vdare--2020-01-26--Defending American Citizenship: Trump Tackles Birth Tourism

After talking about ending birthright citizenship but not actually doing much , President Trump is attacking its open flank .
Trump must campaign on the issue and force Democrats on the record in favor of debasing American citizenship and diluting its value .
Which , of course , they are .
For immigration patriots , there ’ s nothing defensible about the U.S. Government ’ s ( constitutionally not required ) policy of granting U.S. citizenship to any child born on U.S. territory , no matter who his parents are or where home really is .
But even people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth tourism , a racket that has grown like Topsy in the United States and U.S. overseas territories , with immigrant-staffed hotels and clinics springing up in Los Angeles , Miami , and elsewhere—even in such outposts as Guam and Saipan—for the express purpose of catering to foreign women who arrive great with child and delivering their babies .
Thanks to the misguided Federal misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment , another anchor baby is born : every one of those babies is awarded American citizenship , with all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close and remote .
The whole sordid business is a patent fraud and ongoing insult to Americans .
Chinese birth tourism operators may be the worst offenders , but they ’ re not alone .
Koreans and Russians have long since figured it out , as have well-heeled Latin Americans .
The numbers aren ’ t trivial .
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that in 2015 approximately 36,000 anchor babies ’ mothers ’ mere presence in U.S. territory rewarded them with citizenship via birth tourism , and at least 33,000 more in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of 2017 .
So it ’ s a relief that the Trump Administration , no doubt to the consternation of [ Deep ] State Department functionaries entrenched in Foggy Bottom , is finally tackling this egregious abuse of Americans ’ hospitality and citizenship .
On January 24th the State Department issued a new rule addressing visas for temporary visitors for business or pleasure , effective immediately .
The new rule zeroes in on birth tourism .
According to the announcement in the Federal Register : So far , so good .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the many abuses that attend the birth-tourism industry—and it ’ s no exaggeration to call it an industry : Better still .
And the conclusion is strong : Best yet .
The State Department is directing consular officers that they must begin with the presumption that heavily pregnant foreign ladies looking to travel to U.S. destinations are doing so with the intent to birth an anchor baby .
This is heartening , and should become just the first Federal offensive in a broader campaign to end birthright citizenship as it now exists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ details .
The detail here is one word : rebuttable .
That is litigation fodder for the Treason Bar , and a talking point for the open borders lobby to twist .
And expect another battle , behind the scenes and in the media , between President Trump and Deep State denizens who will resist any change he tries to make .
The outcome will turn on Donald Trump ’ s determination—or lack of—to see this long-delayed change through .
The President needs to hear Americans ’ approval and keep birthright citizenship front @ @ @ @ @ @ @

After talking about ending birthright citizenship but not actually doing much, President Trump is attacking its open flank. Trump must campaign on the issue and force Democrats on the record in favor of debasing American citizenship and diluting its value. Which, of course, they are.
For immigration patriots, there’s nothing defensible about the U.S. Government’s (constitutionally not required) policy of granting U.S. citizenship to any child born on U.S. territory, no matter who his parents are or where home really is. But even people who otherwise support birthright citizenship struggle to defend birth tourism, a racket that has grown like Topsy in the United States and U.S. overseas territories, with immigrant-staffed hotels and clinics springing up in Los Angeles, Miami, and elsewhere—even in such outposts as Guam and Saipan—for the express purpose of catering to foreign women who arrive great with child and delivering their babies. Thanks to the misguided Federal misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, another anchor baby is born: Every one of those babies is awarded American citizenship, with all that means over time for their kin, close and remote.
The whole sordid business is a patent fraud and ongoing insult to Americans. Chinese birth tourism operators may be the worst offenders, but they’re not alone. Koreans and Russians have long since figured it out, as have well-heeled Latin Americans.
The numbers aren’t trivial. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that in 2015 approximately 36,000 anchor babies’ mothers’ mere presence in U.S. territory rewarded them with citizenship via birth tourism, and at least 33,000 more in the second half of 2016 and first half of 2017.
So it’s a relief that the Trump Administration, no doubt to the consternation of [Deep] State Department functionaries entrenched in Foggy Bottom, is finally tackling this egregious abuse of Americans’ hospitality and citizenship.
On January 24th the State Department issued a new rule addressing visas for temporary visitors for business or pleasure, effective immediately. The new rule zeroes in on birth tourism. According to the announcement in the Federal Register:
This rule establishes that travel to the United States with the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States is an impermissible basis for the issuance of a B nonimmigrant visa. Consequently, a consular officer shall deny a B nonimmigrant visa to an alien who he or she has reason to believe intends to travel for this primary purpose. The Department does not believe that visiting the United States for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child, by giving birth in the United States—an activity commonly referred to as “birth tourism”—is a legitimate activity for pleasure or of a recreational nature, for purposes of consular officers adjudicating applications for B nonimmigrant visas.
So far, so good. The announcement continues, indicating an awareness of the many abuses that attend the birth-tourism industry—and it’s no exaggeration to call it an industry:
The final rule addresses concerns about the attendant risks of this activity to national security and law enforcement, including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry, as reflected in federal prosecutions of individuals and entities involved in that industry. The final rule also codifies a requirement that visa applicants who seek medical treatment in the United States must demonstrate their arrangements for such treatment and establish their ability to pay all costs associated with such treatment.
Better still. And the conclusion is strong:
The rule establishes a rebuttable presumption that a B nonimmigrant visa applicant who a consular officer has reason to believe will give birth during her stay in the United States is traveling for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child.
Best yet. The State Department is directing consular officers that they must begin with the presumption that heavily pregnant foreign ladies looking to travel to U.S. destinations are doing so with the intent to birth an anchor baby.
This is heartening, and should become just the first Federal offensive in a broader campaign to end birthright citizenship as it now exists. But there are always devils in the details. The detail here is one word: rebuttable. That is litigation fodder for the Treason Bar, and a talking point for the open borders lobby to twist.
And expect another battle, behind the scenes and in the media, between President Trump and Deep State denizens who will resist any change he tries to make. The outcome will turn on Donald Trump’s determination—or lack of—to see this long-delayed change through. The President needs to hear Americans’ approval and keep birthright citizenship front and center in the 2020 campaign.


vdare--2020-01-27--Profiles in Courage: WASHINGTON POST Suspends Reporter for Tweeting Link to a #MeToo Story About Kob

Profiles in Courage: WASHINGTON POST Suspends Reporter for Tweeting Link to a #MeToo Story About Kobe Bryant

