mob chanting “No borders, no walls, no USA at all.”]
CARLSON: Sorry for the tape mixed up there. That was the party’s youth wing, Antifa, making pretty much the same point. But watch Father Pete Buttigieg — and this is the right tape — and Buttigieg, keep in mind is not only a mayor and a presidential candidate, but he’s a self-described moral leader like Mahatma Gandhi or Jackson Browne. Watch him explain it’s just wrong, morally wrong, to maintain international borders:
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG: That criminalization, that is the basis for family separation, you do away with that, it’s no longer possible. Of course, it wouldn’t be possible anyway, in my presidency, because it is dead wrong.
CARLSON: Got that? Sneaking into someone else’s country can never be a crime. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Chinese spy, an MS13 gang member, a drug mule with 20 kilos of heroin on your back. It doesn’t matter if you’re a human trafficker with a stable of child prostitutes. You are welcome here. We won’t judge you.
In fact, we will gladly pay for your comprehensive medical care, whatever it takes. That’s how much we hate ourselves. Watch:
NBC LEGAL ANALYST SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.
(Cheering and Applause)
CARLSON: Got that, Mr. and Mrs. American, you may be going broke trying to pay for your own family’s healthcare and many of you are, by the way, but now you get to pay for free healthcare for the rest of the whole world. Anyone who ignores our laws and sneaks in, you owe them benefits the second they get here. Got that, racist?
If you don’t like it, tough. The Democratic Party plans to disarm you. So you’re powerless. But Congressman Eric Swalwell promised to seize every semiautomatic rifle in this country.
CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL: I’m the only candidate on this stage calling for a ban and buyback of every single assault weapon in America.
CARLSON: That’s an actually actual Member of Congress. But wait, doesn’t the Constitution and a lot of these people are lawyer, so ask them this? Doesn’t the Constitution guarantee your right to keep and bear arms? Well, yes, the document says that. But once Bernie Sanders gets finished moving conservatives off Supreme Court, the left can do whatever it wants. Watch him explain:
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I do not believe in packing the Court. We’ve got a terrible five four majority conservative court right now. But I do believe that constitutionally, we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court.
CARLSON: Bernie Sanders talking about new blood, it’s all so great. But keep in mind, that’s not court packing. No, not even close. It’s court rotating. And that means getting rid of judges that Bernie Sanders doesn’t like, and installing judges who agree with Bernie Sanders. And that’s totally different.
The other candidates seemed on board with that or in any case, they were too busy attacking Joe Biden to notice what the old guy from Vermont was saying.
There was a lot to hit Biden on. Biden’s sex, his skin color, his sexual orientation. They’re all sins against the religion of wokeness. Plus, as Congressman Eric Swalwell helpfully pointed out, Joe Biden is really, really old.
SWALWELL: I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic Convention and said, “It’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.” That candidate was then Senator Joe Biden.
Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago, he is still right today. If we’re going to solve the issues of automation, pass the torch. If we’re going to solve the issues of climate chaos, pass the torch.
CARLSON: Got that old man? Joe Biden is a musty antique who ought to be eating soft food in Florida somewhere. And you know what else? He is a racist. A bitter elderly bigot. He is probably sitting in his den right now watching “Birth of a Nation” drinking Schlitz. Kamala Harris made that clear.
She started out by saying that Joe Biden is not a racist, meaning of course, he is definitely a racist.
SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS: I’m going to now direct this at Vice President Biden. I do not believe you are a racist, but you also work with them to oppose busing.
And, you know, there was a little girl in California, who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day, and that little girl was me.
CARLSON: Everything about that is fake. It’s hard to imagine what a disingenuous paragraph — where to begin. I mean, Kamala Harris implies that California schools were segregated in the 1970s? They were not. Some of us were there at the time.
Harris herself was not a civil rights hero, her father was literally a Stanford Economics Professor. She went to high school in Montreal, Canada. She was a child of privilege, if there ever was one.
As for forced busing, it’s amazing that anybody, particularly any Democrat would defend it. Busing didn’t work. It was an abject failure. Guess who hated it? Black families. It took black kids out of their neighborhoods, and it patronized them. It didn’t raise anybody’s scores in the end, busing didn’t work. Honest people on the left admit that.
