Category Archives: Illegal Immigrants

Schumer: Trump was “mean spirited and un-American”

Posted on by

I’m sorry, folks, it’s taking all I possess to not erupt in a rather large and admittedly juvenile rant against the staggering hypocrisy exhibited by the Demorats, Leftists, anarchists, American Media Maggots, Hollywood and even Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

I’m here to shed light to the lies and the hypocrisy. I exist to shine light on the cockroaches who scurry when caught in illumination.

Let’s watch Little Chuckie Schumer cry tears on command (anyone besides me immediately think of John Boehner?) when he spoke about President Trump being “mean spirited and un-American” regarding his recent travel stay from identified countries.

Schumer is a massive hypocrite as I’m shortly to illustrate. As per normal, Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots continue to forget that I have access to the internet. From TheHill.com:

Schumer: Refugee pause may be necessary

by Alexander Bolton, 11/17/15

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, on Tuesday said it may be necessary to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.

Republicans immediately seized on Schumer’s comment, which breaks with other Democrats who have argued against halting the program.

Schumer, however, declined to take the option off the table ahead of a special briefing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on the process that is now used to vet refugees entering the United States.

“We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it,” he said.

Schumer seems to have forgotten his prior stance.

Leftists have conveniently forgotten this story regarding Barack Obama and Cuba. Somehow this never rose to the level of rage and umbrage we see now. To wit:

Flashback: Obama Stranded Legal Cuban Travelers in Airports on Last Week in Office

by Frances Martel

As the radical left organizesobstructions of airport terminals to protest President Donald Trump’s executive order enacting new security measures for travelers visiting from turbulent countries, few appear equally outraged that his predecessor, Barack Obama, issued a similar directive specifically targeting Cubans.

During his last week in office, President Obama repealed a long-standing executive order known as “Wet Foot/Dry Foot,” which allowed all Cubans legally touching U.S. soil to stay here illegally. The objective of the executive order was to give sanctuary to Cubans risking their lives on makeshift vessels trying to sail to the United States and escape the oppressive communist regime that has governed there for over half a century.

The move did not trigger widespread national protests in defense of the Cubans affected, even as U.S. immigration officials – confused by the lack of direction in Obama’s order – detained and interrogated countless travelers possessing legal visas to enter the United States. Many of these were elderly individuals, traveling to visit their children with no intention of stay.

Historical Alzheimer’s — purposely — strikes the American Media Maggots serially. It is truly continuing intellectual dishonesty.

Any and every nation never loses its right to sovereignty, self-interest and self-determination. Coming to the United States of America is a privilege and not a right in any way.

Leftists will continue to lie, cheat and sue with abandon, just as I will continue to expose their lies, strategies and tactics.

I. AM. PUSHBACK.

BZ

 

 Share

US: cut aid to countries refusing immigrant returns

Posted on by

Remember this number: H.R. 82, the Criminal Alien Deportation Act of 2017.

From FoxNews.com:

Law would cut off aid to countries that refuse to accept illegal immigrant criminals

by Malia Zimmerman

A proposed law that would punish countries that refuse to take back their illegal immigrant criminals is two years too late to save Casey Chadwick, but the Texas congressman behind it figures it’s the least Washington can do.

Chadwick was murdered in 2015 by Jean Jacques, an illegal immigrant from Haiti and one of thousands freed onto U.S. streets each year after they serve prison time because their homelands refuse deportation. But a proposal by Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, the Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act, would force such countries to take back their citizens or risk losing foreign aid and travel visa privileges.

Babin’s bill would require the Department of Homeland Security report to Congress every three months the names of uncooperative countries. The federal government would then withhold foreign aid to those countries while the State Department would suspend travel visas.

Rep Babin is re-introducing his original H.R. 5224 from last year. This year, the content of the bill is as follows:

Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act of 2017

This bill amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit financial assistance to a foreign country that refuses or unreasonably delays the acceptance of an alien who: (1) is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of such country; and (2) has received a final order of removal from the United States.

