But just being a poor human on earth is not enough to qualify for asylum in the US. In fact, [...]]]>
But just being a poor human on earth is not enough to qualify for asylum in the US. In fact, the acceptance rate for asylum seekers fell to less than one percent over the last year under the current tightened rules.
Refugee resettlement costs the taxpayers $1.8 billion annually, according to a study published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2018. So less is better for everyone, particularly in the home countries which could benefit greatly from reformist movements rather than citizens who dream of escaping rather than fixing the place.
Tucker Carlson recently discussed the Republican governors who succumbed to the pleas of resettlement moochers and actually have requested more refugees for their states — bad craziness!
Spare Audio:
TUCKER CARLSON: If you remember that far back, during President Barack Obama’s second term, Republican leaders in the Congress made a big show of opposing the Obama administration’s refugee policy. Obama wanted to settle tens of thousands of refugees who had fled Syria’s civil war in the United States, and at the time 25 Republican governors demanded the right to keep them out. Now the left accused them of Racism! of course but there are good reasons to take the position they did.
For example, properly vetting refugees is really hard, often it’s impossible. Some of the refugees, they pointed out, might not even be Syrian. That was true for sure in Europe with the refugees. Some of them might be Islamic extremists, but terrorism was not the only worry they had.
America’s middle class is in decline. We already have more than 20 million illegal immigrants living here. The last thing many struggling communities need is more low skilled migrants who may be great people but need a lot — stress the schools and the social programs, while not fully integrated.
That’s just true, and anyone who lives in a community where it’s happened will tell you that it’s true.
As with illegal immigration, a long-term agenda of refugee resettlement is to bring in future Democratic voters — obviously — so before she became the most anti-American member of Congress, Ilhan Omar was a refugee.
So at the time the Republican governors got their wish, and President Trump won the 2016 election. In 2019 he issued an executive order allowing cities and states to opt out of refugee resettlement —that’s the last time we checked in on this story.
Here’s the amazing part — for some reason no Republican governors are taking advantage of that. Instead — you probably didn’t read this in the New York Times — but 18 Republican governors have explicitly requested that more refugees be sent to their states.
Have their voters demanded this? No, so what’s going on here?
Ned Ryun is the founder of American Majority and author of Restoring our Republic. He joins us tonight. So Ned, I don’t think there’s any evidence that Republican voters in the states have been begging their Republican governors to move more refugees in, so why are these governors literally asking the federal government to do this?
NED RYUN: This is unreal, Tucker. I mean again you pointed out that Trump gave them a strong backstop back in September and said you can opt out of this with his executive order and now you have these 18 Republican governors saying no, we want more, and they’re saying well we’re following our hearts, this is Christian charity in action.
I got to say this, Tucker, as a active devout evangelical Christian, refugee resettlement has nothing to do with Christianity and has everything to do with the immoral behavior of these governors and quite frankly a perverse incentive for these government funded charities that are acting as refugee contractors, grifting off the American taxpayer.
Michelle Malkin’s written about some of this, but the US State Department is paying these refugee contractors over $2100 per refugee of which they get to keep 45 percent, and then they’re doing this this campaign on these governors saying you have to put your Christian charity into action, and in an act of cowardice, most of these governors from red states are giving in to this. (Continues)
Near the end of the interview, Tucker said of the governors, “I really wish we had run their names on the screen” — although the televised map provides some hints.
Helpfully, Breitbart listed the governors in an article, so feel free to contact one or all with your reaction regarding their ill-considered generosity:
]]>The List: 17 GOP Governors Approve More Refugees for their States, Breitbart.com, January 3, 2020
A total of 17 Republican governors thus far have approved more refugee resettlement for their states, along with five Democrat governors who govern red states.
For Fiscal Year 2020, President Donald Trump will continue cutting refugee admissions by reducing former President Barack Obama’s refugee inflow by at least 80 percent. This reduction would mean a maximum of 18,000 refugees can be resettled in the U.S. between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020. This is merely a numerical limit and not a goal federal officials are supposed to reach.
Coupled with the refugee reduction, Trump signed an executive order that gives localities, counties, and states veto power over whether they want to resettle refugees in their communities.
To date, these Republican governors in 17 states have asked the Trump administration to continue resettling refugees in their states:
- Mike DeWine of Ohio
- Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas
- Kim Reynolds of Iowa
- Charlie Baker of Massachusetts
- Gary Herbert of Utah
- Doug Burgum of North Dakota
- Chris Sununu of New Hampshire
- Doug Ducey of Arizona
- Eric Holcomb of Indiana
- Bill Lee of Tennessee
- Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma
- Pete Ricketts of Nebraska
- Kristi Noem of South Dakota
- Jim Justice of West Virginia
- Mike Parson of Missouri
- Brad Little of Idaho
- Larry Hogan of Maryland
(Article continues)
Naturally, when a volcano erupts, people in the area have to flee so they aren’t burned alive, Pompeii style. But [...]]]>
Naturally, when a volcano erupts, people in the area have to flee so they aren’t burned alive, Pompeii style. But the article notes, “Many of the survivors, with nothing left, headed for the United States” — as if there were no other alternative, although some volcano victims did indeed relocate within the country.