Washington Post journalist is suspended after tweeting a link to a 2016 story about Kobe Bryant ’ s rape case @ @ @ @ @ in helicopter crash Felicia Sonmez is a national political reporter for The Washington Post She @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday after controversial tweet

Fifteen years ago: Overkilling The Mocking Bird: Anti-White Stereotypes Impeding Justice
From the Daily Mail:
Washington Post journalist is suspended after tweeting a link to a 2016 story about Kobe Bryant’s rape case just hours after he died in helicopter crash
Felicia Sonmez is a national political reporter for The Washington Post
She was suspended by the newspaper on Sunday after controversial tweet


vdare--2020-01-27--SAID IN SPANISH: Showdowns On The Suchiate, Falling Border Crossings—Trump Forcing Mexico To Block T

SAID IN SPANISH: Showdowns On The Suchiate, Falling Border Crossings—Trump Forcing Mexico To Block The Central American Immivasion

Early on Thursday , January 23 , a group of hundreds of Central Americans crossed the Suchiate river on the border between Guatemala and Mexico .
But Mexican immigration officials and the National Guard were waiting for them .
Using tear gas , the Mexicans dispersed the crowd , captured the migrants and put an end to the invasion [ Guardia Nacional frena intento de migrantes de avanzar a Tapachula ( “ National Guard Stops Attempt of Migrants to Advance to Tapachula ” ) , Milenio , January 23 , 2020 .
See also Mexican guardsmen break up migrant caravan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Associated Press , January 23 , 2020 ; and the Milenio photo gallery here .
It ’ s the new normal on Mexico ’ s southern border , thanks to Trump .
And it seems to be working .
Below are two videos of the new Guardia Nacional , with shields and tear gas , shutting down the invasion .
A similar incident days earlier saw some a caravan of some 3,000 migrants stopped by Mexican security forces [ Mexican troops block US-bound caravan travelers , AFP , January 18 , 2019 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply for work permits … in Mexico .
Some 1,087 agreed and entered the country in Chiapas and Tabasco , but with no guarantee a permit would be granted [ Más de mil migrantes ingresaron este fin de semana a México ( “ More than a Thousand Migrants entered Mexico This weekend ” ) Excelsior ( from Notimex ) , January 19 , 2020 ] .
Mexican Foreign Minister Ebrard said that 2,400 had accepted the offer [ Más de 2 mil migrantes ya están adscritos a opciones que ofrece México : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already assigned to options offered by Mexico : Ebrard ” ) , by Carolina Rivera , Milenio , January 21 , 2020 ] .
But plenty didn ’ t want the offer .
They wanted to go to the United States .
On January 20 , that group , apparently tired of waiting in Guatemala , crossed the Suchiate and hurled sticks and stones at Mexican security forces , who responded with tear gas .
About 500 invaders marched down the highway under the Honduran flag .
[ Migrantes entraron por Río @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( `` Migrants entered through Suchiate River without considering risks : INM '' ) Excelsior.mx , January 20 , 2020 ] You can see Honduran flags below : Mexican forces caught 402 and sent 40 back to the border ; 58 slipped into the jungle .
The clash left five Mexican National Guardsmen wounded [ Con gas lacrimógeno repelen caravana y aprehenden a 402 ( “ Caravan Repelled with Tear Gas and 402 Detained ” ) , by Carolina Rivera , Mariel Arroyo , Omar Brito y Julio Navarro , January 21 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s border with Guatemala , along with the latest data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection , shows what presidential determination can do…eventually .
Customs and Border Protection has reported a 72 percent drop in apprehensions from May through December at our Southwest frontier with Mexico .
Apprehensions dropped by more than 100,000 , from 144,116 in May to 40,620 in December , three full months into fiscal 2020 [ Southwest Border Migration FY 2020 CBP.gov ] .
That ’ s real progress , and it ’ s basically due to President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with tariffs if it didn ’ t stop the Central American mass migration .
It supports VDARE.com ’ s longtime position that a President who sends the right message with a tough border policy , not least a major change in asylum procedures in this case , can stop the “ migrants ” before they start trudging north .
But give credit where credit is due .
Mexico ’ s get-tough border policy , on display this month , is critical .
The day after the January 20 Suchiate Showdown , President Andres @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico ’ s security forces in his morning news conference : Question : [ Y ] esterday we saw hundreds of National Guardsmen detaining or hunting migrants when we don ’ t have enough National Guard to protect the people of [ mentions places in Mexico ] …Why hundreds of National Guard to control migrants ?
AMLO : [ T ] o apply the law without violating human rights , that is what we accomplished even yesterday… [ we ] offer refuge , and although it seems contradictory , protection .
Because if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , if we don ’ t know who they are , if we don ’ t have a registry , they go on and arrive to the north , criminal gangs trap them and attack them … they disappear .
… Why the National Guard ?
Because we need our laws to be respected , as they do in all countries , without violating human rights and also with protection .
Later that morning , Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard noted that the National Guard did not harm anyone : By that same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hondurans who had entered Mexico illegally , Milenio ’ s Rivera reported : Some Mexican politicians were none too happy to hear this : Porfirio Munoz Ledo , president of the Chamber of Deputies , a prominent politician for decades and a member of AMLO ’ s MORENA party , tweeted similar sentiments .
“ The savage aggression committed by the National Guard against Honduran refugees and the apprehension of more than 400 is a violation of Article 11 of the Constitution and of the international treaties we have signed , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hoi polloi think ?
Munoz Ledo ’ s Twitter feed helpfully provides the answer , as do the comboxes at the articles describing the riverine skirmish .
“ Fill the Suchiate with crocodiles , ” Elvira Franco suggested below Nuevo grupo de migrantes , ahora de El Salvador , sale rumbo a EU ( “ New group of migrants , now from El Salvador , leaves for the US ” ) , EFE , Milenio , January 20 , 2020 ] .
Hey , didn ’ t 2012 GOP Presidential contender Herman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rio Grande [ Cain ’ s Plan For Securing The Border : Build The Great Wall Of China , Fill A Moat With Alligators , by Marie Diamond , ThinkProgress , June 8 , 2011 ] ?
Another combox offered this from a fellow named Juan Walker : “ Don ’ t let them set foot in the Suchiate , there are already too many cases of rape in Mexico ” [ Migrantes intentan cruzar a México por el Río Suchiate ( “ Migrants try to cross into Mexico through the Suchiate River @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , AFP , Milenio , January 20 , 2020 ] .
A certain U.S. presidential candidate was vilified for weeks over a similar remark !
The four-part takeaway from CBP ’ s figures and the scenes on the Suchiate is this : • Trump ’ s message on asylum is reaching south of the border .
• Trump has outsourced a big chunk of our immigration enforcement to Mexico , which is committed to the Big Deal that forestalled tariffs .
• Ordinary Mexicans don ’ t like their country being invaded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• But pro-migrant politicians oppose AMLO on the border clash in particular and in general .
A policy change is always possible .
Which means that Trump must continue closing loopholes in asylum policy , crack down on Sanctuary Cities , keep trying to end Birthright Citizenship ( he ’ s announced new anti-Birth Tourism measures ) —and build the Wall !
American citizen Allan Wall ( email him ) moved back to the U.S.A. in 2008 after many years residing in Mexico .
Allan 's wife is Mexican , and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard .
His VDARE.COM articles are archived here ; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here ; his News With Views columns are archived here ; and his website is here .