A country shall be deemed to have refused or unreasonably delayed acceptance of an alien if it does not accept such alien within 90 days of receiving an authorized repatriation request.

The Department of Homeland Security shall submit a report to Congress every three months that: (1) lists the countries that refuse or unreasonably delay repatriation; and (2) includes the total number of aliens who were refused repatriation, organized by country, detention status, and criminal status.

A listed country shall be subject to U.S. entry and financial assistance prohibitions unless it issues appropriate travel documents: (1) within 100 days after such report’s submission for aliens convicted of a crime committed in the United States, and (2) within 200 days after such report’s submission for all other aliens.

A victim (or an immediate family member thereof) of a crime committed by any alien who has been issued a final order of removal shall have standing in federal district court to enforce entry and financial prohibitions.

The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended to: (1) discontinue granting visas to a subject, national, or resident of a listed country unless the country has issued the appropriate travel documents pursuant to this bill; and (2) grant standing to enforce such provision in federal district court to a victim (or an immediate family member thereof) of a crime committed by any alien who has been issued a final order of removal.

Tucker Carlson speaks with Rep. Babin about the bill.

Can anyone, I ask, make any cogent argument whatsoever against the bill? I would care to hear any argument against same. The bill is nothing more than the application of common sense.

It’s no secret that Mr Obama’s policies regarding illegal immigrants acted in the interests of Mexico and illegals globally, and not in the interests of the United States — with the exception of the voting benefits to Demorats and cheap labor to some Republicans. Both sides are wrong on the issue in those arenas.

This is a bill whose time is quite well overdue.

BZ

 

 Share

Bill introduced to defund “sanctuary cities”

Posted on by

US mayors and governors don’t have the power to defy the federal government. Or do they? Are there legal teeth in Donald Trump’s words to “defund sanctuary cities”?

Representative Lou Barletta (PA, 11th) introduced a bill on Thursday that would grow a nice set of chompers and provide consequences for defiance of federal law. From Barletta.house.gov:

BARLETTA’S 1ST BILL OF 115TH CONGRESS: DEFUND SANCTUARY CITIES

Stops Federal Funding for Cities Failing to Cooperate with Immigration Officials

WASHINGTON – Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) today introduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 83, which will stop all federal funds from flowing to states or localities which resist or ban enforcement of federal immigration laws, or flatly refuse to cooperate with immigration officials.  The bill is the first piece of legislation introduced by Barletta in the 115th Congress and represents the third time the congressman has introduced the measure.  In 2011, the bill was the first piece of legislation he ever introduced as a member of Congress.  He introduced it a second time in the 114th Congress in 2015.

“One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens, and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that responsibility,” Barletta said.  “Too many mayors and local governments think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead of the safety of their residents.  This bill will stop that practice by saying to these sanctuary cities, ‘If you refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, you will lose your federal funding.’”

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act prohibits any federal funding for a minimum period of one year to any state or local government which has a policy or law that prevents them from assisting immigration authorities in enforcing federal immigration law.  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) lists about 300 such localities in the United States.  Barletta’s bill directs the attorney general to compile an annual list of such cities and issue a report on any particular state or locality upon request from a member of Congress.  A state or local government would only regain federal funding eligibility after the attorney general certifies that its laws and policies are in compliance with federal immigration statutes.

The issue is this: 300 cities already refuse to cooperate with federal authorities over detainer requests from ICE officials, making illegals shielded from deportation — even those accused or convicted of felonies — as there is nothing in existing law obligating a city, county or state to cooperate, with no legal consequences when those entities fail to work with ICE.

Does anyone recall when then-Arizona Governor Jan Brewer passed a bill mandating state illegal immigrant enforcement that was tougher than the federal standard? Obama stated the US “cannot have fifty different immigration policies,” which the US Supreme Court affirmed. However, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that ruling may lend precedent, credence and authority to Barletta’s bill.

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act would cease federal funding to sanctuary regions or entities for one year. As Barletta said, “they would not get one federal cent.” We’re talking potentially billions of federal dollars of highway, education and medicaid cash.