Brookings admitted that. The only people who liked busing then and now are rich liberals, the ones totally insulated from the effects of their failed and stupid social policy.
Everyone else in this country, 90 percent of Americans, according to Gallup, polling at the height of busing, and that’s 90 percent of both black and white Americans, thought busing was awful. So good call Democrats. Run on that. More busing. Joe Biden is a racist.
Here’s our nominee Kamala Harris, listen to her explain why she is a very good person, and you’re morally flawed. Good call. That’ll definitely work, just like it did with Hillary Clinton last time. Morons.
In particular, extreme population growth fueled by foreigners (what’s [...]]]>
In particular, extreme population growth fueled by foreigners (what’s happening now) will change the culture, since the newbies come only for the dollars, not to become Americans.
Assimilation is generally expected by citizens of new residents, but the topic is little discussed by the current crop of Democrats vying for a White House slot. In fact some, like Julian Castro, embrace invasion via open borders even though traditional citizens once took pride in America as a “nation of laws.” Now, the left demands Diversity above all else, more than any other value.
The United States used to value educated immigrants who could help with the work that needed done. Instead, we are now helpless to stop a million uneducated Hondurans and other Central Americans from illegally entering the country this year. They will supply cheap, simple labor for a while to insatiable business owners, but that will end soon when the smart machines take their jobs, as described on this blog for years and observed by Tucker in his remarks.
Experts agree: fundamental technological change is coming to all sorts of workplaces, and official Washington would be wise to pay attention.
You could slide over to 3:05 minutes in the video below to avoid a couple nonsense clips from AOC delivered from the floor for some odd reason:
Spare Audio:
]]>TUCKER CARLSON (3:05): Negativity. That’s what the activist left now calls disagreement. They are not interested at all in what anyone outside their tiny little world has to say. Every day, you see Democratic presidential candidates endorsing some new policy that has pretty much zero public support, but it sounds like something woke baristas in Brooklyn would be excited about.
Banning ICE, ignoring federal immigration law, giving amnesty to millions. Decriminalizing illegal border crossings which is to say totally open borders. Anyone can come. When they get here, give them free stuff. Nobody really wants any of this even most of the people saying know, it wouldn’t work.
The public would revolt if you tried it. If half of Guatemala moved here tomorrow, which is exactly what would happen, it wouldn’t help anyone. This is all fantasy.
Countries have borders. That’s what makes them countries. Someday, the AOC moment will pass. It’s too stupid to continue. And at that point, sober Democrats will wake up and rejoin the adult conversation and progress. What do we want from our immigration system?
Well, here are some of the questions they should have to answer when that happens. First and most obvious, how many immigrants should we admit every year? What’s the ideal number? We currently take a little over a million every year, legally. Should we double that to over two million? How about 10 million immigrants a year? How about 20 million? Is there any number that’s too high? And if so, why?
While we are at it, what’s the ideal population of the United States? Immigration effects population size more than any other factor. We’re at about 325 million people in the United States today and that’s a lot.
Our highways are crumbling, many of our cities are painfully overcrowded. How big should we get? Four hundred million? Six hundred million? A billion people? And if you are pushing to increase the size of our population and they are, what’s your plan for keeping our natural environment pristine?
Crowded countries are polluted. Every single one of them. Tell us why we should want that here? What sort of skills and education should we look for in immigrants? Not all immigrants are the same? Some start wildly successful companies. Many others go on food stamps. They are not interchangeable widgets, they are human beings. Who should we prefer? What’s the ideal level of education an immigrant to this country should have?
Big business doesn’t want you to ask this question, they like their immigrants low-skilled and cheap. Ocasio-Cortez does, too. But what happens when technology kills their jobs? And it will. All the major Democrats running for president take money from the technology barons, many of them support self-driving cars. So what do you do with hundreds of thousands of unemployment immigrant cab drivers? Do they all go on welfare?
And speaking of, what sort of government services are immigrants entitled to exactly? Democrats promise universal healthcare. Do immigrants get that, too? Who pays for it? How many immigrants can our system support? Do we have enough doctors and nurses and hospitals to treat the number of immigrants we want to admit? Same question for schools.
The real answer is, of course, nobody knows. Because as of today, we have no idea how many immigrants live illegally in the United States. Shouldn’t we find out before we make more plans? And once we do find out, what do we do with them? Who gets deported? Anyone? Or do all of them get to stay? What if the real number of people living here illegally is north of 25 million? And that’s entirely possible. That’s bigger than the population of 48 out of 50 states. It’s enough to change this country completely and forever.