Early on Thursday, January 23, a group of hundreds of Central Americans crossed the Suchiate river on the border between Guatemala and Mexico. But Mexican immigration officials and the National Guard were waiting for them. Using tear gas, the Mexicans dispersed the crowd, captured the migrants and put an end to the invasion [Guardia Nacional frena intento de migrantes de avanzar a Tapachula (“National Guard Stops Attempt of Migrants to Advance to Tapachula”), Milenio, January 23, 2020]. See also Mexican guardsmen break up migrant caravan along highway, by Peter Orsi, Associated Press, January 23, 2020; and the Milenio photo gallery here. It’s the new normal on Mexico’s southern border, thanks to Trump. And it seems to be working.
Below are two videos of the new Guardia Nacional, with shields and tear gas, shutting down the invasion.
Los migrantes formaron una barrera, pero los elementos de la @GN_MEXICO_ les arrojaron gas para disolver la caravana.
📹: @albertopradilla. pic.twitter.com/xTuRFNdjZT — Animal Político (@Pajaropolitico) January 23, 2020
A similar incident days earlier saw a caravan of some 3,000 migrants or so on the Guatemalan side of the border, intending to enter Mexico and go on through to the United States [Mexican troops block US-bound caravan travelers, AFP, January 18, 2019]. The caravanners were offered the chance to apply for work permits … in Mexico. Some 1,087 agreed and entered the country in Chiapas and Tabasco, but with no guarantee a permit would be granted [Más de mil migrantes ingresaron este fin de semana a México (“More than a thousand Migrants entered Mexico this weekend”), Excelsior (from Notimex), January 19, 2020]. Mexican Foreign Minister Ebrard said that 2,400 had accepted the offer [Más de 2 mil migrantes ya están adscritos a opciones que ofrece México: Ebrard (“More than 2,000 migrants are already assigned to options offered by Mexico: Ebrard”), by Carolina Rivera, Milenio, January 21, 2020].
But plenty didn’t want the offer. They wanted to go to the United States. On January 20, that group, apparently tired of waiting in Guatemala, crossed the Suchiate and hurled sticks and stones at Mexican security forces, who responded with tear gas.
(Funny thing, when the U.S. Border Patrol hit attacking “migrants” with tear gas at the border in San Diego about this time last year, the Mexican Foreign Ministry protested. Which just goes to show what a difference a year and a tariff threat can make!)
About 500 invaders marched down the highway under the Honduran flag. [Migrantes entraron por Río Suchiate sin considerar riesgos: INM ("Migrants entered through Suchiate River without considering risks: INM") Excelsior.mx, January 20, 2020]
You can see Honduran flags below:
#AztecaNoticiasHN Un contingente de alrededor de 1000 personas pertenecientes a la #CaravanaMigrante2020 lograron cruzar la frontera de #México por un punto irregular, ahora la #caravana se dirige hacia la ciudad de Tapachula. pic.twitter.com/FpET55HBvl — TV Azteca Honduras (@aztecahonduras) January 23, 2020
Mexican forces caught 402 and sent 40 back to the border; 58 slipped into the jungle. The clash left five Mexican National Guardsmen wounded [Con gas lacrimógeno repelen caravana y aprehenden a 402 (“Caravan Repelled with Tear Gas and 402 Detained”), by Carolina Rivera, Mariel Arroyo, Omar Brito y Julio Navarro, January 21, 2020].
This news from Mexico’s border with Guatemala, along with the latest data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shows what presidential determination can do…eventually. Customs and Border Protection has reported a 72 percent drop in apprehensions from May through December at our Southwest frontier with Mexico. Apprehensions dropped by more than 100,000, from 144,116 in May to 40,620 in December, three full months into fiscal 2020 [Southwest Border Migration FY 2020 CBP.gov].
That’s real progress, and it’s basically due to President Trump’s threat to hit Mexico with tariffs if it didn’t stop the Central American mass migration. It supports VDARE.com’s longtime position that a President who sends the right message with a tough border policy, not least a major change in asylum procedures in this case, can stop the “migrants” before they start trudging north.
But give credit where credit is due. Mexico’s get-tough border policy, on display this month, is critical.
The day after the January 20 Suchiate Showdown, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) defended Mexico’s security forces in his morning news conference:
Question: [Y]esterday we saw hundreds of National Guardsmen detaining or hunting migrants when we don’t have enough National Guard to protect the people of [mentions places in Mexico] …Why hundreds of National Guard to control migrants? AMLO: [T]o apply the law without violating human rights, that is what we accomplished even yesterday…[we] offer refuge, and although it seems contradictory, protection. Because if we don’t take care of them, if we don’t know who they are, if we don’t have a registry, they go on and arrive to the north, criminal gangs trap them and attack them … they disappear. … Why the National Guard? Because we need our laws to be respected, as they do in all countries, without violating human rights and also with protection. [Versión estenográfica de la conferencia de prensa matutina | Martes 21 de enero, 2020 (“Stenographic Version of the Morning Press conference, Tuesday January 21, 2020”) Gob.mx, January 21, 2020]
Later that morning, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard noted that the National Guard did not harm anyone:
Foreign Minister Ebrard concluded that there is no expectation in the law to suspend migratory regulations for a group and even less so when they attempt to enter by force. [México brinda alternativas a personas migrantes y destaca su actuar en apego irrestricto a los derechos humanos (“Mexico offers Alternatives to Migrants and Emphasizes its Actions in Strict Adherence with Human Rights”), Gob.mx, January 21, 2020]
By that same morning, Mexico had already begun deporting Hondurans who had entered Mexico illegally, Milenio’s Rivera reported:
The INM (Mexican immigration bureaucracy) reported that today the assisted returned of some members of the migrant caravan, of Honduras, who entered the country in an undocumented matter in the past few days, began … at 8:43 a.m. an aircraft of the National Guard departed [from an airport in Tabasco state] with the destination of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, with 110 persons from Honduras on board … this aerial return will be the first of various planned flights. [INM deporta a 110 migrantes hondureños que entraron en caravana a México (“INM deports 110 Honduran Migrants Who Entered Mexico in the Caravan”) January 21, 2020]
Some Mexican politicians were none too happy to hear this:
“[T]he photos are very graphic … really what I saw was a hunt and that is what the agenda is now with all of Central America, that in Mexico we are being very rude with the migrants,” declared Senator Samuel Garcia of the Movimiento Ciudadano party. [México está siendo muy rudo con los migrantes: Samuel García (“Mexico Is Being Very Rude With the Migrants: Samuel Garcia”), by Silvia Arellano, Milenio, January 21, 2020].
Porfirio Munoz Ledo, president of the Chamber of Deputies, a prominent politician for decades and a member of AMLO’s MORENA party, tweeted similar sentiments.
“The savage aggression committed by the National Guard against Honduran refugees and the apprehension of more than 400 is a violation of Article 11 of the Constitution and of the international treaties we have signed,” he wrote.
But what does Mexico’s hoi polloi think?
Munoz Ledo’s Twitter feed helpfully provides the answer, as do the comboxes at the articles describing the riverine skirmish.
“Fill the Suchiate with crocodiles,” Elvira Franco suggested below Nuevo grupo de migrantes, ahora de El Salvador, sale rumbo a EU (“New group of migrants, now from El Salvador, leaves for the US”), EFE, Milenio, January 20, 2020].
Hey, didn’t 2012 GOP Presidential contender Herman Cain say something like that about the Rio Grande [Cain’s Plan For Securing The Border: Build The Great Wall Of China, Fill A Moat With Alligators, by Marie Diamond, ThinkProgress, June 8, 2011]?
Another combox offered this from a fellow named Juan Walker: “Don’t let them set foot in the Suchiate, there are already too many cases of rape in Mexico” [Migrantes intentan cruzar a México por el Río Suchiate (“Migrants try to cross into Mexico through the Suchiate River”), Milenio Digital, EFE, AFP, Milenio, January 20, 2020].
A certain U.S. presidential candidate was vilified for weeks over a similar remark!
The four-part takeaway from CBP’s figures and the scenes on the Suchiate is this:
Trump has outsourced a big chunk of our immigration enforcement to Mexico, which is committed to the Big Deal that forestalled tariffs.
But the Central Americans keep trying.
Ordinary Mexicans don’t like their country being invaded by illegal aliens any more than Americans do.
But pro-migrant politicians oppose AMLO on the border clash in particular and in general. A policy change is always possible.
Which means that Trump must continue closing loopholes in asylum policy, crack down on Sanctuary Cities, keep trying to end Birthright Citizenship (he’s announced new anti-Birth Tourism measures)—and build the Wall!
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A. in 2008 after many years residing in Mexico. Allan's wife is Mexican, and their two sons are bilingual. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.