The map above, provided by the Center for Immigration Studies, shows the location of US sanctuary cities, counties and one Leftist state, Fornicalia.

Then there is this point from CIS.org:

Tackling Sanctuaries

By Dan Cadman, Jessica Vaughan December 2016

Key Findings

This report examines the justifications given by sanctuary jurisdictions for their policies, and finds them to be largely unfounded:

  • Cooperation with immigration enforcement has not been shown to undermine community trust nor cause immigrants to refrain from reporting crimes; there are better ways to address issues of access to police assistance without obstructing enforcement;

  • Simply cooperating with federal immigration agencies does not turn local officers into de facto immigration officers, because federal officers make the decisions on which aliens are targeted for deportation;

  • Such cooperation is not very costly for local jurisdictions because the removal of criminal aliens spares future victims and saves future supervision, incarceration, and social services costs to criminal aliens. In addition, cooperative localities can receive partial reimbursement for their incarceration costs.

  • Claims by some local law enforcement agencies that they need a warrant in order to hold aliens for ICE are dubious but can be accommodated by the issuance of ICE administrative warrants.

The Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and the public safety problems they create.

Here’s how to do so:

  • Rescind the Obama administration actions and policies that encourage and enable sanctuaries, including clarifying that local agencies are expected to comply with detainers;

  • Cut federal funding to sanctuaries;

  • Initiate civil litigation to enjoin state or local laws and policies that egregiously obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations;

  • Selectively initiate prosecution under the alien harboring-and-shielding statute, which is a federal felony; and

  • When requested, issue administrative warrants to accompany detainers as a reasonable accommodation to state or local concerns. Negotiating over which aliens will be subject to detainers, as is current policy, is not a reasonable accommodation.

  • Direct ICE to begin publishing a weekly report providing the public with information on all criminal aliens released by the sanctuaries.

Please read the excellent but somewhat lengthy article here.

Representative Barletta’s H.R. 83 is an important bill submitted at the proper time. Barletta is correct; we’re either a nation of laws or we are not. We either obey the rule of law or we do not. If we do not — by allowing sanctuary cities, counties and states to stand, in direct contradiction of federal law — then we undermine ourselves.

If we have no rule of law, then most any city, county or state may arbitrarily decide which laws they wish to obey or disregard. Therefore, if that stands, it logically follows that the individual likewise has the freedom to obey or disregard the laws that he or she chooses, when he or she chooses.

It is the path to chaos.

The time is now to stop the chaos, and establish and reaffirm discipline and sovereignty.

BZ

 Share

Rep Tom McClintock (R) 4th, weighs in on CA’s hiring of Eric Holder

Posted on by

It was discovered yesterday that California taxpayer dollars will be funneled into the pockets of ex-US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm, Covington & Burling, in order to fight the Trump administration on behalf of the State of California. For background, please see this.

SHR Media, of which I am a part, discussed the issue Wednesday night on the Sack Heads Radio show. Before the show, however, I attempted to acquire a response from the California Attorney General’s office but was unsuccessful.

I next contacted the office of my former 4th District representative, Tom McClintock, first speaking to Bill George in Rocklin, and followed with an email in order to see if I could solicit Rep McClintock’s opinion on the hiring of former AG Eric Holder.

Representative McClintock was kind enough to respond the very next day, and had this to say:

1.     This is a huge vote of no confidence in Xavier Becerra, who as incoming Attorney General would otherwise be responsible for representing the state government’s perspective in the courts.  Implicitly, legislative leaders are saying they don’t trust Becerra’s competence and need to bring in outside counsel.  I don’t disagree with them in this assessment.  Normally, the Attorney General would decide whether he needed additional legal counsel for a specific case – it looks like legislative leaders have made this decision for him.

2.     Since the administration has not taken office and therefore has not yet taken any official actions, it is hard to see specifically what Holder et al are being hired to contest.  Placing them on general retainer once again voices no confidence in Becerra and, given the partisan political connections involved, has the appearance of a political payoff.  Holder is also a curious choice as the only Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress.