Do all of them get citizenship and voting rights? What about gun rights? And do they immediately start paying into the Reparations for Slavery Fund that Democrats are now promoting? How do you explain that to them? Can we watch that conversation?
And finally what about America’s ideals? Democrats are always talking about values when the subject of immigration comes up. They quote from the poem on the Statue of Liberty and tell you about their grandparents.
Well, previous waves of immigrants were asked to buy into this country’s most basic ideals — religious pluralism, free speech, political freedom, equality under the law. Our schools made them learn English and tried to instill patriotism. We called it assimilation. We thought it was critical to our social cohesion. Are we still for that? Do we still think we have values to impart or do we imagine that huge groups of people with nothing in common can share the same country without fighting each other?
It’s an important question — maybe the most important question of all. We never hear anyone ask it. Anyone who dares ask it is banned from Twitter. Instead, you hear the endless drone of self-righteous children barking about racism. That’s not enough. The decisions we make today about immigration are irreversible. It will help determine the health of the country we leave to our grandchildren. We should be a lot more serious than we are.
JEH JOHNSON: When I was in office in Kirsten Nielsen’s job at her desk, I’d get to work around 6:30 in the morning and there’d be my intelligence book sitting on my desk, the PDB, and also the apprehension numbers from the day before, and I’d look at them every morning.
It would be the first thing I’d look at, and I probably got too close to the problem, and my staff will tell you — if it was under 1,000 apprehensions the day before, that was a relatively good number, and if it was about 1,000 a relatively bad number and I was going to be in a bad mood the whole day. On Tuesday there were 4,000 apprehensions.
I know that a thousand overwhelms the system. I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like, so we are truly in a crisis.
Still, they keep coming because they can. President Trump continues to insist he’s building the wall, but that won’t stop the thousands of illegal aliens from claiming asylum at the front door, which is what they do after they get here from Honduras and beyond.
Meanwhile the Third World population keeps growing, so millions more want to come to America for the jobs and free stuff.
Meanwhile, it is human nature for people to prefer the company of others who speak their language, share their values and understand their jokes.
Tucker Carlson discussed the topic of diversity recently with Heritage Foundation scholar David Azzerad:
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Elections in this country used to be based on issues, or that was the common agreement anyway. But what would happen to a country in which power is allocated on the basis of qualities you couldn’t control? Things you were born with. Your skin color, your gender, your genetics. That would be called identity politics.
The Heritage Foundation’s David Azerrad has been studying this question, and he joins us tonight with the answer. David, thank you very much for coming on. So what happens to a country that is run with identity politics?
DAVID AZERRAD: In the short term, it kind of works because the majority group doesn’t play along with it, and kind of keeps quiet and does the public self-flagellation to atone for the sins of the father.
But in the long run, it’s untenable. How much longer until whites say, “Why don’t we get to have an identity?” And the day that happens, then you get some form of Yugoslavia or Rwanda, you get Balkanization and you get ethnic tribalism, groups fighting against one another.
So it’s tenable in the short term. I just don’t see how you can still have a country in the long run with identity politics. And the great paradox is, it may well create namely white nationalism, what they claim to oppose today.
CARLSON: What if there’s any question, and I think that’s really something to fear, just to be really clear because of the results. So have you ever seen — so Stacey Abrams, but it’s not — I don’t mean to pick on Stacey Abrams, she represents much larger group of people who tell us the same thing, which is, “This works. We must embrace it.”
The question is, does it work? Have you — you studied this question extensively, you’re a scholar. Is there a country in which this way of looking at the world has produced a stable nation?
AZERRAD: I mean, you hit on it in your previous remarks. Diversity is not a strength in politics. I mean, a strength in politics is unity. I mean, if you want to have a strong united country, you want the citizens to be united. Now, we’ll have a free country. You don’t want everyone to be the same. You need to make an allowance for pluralism.
But it is not good to promote division. I am fine having hyphenated Americans, what bothers me is if you emphasize the part that comes before the American part. I think you can recognize hyphenated Americans. But you emphasize the commonalities, the shared history, the shared devotion to Republican principals, the love the country, and if there is one thing that identity politics is very strong on is making you hate your country, making you despise your past, making you hate your fellow countrymen.
