Tag Archives: immigration

Kamala Harris’ Border Policy

Posted on by
Reply

The Pinellas County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office has a critical statistic regarding looters in his county in the aftermath of Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

…41 of the 45 alleged looters rounded up on armed robbery, burglary, loitering, grant theft, vandalism, and trespassing charges on their turf in the wake of the two deadly storms are in the US illegally[.]

This is what Harris’ border policy would inflict on us—including her much touted border bill, touted by her and her Party supporters, that would have codified letting in 1.4 million or more illegal aliens per year before a President would have been encouraged to do something.

Favoring Illegal Aliens over Citizen Homeless

Posted on by
Reply

That’s Chicago’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson is doing while pretending to adjust down his city’s illegal alien sanctuary status. The subheadline makes the case clearly:

The Windy City is merging its migrant shelter system with the city’s traditional homeless shelter system

And

The overhaul will see 3,800 beds added to the city’s current homeless services system of 3,000 legacy beds….

Johnson is claiming in his press release on the matter that his system now is a unified sheltering system to serve all Chicagoans.

Where to start. Couple things, in particular. The first is that if Johnson had 3,800 beds all along, why didn’t he allocate them sooner and to the shelters that accommodate the city’s resident homeless?

Because, the second thing is that he’s confused about who is a Chicagoan. Illegal aliens are not at all Chicagoans, they’re illegal aliens.

This is Johnson treating illegals at the direct expense of Chicago’s homeless.

Republicans Created Harris’ Title of Border Czar?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of The Wall Street Journal news room writers.

Republicans exaggerated her role to label the vice president as “border czar,” though her initiative was much narrower.

They also claim that Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ DOC was working with Northern Triangle nations to reduce the illegal alien flood. That last, not so much. Here’s Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s own statement announcing his appointment of Harris to the post:

I’ve asked her, the VP, today—because she’s the most qualified person to do it—to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help—are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.

Not just the Triangle nations—included in Harris’ portfolio are Mexico, which is our southern border and those “countries…going to need help,” which are the aggregated origin of all of the illegal aliens flooding across our southern border.

Regarding the title—label if you prefer—Border Czar, Andrew Arthur, writing shortly after Harris’ appointment in a piece for the Center for Immigration Studies, noted

the executive branch has used the term loosely for almost 60 years to describe an official with a portfolio that includes the duties of other officials.

That’s hardly a current, Republican, creation. Instead, here’s the press, specifically, the New York Post, just two weeks after her appointment. First, the headline:

Where is Kamala? Two weeks since being named border czar, Harris still hasn’t visited

And in the body:

Instead, in her first two weeks as czar, she has traveled….

And NBC News, referring to Harris’ immediate predecessor:

In a statement Friday announcing that Roberta Jacobson, Biden’s border czar who has played a key role….

And so on.

Maybe the WSJ needs to get a new crop of interns for its newsroom research function. Or more accurate writers.

Always Someone Else’s Fault

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party President candidate Kamala Harris is blaming Congress for her and Biden’s administration’s failure to control our border. 60 Minutes interviewer Bill Whitaker asked a question of Harris:

You recently visited the southern border and embraced President Biden’s recent crackdown on asylum seekers, and that crackdown produced an almost immediate and dramatic decrease in the number of border crossings. If that’s the right answer now, why didn’t your administration take those steps in 2021?

Harris’ answer, in part:

Fast forward to a moment when a bipartisan group of members of the United States Senate, including one of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, got together, came up with a border security bill.

She omitted to mention that for all that Senator James Lankford (R, OK), the “most conservative” Senator in question, was part of that deal, it would have codified the entry of more than 1.4 million unvetted illegal aliens into our nation. Lankford was hoodwinked in that deal.

Harris also omitted to say, and Whitaker chose not to note in his question, that the right answer now was Joe Biden’s Executive Order, that he could have issued years ago.