America has been generous to victims of war and natural disaster — perhaps unduly so. Now an unlimited welcome mat is expected, even though the population of the vulnerable Third World has grown by billions of humans in recent decades.
Here’s a shocker statistic from the article: “More than 250,000 Guatemalans — at least 2% of the country’s population — have migrated to the United States in the past two years.”
That’s not what I had in mind when I voted for candidate Trump in 2016. The Deep State clearly wants open borders, but the president could have pushed harder for enforcement over the two years when he had a Republican congress. And today it seems little has changed to keep out illegal alien invaders.
The article is one long narrative of Third World victimhood, because liberal scribblers cannot imagine brown people coping with adversity in their own homeland and who instead must be rescued by the big bad white United States.
]]>Indigenous Guatemalans flee volcano, search for safer ground in Guatemala or United States, by Kevin Sieff, Washington Post, November 27, 2019
COLONIA QUINCE DE OCTUBRE LA TRINIDAD, Guatemala – In this village at the base of the Volcano of Fire, there’s a simple explanation for the surge in migration to the United States, and there’s a complicated one.
The simple explanation is that on June 3, 2018, the volcano erupted, killing hundreds of people in minutes and rendering a patch of Guatemala uninhabitable. Many of the survivors, with nothing left, headed for the United States.
But the more complicated story is the one that residents here discuss before leaving – a history in which the United States is intimately involved. It’s the story of how Guatemala’s indigenous communities have been displaced and dispossessed for more than a century – sometimes fleeing U.S.-backed soldiers, sometimes ferried in caravans funded by U.S.-backed aid groups.
It’s the story of how La Trinidad came to be relocated to the base of an active volcano, with the assistance of the United Nations, the United States and the Guatemalan government.
More than 250,000 Guatemalans – at least 2% of the country’s population – have migrated to the United States in the past two years. Of those migrants, analysts say, a disproportionate number are indigenous. More than two decades since this country’s civil war, which pitted Guatemala’s military against its native communities, the exodus points to one of Latin America’s starkest inequalities. It points to places like La Trinidad.
“We’ve been migrating for 100 years,” says Simeon Camposeco Aguilar, a 56-year-old coffee farmer here. “Sometimes it feels like this community is going to keep moving forever.”
Camposeco’s son migrated to central California two months after the volcano erupted. It continues to rumble every 15 minutes or so, sending a plume of smoke into the air and shaking the ground.
“It’s normal! It’s normal!” Camposeco reassures outsiders. That’s what the residents of Trinidad told each other until June 2018, when lava flowed toward them at 150 mph.
The Guatemalan government published a declaration this July: “The community is not appropriate for urban development,” officials said. The recommendation? “Total evacuation.”
Now, it was up to Camposeco and other community leaders: Could they find a new place to live in Guatemala, an alternative that would stop the flow to the United States? (Continues)
The Washington Post used the language of criminality: Why was Trump lurking behind Clinton? How body language dominated the debate. October [...]]]>
The Washington Post used the language of criminality: Why was Trump lurking behind Clinton? How body language dominated the debate. October 10, 2016
A man who has been caught on tape gloating about groping women — and panting like a dog after a married woman — should not be seen stalking a woman in front of millions of television viewers. Not if he wants to improve his image, anyway.
But Donald Trump, looming behind Hillary Clinton like a mob boss, only reinforced his perception as a schoolyard bully in the second presidential debate Sunday night…
CNN’s body language expert Janine Driver called Trump’s movements a “pre-assault indicator.”
Candidate Trump did not sit and stay during the debate.
Do Democrats not understand how patronizing and ultimately harmful it is to their candidate to portray her as a tiny weakling who must be protected from a dominant man?
Hillary Clinton is running to be Commander in Chief, not school board member. If elected, she will be standing toe to toe with some very dangerous foreign leaders who want to take advantage of America’s growing weakness, as engineered by Obama.
Do liberals believe that Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and other overseas autocrats are gentlemen with perfect manners?
No, they will try to dominate Hillary in every way possible. Just a month ago, the Red Chinese snubbed President Obama by not providing a staircase for him to exit Air Force One when he arrived in Hangzhou for a G20 meeting. He was forced to leave the airplane via a basic ramp in the rear as a result of the calculated insult.
You can be sure that America’s nuclear-armed enemies will not be any nicer to a female president. A commander in chief who understands how dominance figures into leadership may be a better choice.
Movement analyst Tonya Reiman appeared on Fox Business Monday to discuss her observations. She was asked by host Maria Bartiromo, “What would be your most important takeaway in terms of body language?”
“Don’t lurk over the other candidate,” she responded. “That was unbelievable — the hovering. For a man that size, it’s almost menacing to be hanging over her that way. And the other thing about that is, the reason you have a town hall is so that one person sits while the other stands and gets all the attention. So him walking around throughout the entire time took complete posture away from her, so nobody’s really listening to her because they’re watching him lurk.”