vdare--2020-01-27--Trump Administration Wins 5-4 In Supreme Court That America Has The Right To Choose Better Immigrant

Trump Administration Wins 5-4 In Supreme Court That America Has The Right To Choose Better Immigrants Over Worse Immigrants

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to proceed with ‘ wealth-test ’ rules for immigrants By Robert Barnes and Maria Sacchetti Jan. 27 , 2020 at 3:54 p.m. PST The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing new “ wealth-test ” rules making it easier to deny immigrants residency or admission to the United States because they have or might use public-assistance programs .
The decision , issued in response to an emergency petition made by the administration , lifts a nationwide injunction imposed by a district judge in New York .
That means the government can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critics say would place a burden on poor immigrants from non-English speaking countries , while legal challenges continue in lower courts .
.. All four of the court ’ s liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen G. Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — noted their disagreement .
Neither side explained its reasoning , which is not uncommon in such emergency motions .
Let me guess what an opinion by the losing 4 would include … “ Statue of Liberty ” … “ American Dream … “ wretched refuse ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” … “ Emmett Till ” … According to the new policy , immigrants would be suspect if they are in the United States legally and use public benefits — such as Medicaid , food stamps or housing assistance — too often or are deemed likely to someday rely on them .
The new criteria provide “ positive ” and “ negative ” factors for immigration officials to weigh as they decide on green-card applications .
Negative factors include whether a person is unemployed , dropped out of high school or is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Moneyball for immigration or how college admissions work : you look at applicants and pick the ones likely to turn out the best for you and yours .
But baseball and college are not who we are .
Instead , playing the chump for the rest of the world is who we are .
“ It ’ s a sad day in America when the U.S. Supreme Court affirms a completely discriminatory policy that measures the worth of a person — not by the strength of his or her character — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bank account , ” said a statement from the National Partnership for New Americans .
… Federal officials say the rule ensures that immigrants can cover their own expenses in the United States without burdening taxpayers for food , housing and other costs .
U.S. officials note that the change is not retroactive and exempts refugees and asylees who fled persecution for safety in the United States .
Lawsuit says Trump ’ s green-card rules show preference for ‘ the wealthy and the white ’ … Daniels declared the proposed change would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.
” … Francisco has complained to the Supreme Court before about such nationwide injunctions , and he is finding at least some of the justices receptive .
Gorsuch filed a separate opinion , joined by Thomas , that said lawyers are racing to courts around the country hoping to get a stay from one judge that can shut down an entire program .
… But Leopold said he worried that “ the Supreme Court has become a virtual agency of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among those affected will be people of color and people with disabilities , lawyers said .

From the Washington Post:
Supreme Court allows Trump administration to proceed with ‘wealth-test’ rules for immigrants By Robert Barnes and Maria Sacchetti
Jan. 27, 2020 at 3:54 p.m. PST The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing new “wealth-test” rules making it easier to deny immigrants residency or admission to the United States because they have or might use public-assistance programs. The decision, issued in response to an emergency petition made by the administration, lifts a nationwide injunction imposed by a district judge in New York. That means the government can begin applying the new standards, which critics say would place a burden on poor immigrants from non-English speaking countries, while legal challenges continue in lower courts. .. All four of the court’s liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — noted their disagreement. Neither side explained its reasoning, which is not uncommon in such emergency motions.
Let me guess what an opinion by the losing 4 would include … “Statue of Liberty” … “American Dream … “wretched refuse” … “not who we are!” … “Emmett Till” …
According to the new policy, immigrants would be suspect if they are in the United States legally and use public benefits — such as Medicaid, food stamps or housing assistance — too often or are deemed likely to someday rely on them. The new criteria provide “positive” and “negative” factors for immigration officials to weigh as they decide on green-card applications. Negative factors include whether a person is unemployed, dropped out of high school or is not fluent in English.
It’s like Moneyball for immigration or how college admissions work: You look at applicants and pick the ones likely to turn out the best for you and yours. But baseball and college are not who we are. Instead, playing the chump for the rest of the world is who we are.


vdare--2020-01-27--Who Has More Diversity Pokemon Points: A Blonde Becky Or A Bi Black Male?