Whitaker followed up:

“[T]here was an historic flood of undocumented immigrants coming across the border the first three years of your administration,” and that “arrivals quadrupled from the last year of President Trump.”
He then asked her: “Was it a mistake to loosen the immigration policies as much as you did?”

Harris’ answer, in part:

It’s a long-standing problem, and solutions are at hand, and from day one, literally, we have been offering solutions.

She omitted to mention, and Whitaker omitted to ask, how then-President Donald Trump (R) was able to implement the restrictions that so thoroughly limited illegal alien influx, restrictions that were so thoroughly loosened. Trump inveighed Congress to act on immigration law, but he didn’t wait—he delivered Executive Orders that achieved the tight restrictions. It’s true enough that Congress is needed to codify those EOs, or something like them, but the EOs, for their duration, worked.

Nothing kept Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden from issuing the EO that he did, or issuing other EOs, to tighten the border as long ago as January 2021 (or leave the Trump EOs in place), and nothing kept his Vice President from pushing him to do any of that. Instead, Harris actively supported the the rescission of the Trump EOs and the resultant loosening of our border control.

But all that is Congress’ fault. With Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, it’s always somebody else’s fault; Party is never the cause of any failure.

What She’s Committed To

Posted on by
Reply

This is excerpted from the ACLU questionnaire that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris filled out the last time she ran for President (via Just the News):

6. Will you commit to ending the use of ICE detainers?
Yes X No⬜
Explanation (no more than 500 words): Throughout my career, I have made it clear that law enforcement should use their time and resources to keep communities safe, not act as federal immigration agents. It’s also important that law enforcement build trust with the communities they are sworn to protect—acting as de facto immigration officers erodes this trust. As Attorney General, I issued a bulletin on December 4, 2012 informing all California law enforcement that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers. As president I will focus enforcement on increasing public safety, not tearing apart immigrant families. This includes requiring ICE to obtain a warrant where probable cause exists as to end the use of detainers.

This is nonsense. ICE detainers in no way convert police into immigration officers. The detainers merely ask police, who have already arrested the individual(s), to notify ICE that the police have the individual, so ICE can pick him up at the jail or on release by the police. The ICE agents respond promptly; there’s no call, by the detainer, to hold the individual longer.

10. Will you work to stop states from shutting down abortion providers by urging Congress to pass and signing into law the Women’s Health Protection Act? If yes, how will you take a leadership role in advancing this legislation at the national level?
Yes X No ⬜
Explanation (no more than 500 words): I am a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act and will fight to sign it into law as president. As President, protecting the right to reproductive healthcare services will be one of my top priorities and I will fight to stop dangerous state laws restricting reproductive rights before they go into effect. That’s why I have a plan to require states with a history of unconstitutionally restricting access to abortion to pre-clear any new law or practice with the Justice Department before it can be enacted. We have to fight back against this all out assault on reproductive rights. Women have agency and they have authority to make decisions about their own lives and their own bodies. My administration won’t leave them to fight alone.

This is wrong on a number of levels. Most basic is the error embedded in the ACLU’s question and carried through by Harris’ response: there’s not a minim of concern for protection of the baby, only concern for the woman’s “right” to kill the baby for no better reason than she wants to.

Secondly the history of unconstitutionally restricting access to abortion is nonsense. There is not, and there never has been, a constitutionally based access to abortions. There has only been a Supreme Court generated access, and that has been rescinded by the Court so the matter can be returned to the States and to each State’s citizens so those citizens can decide for themselves the degree of access. And that’s where the matter should be.

Thirdly, the requirement for States to say “Mother may I” to the Federal government is an active and blatant attack on the federal structure of our nation and our nation’s governance.

There are other such…errors…in Harris’ questionnaire, many of which are variations on a theme, as well as some on separate subjects.

These, though, are Harris’ indelibly stated extreme positions, no matter her current rhetoric—which no less a light than Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has said are just words convenient to her effort to get elected, and in no way are to be taken seriously.