And if any women should be worried about “menacing” men in connection with this election, it should be the American women who will be endangered by the more than one million Syrians and other Muslims that Clinton has promised to resettle into this country during her first term.
]]>Coulter notes that the full flowering of the mob came during the French Revolution, in which the mob’s Reign of Terror caused the [...]]]>
Coulter notes that the full flowering of the mob came during the French Revolution, in which the mob’s Reign of Terror caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, from the King and Queen of France to the revolution’s own leaders like Robespierre. By comparison, the American Revolution was remarkably principled and orderly as armed uprisings go.
The current colorful example of the mob in action is filled with leftist excuses for violence and theft. The AP shared a revealing quote (from Britain burns: Riots spread through UK cities, Aug. 9, 2011):
“This is the uprising of the working class. We’re redistributing the wealth,” said Bryn Phillips, a 28-year-old self-described anarchist, as young people emerged from the store with chocolate bars and ice cream cones.
In the video below, a looter in Clapham Junction claims the theft is a kind of tax refund. Brilliant. It’s a Marxist version of H&R Block in which imagined victimhood justifies crime and violence.
It’s too bad the British people have been disarmed by the government and have no guns to defend themselves and their property.
]]>Below, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Oakland Mayor Jean Quan attended the White House State dinner for Red China President Hu Jintao.
So the local Chinese et al are thrilled, right? Not exactly. They partied hearty at Lee’s inauguration, but recent analysis from Asian pundits was more carping than celebration, at least in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle. The paper often showcases differing views on a topic, but in this case two Asian writers groused in unison that the ascension of two Asian mayors was too little, too late because of xenophobia and racism.
Helen Zia concentrated on complaints from more than a century ago:
State’s racism delayed Asian Americans’ victories, SF Chronicle, January 30, 2011
It’s not only about time, it’s way past time to have Asian American mayors in San Francisco and Oakland, considering how long these cities have boasted substantial Asian American populations. What took Asian Americans so long to get this far?
The answer lies in the darker side of California’s history. On the streets of San Francisco, Oakland and throughout California, vigilante lynch mobs stoked a xenophobic movement in the late 1800s with the stated goal of driving every “Asiatic” out of America. Federal laws turned all Asians into “persons ineligible for citizenship.” The disenfranchisement was so comprehensive that Asian Americans who were naturalized had their citizenships revoked; white American women who married Asian men were stripped of their citizenships; U.S.-born citizens of Asian descent were assumed to be illegal if they left the country and were subject to detention, interrogation and deportation upon returning. Immigration from Asia was limited to a trickle.
Such racist laws were slowly peeled back in the mid-1900s, but the damage was done: For generations, there were no voters leagues, no candidates forums, no election pipelines or other signs of electoral involvement among people forbidden to become citizens. Since those not-so-distant days, it’s been a marathon to catch up, and it’s no accident that both Ed Lee and Jean Quan have been part of the long effort to empower these communities.
Asian Americans might be singing “At Last!” but these mayoralties are only the beginning of what these dynamic peoples can bring to our democracy.
Fellow diverse scribbler Jon Funabiki (a journalism professor!) was similarly downbeat.
Mayors’ victories haven’t broken the glass ceiling, SF Chronicle, January 30, 2011
There’s much to celebrate about Ed Lee and Jean Quan, the Bay Area’s new power couple, the first Asian Americans to become the mayors of San Francisco and Oakland. They’ve cracked through a political glass ceiling that has bedeviled Asian American communities for decades. In the Year of the Rabbit, this is big news.
It’s not just because they are Chinese. Lee earned his street cred three decades ago at the Asian Law Caucus, defending poor immigrants. The street-smart Quan learned the power of grassroots organizing through her community work and campaigns for the Oakland school board and City Council.
Yet I fear this might not be enough to completely shatter the glass ceiling. Why? Because that would require the unequivocal support of people outside the Asian American communities – the voters, power brokers, corporate titans and social elites who have yet to embrace the need to share power at all levels. They will view Lee as a “caretaker mayor” and beneficiary of a backroom deal. They will view Quan as a winner by a technicality, courtesy of the ranked-choice voting system.
Full acceptance for Asian Americans and other groups will require continuing social and political reform.
Yes, great strides have been made, but it’s taken an astonishingly long time. San Francisco and Oakland were incorporated during the Gold Rush, when the first Chinese journeyed here in search of the American dream, only to face persecution and lynchings. To close the last mile, we will need to see more Lees and Quans capturing these top posts with outright election victories, broadly won, unmarred by ifs, ands or buts.
There’s nothing like success to send professional race hucksters into a tizzy: they are terrified that the public will no longer accept their race- and victimhood-obsessed view of reality. A post-racial society is the last thing they want.
So we read emotional grievances that the tribe in question is still being kept down, which is quite a trick considering Asians’ successes, e.g. the highest household income in the US and the highest level of education (49% have at least a BA degree).
If there’s a dearth of Asian mayors, then it’s probably because acquiring political office isn’t considered impressive enough by Tiger Moms who would rather have a doctor in the family.
]]>