CARLSON: Last question, if you and I hate each other over qualities we were born with and can’t change, how is our division ever reconciled? How do we fix the problem between us?
AZERRAD: I don’t think it can be. That’s why I prefer the left we used to have in America, and Bernie Sanders is kind of the last gasp of it that looked at class divisions, and you still get pretty contentious politics with class divisions. But there is upward and downward mobility. You can’t immediately tell which class you belong to. You can still have a country with progressive class-based politics. You cannot have a country with identity politics, and I should add, open borders.
CARLSON: David Azerrad, very smart analysis. Thank you for that.
Unfortunately, the explosive population growth of Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World is rarely mentioned as a [...]]]>
Unfortunately, the explosive population growth of Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World is rarely mentioned as a major push factor for illegal immigration. For example, the number of Hondurans has quadrupled since 1960, which is not a plus in a backward country where 40 percent of the population works in agriculture.
The Gallup pollsters wrote last fall that:
In Gallup’s most recent global estimate, between 2015 and 2017, 15% of the world’s adults — more than 750 million people — said they would like to move to another country permanently if they could. In Central America, this percentage is one in three (33%), or about 10 million adults.
Three percent of the world’s adults — or nearly 160 million people — say they would like to move to the U.S. This includes 16% of adults from Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama and Costa Rica, which translates into nearly 5 million people.
World population growth should be a major part of the immigration debate, but it is rarely even mentioned.
Tucker noted the many lies from Democrats about border security: like other servants of the globalist elites, they really prefer open borders to keep those future voters and cheap workers coming.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: So, what exactly is the Democratic Border Security proposal? Would it actually secure the border? Well we had some time today, so we checked. And in a word, no, it would not.
The Democratic bill, in the Senate that Ed was just telling you about, simply restores previous funding levels for the Border Patrol and other existing programs. So, you have to ask yourself, when you consider that, was the border secure in December before the shutdown?
Well, no, it wasn’t. And that’s why we’re having this debate right now. Then, how would it be more secure after a bill that doesn’t change anything passes? Well, it wouldn’t be more secure, and that’s the point of the legislation, to maintain the broken status quo, let’s be honest about that.
Meanwhile, in the House, Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Bennie Thompson says he plans to introduce a bill that contains billions for border security, but nothing for a wall.
Thompson has a brand-new idea, he’s telling us. He says he can secure the border with the marvels of technology. He recently told PBS that cutting-edge machines can help us, quote, identify those vulnerabilities on the border.
Thompson’s plan can expect enthusiastic support from the Congresswoman from Tech-Land, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Here’s her most recent suggestion for the border. Watch.
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing.
Technology to scan the cars coming through the ports of entry, and that is to detect guns. It’s like an electronic dog almost to detect drugs, guns and other contraband.
CARLSON: It’s really like an electronic dog that can detect contraband. On one level, that’s hilarious. We’ve laughed about it before. But it’s also patronizing, really. You’d have to be totally ignorant of what’s happening on our southern border to believe that more surveillance is going to solve the problem.
We have an awful lot of surveillance technology there already. We’ve got drones, cameras, sensors, radar, dirigibles. We have it there, in part, because the Bush Administration put it there. That administration spent more than a billion dollars on something called the Secure Border Initiative Network.
They use technology to watch about 50 miles of our Southern border. Congressman Bennie Thompson himself called that program “Grave and expensive disappointment.” Well Thompson was right about that.
What’s changed is that Democrats now support grave and expensive disappointments. They specialize in grave and expensive disappointments. They’re pushing one now. And that’s short-sighted.
Leaving the politics aside, it’s not a good idea because our southern border is one of America’s most dangerous vulnerabilities. That’s not a talking point. It’s literally true, and here’s why.
As of tonight, Mexico is an intact country. Will it remain an intact country? Maybe but maybe not. Mexico is a deeply unstable place, not an attack on the Mexican people. It’s an acknowledgment of what anyone who knows anything about the country will tell you.
The national murder rate in Mexico is five times ours. Since 2006, more than 250,000, a quarter million people have been murdered in Mexico. That includes hundreds of politicians and judges. There is a war going on there, and it’s spurred by drug cartels that reach into the highest levels of the Mexican government, not an exaggeration.