3.     An essential component of federalism is the ability of a state to assert its constitutional powers and prerogatives and to challenge federal authority through our legal system.  If they have no confidence in Becerra, they have every reason to hire outside counsel and every right to challenge federal actions.  Although I obviously strongly disagree with them on policy, I think state legal challenges to federal action are healthy.  This is certainly preferable to recent Democratic attempts to nullify federal law by refusing to obey or enforce it.   Democrats started the discredited and defeated doctrine of nullification in the antebellum era and have revived it with “sanctuary” and non-enforcement policies in recent years.   

I wholeheartedly concur with Rep McClintock’s assessment of incoming AG Becerra. It’s, to me, something of a resounding slap in the face. Particularly in light, as Rep McClintock aptly points out, of the fact that Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.

This is, essentially, the State of California posturing for the Leftists within and without; chest-puffing if you will. Holder’s retainer comes directly out of the budgets of the Senate and Assembly. Will Holder’s consultancy extend beyond the “initial” three months? Quite possibly.

Thanks kindly to Tom McClintock and Bill George for assisting me in the matter and their rapid response.

BZ

 

 Share

California hires former AG Eric Holder to fight Trump

Posted on by

The rampant insanity continues unabated in the state of the insane.

I truly am “behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia.”

My taxpayer dollars are going to be used to fight taxpayers. Meaning, I’m funding the state to fight my philosophy.

From SacBee.com:

California Legislature to pay Eric Holder to challenge Trump administration

by Taryn Luna

The California Legislature has hired the firm of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as outside counsel to assist legal challenges posed by conflicts with the Trump Administration, Democratic leaders announced Wednesday.

Holder’s firm, Covington & Burling, will advise the Legislature “in our efforts to resist any attempts to roll back the progress California has made,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in a joint statement on Wednesday.

As I said, my taxpayer dollars going to fight me. $75,000 in fact.

The Assembly and Senate have agreed to split the firm’s $25,000-a-month fee for an initial three-month period. “Given the urgency, intensity and complexity of the work, these terms are eminently fair and consistent with industry standards,” Assembly spokesman Kevin Liao said in a statement. “The initial agreement extends for a minimum of three months, at which time the parties will mutually and more specifically assess the evolving federal landscape and determine what overall scope of work will be required to meet California’s challenges going forward.”

Fornicalia politicians admit that illegals voted for them.

“This is a critical moment in the history of our nation,” Rendon and de León said. “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us and the policies and diversity that make California an example of what truly makes a nation great.”

Note: “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us.” Why would lawful Fornicalians require defense?

State legislative leaders have struck a defiant tone against President-Elect Donald Trump. The day after the election Rendon and de León issued a statement praising California, which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, and pledging to protect the state from Trump policies that may hurt the economy or infringe on the rights of people living in the state.

“I am honored that the Legislature chose Covington to serve as its legal advisor as it considers how to respond to potential changes in federal law that could impact California’s residents and policy priorities,” Holder said in a statement, “I am confident that our expertise across a wide array of federal legal and regulatory issues will be a great resource to the legislature.”

But wait. Do I detect some potential conflict of interest here?

De León has connections to Covington that extend beyond Holder.

Really? In what fashion?

Dan Shallman, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, is the brother of John Shallman, whose Southern California-based political consulting and advertising agency serves as the longtime consulting house for de León and several other California elected officials. It is paid a $10,000 a month retainer by the California Democratic Party. This summer, Shallman Communications hired de León’s daughter, Lluvia de Milagros Carrasco, a recent graduate of Saint Mary’s College in Moraga, to work as an account coordinator.

There is going to be, clearly, a fight. First, a court fight. But possibly, in time, a civil fight that will extend across the nation.

Either the rule of law wins, or the rule of law loses.

If the rule of law loses and entire states can flaunt laws, then why should any other state — or, for that matter, you and me — obey state or federal laws? If the rule of law loses, the precedent will have been set.

This is a place that, trust me, California and Leftists nationally do not want to go.

BZ

P.S.

Can you now see the vital importance of the Second Amendment and the First Amendment?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

 Share