From 2017 , New York Times columnist Charles Blow is practically lynched by some blonde Becky on TV who appears to touch his arm : Three years later , Charles explains his reaction : “ I was thinking abt Emmett [ Till ] then .
How dare u argue access to my body ; they killed Emmett bc they thought he FLIRTED w/ a wht woman.
” Never going to forget what they did to Emmett .
Think abt it ALL the time .
Ppl often joke abt me telling that woman to keep her hands of me on tv @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emmett then .
How dare u argue access to my body ; they killed Emmett bc they thought he FLIRTED w/ a wht woman https : //t.co/LkEBezspPm — Charles M. Blow ( @ CharlesMBlow ) January 24 , 2020 The future of public discourse will just be people taking things personally and arguing they are in the right because they have more Intersectionality Privilege than the person who dissed them .
Public discourse will be like life in the ‘ hood , but with fewer drive-by shootings by people feeling dissed and more @ @

From 2017, New York Times columnist Charles Blow is practically lynched by some blonde Becky on TV who appears to touch his arm:
Three years later, Charles explains his reaction: “I was thinking abt Emmett [Till] then. How dare u argue access to my body; they killed Emmett bc they thought he FLIRTED w/ a wht woman.”
Never going to forget what they did to Emmett. Think abt it ALL the time. Ppl often joke abt me telling that woman to keep her hands of me on tv. Hell, I was thinking abt Emmett then. How dare u argue access to my body; they killed Emmett bc they thought he FLIRTED w/ a wht woman https://t.co/LkEBezspPm — Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) January 24, 2020
The future of public discourse will just be people taking things personally and arguing they are in the right because they have more Intersectionality Privilege than the person who dissed them.
Public discourse will be like life in the ‘hood, but with fewer drive-by shootings by people feeling dissed and more cancellations.
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-01-27--CBP Ignores Judge's  Attempt To Order Iranian Into The US, Because The Relevant Law PROHIBITS Judici

CBP Ignores Judge's  Attempt To Order Iranian Into The US, Because The Relevant Law PROHIBITS Judicial Review

There has been much sparring over aliens attempting to enter , but refused entry by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) .
Advocacy groups are up in arms and taking cases to Federal District Court to overturn admissions decisions by CBP Officers ( CBPO ) .
The Lying Press is engaging in what I call `` shameless baby-waving , '' as if aliens had a right to enter .
They also breathlessly trumpet that these aliens had visas , as if that had anything to do with the issue .
Sometimes these groups intimidate CBP , sometimes not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As background , aliens applying for admission must first satisfy an immigration officer , in this case a CBPO at a Port-of-Entry ( POE ) .
Neither an Immigrant Visa ( IV ) nor a Non-Immigrant Visa ( NIV ) guarantee admission , but are only permits to apply for admission .
Furthermore , a decision by an immigration officer to deny entry of an applicant is not reviewable by a Federal District Court , especially in the case of an Expedited Removal decision by an immigration officer .
That means an alien @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in District Court .
A misreading of the statute has allowed Federal Appeals Courts to review certain admissibility decisions , but Appeals Courts are not allowed to hear cases de novo , only on appeal .
In support of illegal aliens , the Lying Press is in campaign mode against admissions decisions by CBP as again , another alien attempting to enter on a student visa ( F-1 ) and enraged that CBP is ignoring illegal orders from District Court Judges .
An Iranian student who planned to attend Northeastern University but was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night on the order of immigration officials is the latest in a growing number of students from Iran who have recently been denied entry at Logan Airport , according to lawyers and Boston-area colleges .
[ Northeastern Student From Iran Removed From US Is Just The Latest Sent Away At Logan , by Deirdre Fernandes , Boston Globe , January 21 , 2020 ] Despite a statute prohibiting judicial review of admissions decisions , Kritarch Allison Burroughs interfered with a determination by CBP , ordering CBP not to remove Iranian citizen Dehghani Abadi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though that she is on shaky ground though , she will not make any attempt to bring back Adadi .
“ There seems to be some history of CBP ignoring district court orders , which should concern the court , ” Doyle said during the hearing .
She asked that Dehghani Hossein Abadi be returned to the United States , but the judge said there was little he could do to compel immigration officials now that the student was gone .
I don ’ t think they ’ re going to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though we get to the crux of the matter—Abadi was intending to stay in the United States after his studies ended .
Customs and Border Protection have wide latitude at ports of entry , such as airports , and there are many reasons a non-US citizen can be denied entry , according to immigration experts .
In Dehghani Hossein Abadi ’ s case , customs officials indicated to his lawyers that he had been blocked because he intended to overstay his student visa .
Customs and Border Protection officials said on Tuesday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ordered him on the Air France flight out of Logan .
We also have confirmation that Abadi was deported under Expedited Removal , which is not subject to judicial review .
Abadi was an intended immigrant and excluded as such under 212 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) of the Immigration and Nationality Act .
As a note , students are the group of aliens most likely to overstay their period of admission .
And Kritarch Burroughs was acting illegally .
CBP acted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an order from Kritarch Burroughs .
I hope that CBP stands by their decision this time .