The Attorney General of an entire Mexican state recently pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges. The governor of a state on the U.S. border took bribes to let cartels operate freely, which they did.
And then, just the other day, Mexico’s previous President was credibly accused at trial in court by a witness of taking a $100 million bribe from “El Chapo” Guzman. In effect, Mexico has become a narco-state.
But it’s not even the most volatile country in the region. Nicaragua is in severe turmoil right now. That gets no coverage but it’s real. Parts of El Salvador are largely controlled by gangs. Venezuela, meanwhile, is literally falling apart.
A recent Brookings Institution report predicted that a total collapse of Venezuela, which could happen any day, might create eight million refugees. For perspective, that’s more refugees than fled the entire Syrian Civil War. And keep in mind that that flood of humanity upended all of Europe.
Something similar could easily happen here, to us, and it likely will, if we ignore the problem, which we are doing. And yet, the position of Democrats in the Congress is that everything is fine, and you’re nuts if you disagree. Nothing needs to be done.
Well that’s the definition of recklessness. In fact, it’s worse than recklessness. It’s like letting your kids play in traffic. You wouldn’t do that to people you cared about. You prevent it from happening.
Democrats have become extremists on the question of borders. But you never know that from watching television or reading the paper. The media won’t say it, and nor will most Republicans, by the way.
Even in the Trump Administration, some officials seem intent on making Nancy Pelosi’s case for her. The Republicans are the real extremists here.
Here’s what Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross said today when he was asked about workers who aren’t being paid during the shutdown.
SECRETARY WILBUR ROSS: The people might have to pay a little bit of interest, but the idea that it’s paycheck or zero is not a really valid idea.
There have been ads run by a number of the public-sector credit unions.
Those have announced very, very low interest-rate loans to bridge people over the gap.
CARLSON: So, more debt, more interest payments, that’s the solution? No, it’s not. Those are the last things that most Americans need. That was an idiotic thing to say. Look for Wilbur Ross’ words to be aired every day for the next three years on CNN. They know a propaganda win when they see one, and it’s a shame.
And it’s also a distraction because it doesn’t change the nature, the fundamental nature of this crisis.
Our borders remain vulnerable, and the stakes are higher than they have ever been, thanks to the chaos just south of them. Leaders who cared about this country would be staying up late, trying to fix that problem. Democratic leaders are trying to make it worse. That’s the bottom line truth.
It’s crazy that Democrats Chuck and Nancy are complaining about the border security project so much, but Pelosi wants to be the Speaker [...]]]>
It’s crazy that Democrats Chuck and Nancy are complaining about the border security project so much, but Pelosi wants to be the Speaker of an increasingly left-wing Democrat caucus, so she has to act extra-tough against the Trump’s Wall.
Fox News’ William La Jeunesse reports where border barriers exist now, as well as remarks from Democrat presidents in the past regarding walls against illegal immigration. The upshot: Democrats spoke favorably about border walls in the past when it was their idea — but now they reject them because Dems don’t want to give the hated President Trump a win.
]]>WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE: When someone wants money you say, ‘What’s it for?’ We don’t know exactly what the $5 billion buys. Currently the border has 650 miles of barrier, about half of that only stops cars and some of the rest barely stops people. So you see the vehicle barrier there and the old stuff — well, it’s old, rusty and short. Homeland Security says $5 billion will build 215 miles of wall, likely bollard-style fence, five miles San Diego, 14 in El Centro, 27 in Yuma, nine in El Paso, 55 Laredo, and 104 miles in the Rio Grande Valley.
But, does it replace the old fence? Is it a secondary fence or is it new fence, meaning additional miles? We don’t know. How much is spent on cameras, sensors and drones — ICE, Border Patrol agents don’t know. We asked the White House, Congress, we got nothing, even this morning. So is this fight about money or politics?
This year Congress will spend $5 billion in aid to Afghanistan. $11 billion on green energy subsidies. $14 billion on earmarks. Democrats say they oppose a wall, yet from President Clinton through Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats built miles of border wall.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must do more to stop it.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The bill before us will certainly do some good. It will authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders.
LA JEUNESSE: Remember, Bill, in 2006 majority of Senate Democrats voted for 700 miles of double fencing no different in design today from what President Trump calls a wall.