There has been much sparring over aliens attempting to enter, but refused entry by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Advocacy groups are up in arms and taking cases to Federal District Court to overturn admissions decisions by CBP Officers (CBPO). The Lying Press is engaging in what I call "shameless baby-waving," as if aliens had a right to enter. They also breathlessly trumpet that these aliens had visas, as if that had anything to do with the issue. Sometimes these groups intimidate CBP, sometimes not, into admitting the inadmissible alien.
As background, aliens applying for admission must first satisfy an immigration officer, in this case a CBPO at a Port-of-Entry (POE). Neither an Immigrant Visa (IV) nor a Non-Immigrant Visa (NIV) guarantee admission; these are only permits to apply for admission. Furthermore, a decision by an immigration officer to deny entry of an applicant is not reviewable by a Federal District Court, especially in the case of an Expedited Removal decision by an immigration officer. That means an alien may not file a request for relief in District Court.
‘‘(D) LIMIT ON COLLATERAL ATTACKS.—In any action brought against an alien under section 275(a) or section 276, the court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim attacking the validity of an order of removal entered under subparagraph (A)(i) or (B)(iii). [Illegal Immigration Reform And Immigrant Responsibility Act Of 1996, undated, EPIC.org]
A misreading of the statute has allowed Federal Appeals Courts to review certain admissibility decisions, but Appeals Courts are not allowed to hear cases de novo, only on appeal.
In support of illegal aliens, the Lying Press is in campaign mode against admissions decisions by CBP as again, another alien attempting to enter on a student visa (F-1). And this time they enraged that CBP is ignoring illegal orders from District Court Judges.
An Iranian student who planned to attend Northeastern University but was flown out of the United States Monday night on the order of immigration officials is the latest in a growing number of students from Iran who have recently been denied entry at Logan Airport, according to lawyers and Boston-area colleges. [Northeastern Student From Iran Removed From US Is Just The Latest Sent Away At Logan, by Deirdre Fernandes, Boston Globe, January 21, 2020]
Despite a statute prohibiting judicial review of admissions decisions, Kritarch Allison Burroughs interfered with a determination by CBP, ordering CBP not to remove Iranian citizen Dehghani Abadi.
Dehghani Hossein Abadi’s lawyers filed an emergency petition to block his removal Monday night, and Judge Allison D. Burroughs ordered a 48-hour stay. But before a hearing took place, Dehghani Hossein Abadi was flown to France — in defiance of the judge’s order.
It appears that Kritarch Burroughs knows though that she is on shaky ground though, she will not make any attempt to bring back Abadi.
“There seems to be some history of CBP ignoring district court orders, which should concern the court,” Doyle said during the hearing. She asked that Dehghani Hossein Abadi be returned to the United States, but the judge said there was little he could do to compel immigration officials now that the student was gone. I don’t think they’re going to listen to me,” Stearns said.
Eventually, though, we get to the crux of the matter—Abadi was intending to stay in the United States after his studies ended.
Customs and Border Protection have wide latitude at ports of entry, such as airports, and there are many reasons a non-US citizen can be denied entry, according to immigration experts. In Dehghani Hossein Abadi’s case, customs officials indicated to his lawyers that he had been blocked because he intended to overstay his student visa. Customs and Border Protection officials said on Tuesday that he was a candidate for expedited removal and ordered him on the Air France flight out of Logan.
We also have confirmation that Abadi was deported under Expedited Removal, which is not subject to judicial review. Abadi was an intended immigrant and excluded as such under 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As a note, students are the group of aliens most likely to overstay their period of admission. And Kritarch Burroughs was acting illegally.
The category with the highest overstay rate is student and exchange visitors (F, M, and J visas). This category has twice the overstay rate of most other categories. [Analyzing the New Visa Overstay Report, by Jessica Vaughn, Center For Immigration Studies, September 6, 2018]
CBP acted lawfully in removing Abadi and in ignoring an order from Kritarch Burroughs. I hope that CBP stands by their decision this time.


vdare--2020-01-27--Patrick J. Buchanan: Impeachment—Destroying Democracy In Order To Save It?

In 1868 , President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act that had been enacted by Congress over his veto in 1867 .
Defying the law , Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton , without getting Senate approval , as the act required him to do .
In his 1956 Pulitzer Prize-winning book , John F. Kennedy made Edmund Ross one of the Senate 's Profiles in Courage for his decisive and heroic vote not to convict and remove Johnson .
Repealed in 1887 , the Tenure of Office Act was later declared unconstitutional by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act was the lethal instrument to be used in the political assassination of a president whom the Radical Republicans meant to terminate , Stanton 's ouster was not the primary cause of their fury .
What truly enraged the Radical Republicans was Johnson 's resolve to be more magnanimous toward the defeated South than they meant to be .
Johnson had in mind an earlier end to the military occupation of the South and a more rapid return of the seceded states to the Union .
The story is told in the 1942 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starring Van Heflin , which has since gone down the memory hole along with Woodrow Wilson 's White House favorite , `` Birth of a Nation . ''
As historians concede , the impeachment of Johnson was about Reconstruction and who would remake the South .
Would it be the Southern majority that fought and lost the war , or the victorious Yankees and the `` scalawags '' and `` carpetbaggers '' laboring alongside them ?
The triumphant Radical Republicans were not about conciliation .
So severe were aspects of the occupation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had known what was coming , he might not have quit fighting .
So , too , the impeachment of Donald Trump is not really about his 10-week delay in shipping arms to Ukraine or his postponing of a visit by Ukraine 's president until he announced an investigation of Burisma Holdings and Joe and Hunter Biden .
Even before the 2016 election , Democrats , collaborating with a like-minded media , were using the instruments of power they possess , to first prevent and then to overturn the election results of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI investigation , the Mueller probe—aborting a Trump presidency has always been the goal .
Saturday , White House counsel Pat Cipollone succinctly described to the Senate the bottom line : To save `` our democracy , '' to which they pay tireless tribute , the impeachers want to ensure that the people , in a supposedly free election in 2020 , are not allowed to make the same mistake they made in 2016 .
To save our democracy , the House and half the Senate want to deny the America electorate one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play in this republic—the exercise of their right to choose the head of state and commander in chief of the United States .
Disqualifying presidential candidates whom populists favor but elites abhor is a quite common practice—in Third World countries .
Over the weekend , we learned that John Bolton , who has offered to testify in the Senate trial , claims in his coming book that Trump made a direct link between sending military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine 's opening an investigation of the Bidens .
This has caused some Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton , in the impeachment trial .
If four Republicans vote for witnesses , they will be doing the work Adam Schiff , Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi 's House failed to do in their haste to get Trump impeached by Christmas .
They will be prolonging a trial set up to burn and bury their president .
The Senate should let Trump 's defenders complete their case , as the House managers and impeachers have already done .
Then allow 16 hours of questioning .
Then call for the verdict .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no high crime in what the House managers allege .
There is nothing in the articles of impeachment voted that rises to a level to justify removing a president .
Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on defenseless cities and sent 2 million POWs back to the tender mercies of Stalin in Operation Keelhaul after World War II .
JFK greenlighted the overthrow of an ally , President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam , in a coup that ended in the murder of Diem .
LBJ ordered the wiretapping of Martin Luther King @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruits of that FBI surveillance with a friendly press .
No one was impeached .
Why ?
Because Truman , JFK and LBJ were establishment favorites .
For Trump , a phone call with a Ukrainian president saying , `` Send us your Biden file and we will have a meeting , '' is a political capital crime justifying democracy 's version of a death penalty .
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers ; his books State of Emergency : The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Survive to 2025 ?
are available from Amazon.com .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ The Greatest Comeback : How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .
His latest book , published May , 2018 , is “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
” See Peter Brimelow ’ s review : “ Wheel And Fight ” —Pat Buchanan ’ s Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump .

In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act that had been enacted by Congress over his veto in 1867. Defying the law, Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, without getting Senate approval, as the act required him to do.
In his 1956 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, John F. Kennedy made Edmund Ross one of the Senate's Profiles in Courage for his decisive and heroic vote not to convict and remove Johnson.
Repealed in 1887, the Tenure of Office Act was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
But while the act was the lethal instrument to be used in the political assassination of a president whom the Radical Republicans meant to terminate, Stanton's ouster was not the primary cause of their fury.
What truly enraged the Radical Republicans was Johnson's resolve to be more magnanimous toward the defeated South than they meant to be. Johnson had in mind an earlier end to the military occupation of the South and a more rapid return of the seceded states to the Union.
The story is told in the 1942 Hollywood film "Tennessee Johnson," starring Van Heflin, which has since gone down the memory hole along with Woodrow Wilson's White House favorite, "Birth of a Nation."
As historians concede, the impeachment of Johnson was about Reconstruction and who would remake the South. Would it be the Southern majority that fought and lost the war, or the victorious Yankees and the "scalawags" and "carpetbaggers" laboring alongside them?
The triumphant Radical Republicans were not about conciliation. So severe were aspects of the occupation that Gen. Robert E. Lee reportedly said if he had known what was coming, he might not have quit fighting.
So, too, the impeachment of Donald Trump is not really about his 10-week delay in shipping arms to Ukraine or his postponing of a visit by Ukraine's president until he announced an investigation of Burisma Holdings and Joe and Hunter Biden.
Even before the 2016 election, Democrats, collaborating with a like-minded media, were using the instruments of power they possess, to first prevent and then to overturn the election results of 2016.
Russiagate, the James Comey FBI investigation, the Mueller probe—aborting a Trump presidency has always been the goal.
Saturday, White House counsel Pat Cipollone succinctly described to the Senate the bottom line:
"They're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's occurring in approximately nine months. ... They're asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative, take that decision away from the American people."
To save "our democracy," to which they pay tireless tribute, the impeachers want to ensure that the people, in a supposedly free election in 2020, are not allowed to make the same mistake they made in 2016.
To save our democracy, the House and half the Senate want to deny the America electorate one of the most important roles the people play in this republic—the exercise of their right to choose the head of state and commander in chief of the United States.
Disqualifying presidential candidates whom populists favor but elites abhor is a quite common practice—in Third World countries.
Over the weekend, we learned that John Bolton, who has offered to testify in the Senate trial, claims in his coming book that Trump made a direct link between sending military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine's opening an investigation of the Bidens.
This has caused some Republican senators to reconsider calling witnesses, particularly Bolton, in the impeachment trial.
If four Republicans vote for witnesses, they will be doing the work Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi's House failed to do in their haste to get Trump impeached by Christmas. They will be prolonging a trial set up to burn and bury their president.
The Senate should let Trump's defenders complete their case, as the House managers and impeachers have already done. Then allow 16 hours of questioning. Then call for the verdict.
There is no treason, no bribery and no high crime in what the House managers allege. There is nothing in the articles of impeachment voted that rises to a level to justify removing a president.
Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on defenseless cities and sent 2 million POWs back to the tender mercies of Stalin in Operation Keelhaul after World War II.
JFK greenlighted the overthrow of an ally, President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, in a coup that ended in the murder of Diem.
LBJ ordered the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, and his White House shared the fruits of that FBI surveillance with a friendly press.
No one was impeached.
Why? Because Truman, JFK and LBJ were establishment favorites.
For Trump, a phone call with a Ukrainian president saying, "Send us your Biden file and we will have a meeting," is a political capital crime justifying democracy's version of a death penalty.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.
His latest book, published May, 2018, is “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”
See Peter Brimelow’s review: “Wheel And Fight”—Pat Buchanan’s Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump.


vdare--2020-01-28--CNN Gives Free Ad To Trump Campaign—Watch How Media Elites Hate You

The Friday night broadcast of CNN Tonight with Don Lemon descended into uncontrolled mockery of the historic American nation .
This one-minute clip is , unintentionally , terrific free advertisement for the Trump campaign .
NeverTrumper and failed political consultant Rick Wilson joked that Trump could not find Ukraine on a map .
Host Don Lemon and fellow guest Wajahat Ali , a Muslim leftist , both began cackling over the lame joke .
As Lemon sank into uncontrollable laughter , Ali and Wilson bantered back and forth about how Trump voters are illiterate and hate knowledge .
[ CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mocking Trump supporters as illiterate 'credulous rubes ' , by Joseph A. Wulfsohn , Fox News , January 27 , 2020 ] It was a cringe , but telling segment to say the least .
Trump and conservatives rightly attacked the segment and made the video go viral .
Even sanctimonious liberals like Soledad O ’ Brien found the segment was embarrassing .
The Trump campaign knows this segment will get out their base and confirm elite hatred for Middle America .
Trump won in 2016 by saying the elites hate Middle America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same message .

washingtonwatcherii@protonmail.com (Washington  Watcher II)

The Friday night broadcast of CNN Tonight with Don Lemon descended into uncontrolled mockery of the historic American nation. This one-minute clip is, unintentionally, terrific free advertisement for the Trump campaign.
NeverTrumper and failed political consultant Rick Wilson joked that Trump could not find Ukraine on a map.
Host Don Lemon and fellow guest Wajahat Ali, a Muslim leftist, both began cackling over the lame joke. As Lemon sank into uncontrollable laughter, Ali and Wilson bantered back and forth about how Trump voters are illiterate and hate knowledge. [CNN Don Lemon panel faces intense backlash for mocking Trump supporters as illiterate 'credulous rubes', by Joseph A. Wulfsohn, Fox News, January 27, 2020]
It was a cringe, but telling segment to say the least.
The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents.
If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened. pic.twitter.com/8kQ6zN9AZV — Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) January 28, 2020
Trump and conservatives rightly attacked the segment and made the video go viral.
Deplorables. This Deplorable is ready. 💪 https://t.co/r61DGsbWFM — Brad Parscale (@parscale) January 28, 2020
Even sanctimonious liberals like Soledad O’Brien found the segment was embarrassing.
I think this segment was not worthy of being on a newscast. https://t.co/Xky8vatPdc — Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) January 28, 2020
The Trump campaign knows this segment will get out their base and confirm elite hatred for Middle America. Trump won in 2016 by saying the elites hate Middle America, he can win again with the same message.


vdare--2020-01-28--PROFILES IN CORRUPTION: Peter Schweizer Explains How Socialist Bernie Sanders Became A Millionaire B

PROFILES IN CORRUPTION: Peter Schweizer Explains How Socialist Bernie Sanders Became A Millionaire By Scamming Government

P eter Schweizer ’ s new book , Profiles in Corruption , spends around 70 pages reporting on the Biden family business of using government to become rich as reported here recently , but Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is no slouch either .
Mark Levin interviewed Schweizer on his Sunday show , and the author discussed how the Vermont socialist became a millionaire by utilizing government schemes available to members of Congress and those in other powerful positions .
One Washington scam that Schweizer explained centered around media purchases .
The person who acts as a candidate ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission —15 percent is standard — which can amount to a hefty sum in these days of big spending for campaigns .
So Bernie made his wife Jane his media buyer to keep the money in the family .
He also created a job for her when he was mayor of Burlington with no authorization or budget from the city council .
It ’ s good to be the king .
These and other government-manipulating strategies for amassing cash are how the socialist man of the people got wealthy .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinary citizens .
MARK LEVIN : We have Bernie Sanders .
Bernie Sanders as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist he ’ s really an out-of-the-closet hardcore socialist when you look at his career .
He hasn ’ t done anything in the private sector that ’ s been productive , but he ’ s a multi-millionaire .
PETER SCHWEIZER : That ’ s right , and it ’ s interesting ; you ’ re right , he describes himself and his policies are certainly hard core socialist .
If you look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise a lot of people — he ’ s invested in Fortune 500 companies .
He ’ s not invested in renewable energy companies or socially responsible investment funds .
And when you look at his public career since the 1980s as mayor of Burlington , and then a congressman , and then the senator and presidential candidate — it all revolves around bringing money into the family .
So take back to Burlington , Vermont , he is the mayor .
One of the first things he does , Mark , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hire my girlfriend and put her on the city payroll .
Jane Sanders , who ’ s now his wife was put on the payroll , and you go back and look at the local press accounts and you realize the city council said wait a minute : you ’ re giving her a job that we didn ’ t actually create , we haven ’ t funded and if this position were to exist you never advertised it .
You never gave other people the opportunity to to take it , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blew him off .
So Jane had a paid job throughout his tenure .
When he ran for Congress , he discovered a secret that a lot of Washington insiders know , Mark , which is you can make a lot of money doing media buys for political campaigns .
So for example , if you were a candidate for the United States Senate and you wanted to buy a million dollars in advertising and I did that purchase , I would get the million dollars , but the standard practice is I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a commission .
She ’ d make a lot of money doing media buys , so what does Bernie Sanders do ?
He ’ s running for Congress in Vermont — he makes his wife Jane responsible for media buys , and we estimate based on the numbers .
.
.
they set up an LLC which they registered at their home in Vermont and the owners were his wife Jane Sanders and their two children .
So it ’ s quite a cozy setup ; so we estimate they probably made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s quite the crony capitalist .
The big question mark that we don ’ t know the answer to but we have suspicions comes with the 2016 presidential race .
We ’ re not talking about small media buys now , we ’ re talking about his campaign spending $ 83 million on media buys which means the commission is somewhere around $ 12 million .
So who did the $ 83 million dollars ?
Where did that $ 83 million flow ?
It went through this company called Old Town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Town Media .
It has no website ; it has no footprint .
It ’ s registered to a suburban Virginia home on a cul-de-sac .
Then you find out who owns this entity — it happens to be two individuals who worked with Jane Sanders doing media buys when Bernie was running for Congress .
Now Jane was asked about this by a progressive reporter actually from Vermont during the 2016 election — what did she know about Old Town Media ?
Did she have any involvement in it ?
According the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So the question is , where did that money go ?
It certainly fits the pattern that we ’ ve seen with Bernie Sanders who for decades , for about 36 years by our accounts used the phrase , “ Our politics should not be dominated by billionaires and millionaires.
” About three years ago he dropped the reference to millionaires because he ’ s now one , and I think the the big surprise that a lot of supporters will find is this is an individual who talks about socialism certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and and his family life not being interested in each other .
LEVIN : That ’ s typical of oligarchs in Russia .
In these other totalitarian regimes and whether they ’ re communist or fascist or whatever , it ’ s one thing for the people , right , but it ’ s another thing for them , so this is an area the media and Bernie Sanders ’ opponent should really pursue , nail it down .
SCHWEIZER : Yeah , absolutely it should , and you know the other thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark , is if you look in the Vermont press and a lot of the interviews , Bernie Sanders does not dislike or hate all rich people .
He only dislikes and hates rich people who are opposed to his agenda .
So you find that there are very prominent wealthy people in Vermont who have vested interests who he goes to bat for all the time at the expense of local people .
For example , there ’ s a gentleman who is creating these large-scale industrial wind farms where they put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and if you live next door to it , suddenly you ’ ve got these huge windmills all around you .
Those landowners sue trying to stop him from building these — which side does Bernie come down on ?
On the side of Mr. Blittersdorf who ’ s doing this why because Blittersdorf backs him and is supportive of his campaigns .

P eter Schweizer’s new book, Profiles in Corruption, spends around 70 pages reporting on the Biden family business of using government to become rich as reported here recently, but Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is no slouch either.
Mark Levin interviewed Schweizer on his Sunday show, and the author discussed how the Vermont socialist became a millionaire by utilizing government schemes available to members of Congress and those in other powerful positions.
One Washington scam that Schweizer explained centered around media purchases. The person who acts as a candidate’s agent for buying media gets a commission —15 percent is standard — which can amount to a hefty sum in these days of big spending for campaigns. So Bernie made his wife Jane his media buyer to keep the money in the family.
He also created a job for her when he was mayor of Burlington with no authorization or budget from the city council. It’s good to be the king.
These and other government-manipulating strategies for amassing cash are how the socialist man of the people got wealthy.
Of course, such enriching opportunities are not available for ordinary citizens.
MARK LEVIN: We have Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist he’s really an out-of-the-closet hardcore socialist when you look at his career. He hasn’t done anything in the private sector that’s been productive, but he’s a multi-millionaire.
PETER SCHWEIZER: That’s right, and it’s interesting; you’re right, he describes himself and his policies are certainly hard core socialist. If you look at his investment for portfolio — this will surprise a lot of people — he’s invested in Fortune 500 companies. He’s not invested in renewable energy companies or socially responsible investment funds. And when you look at his public career since the 1980s as mayor of Burlington, and then a congressman, and then the senator and presidential candidate — it all revolves around bringing money into the family.
So take back to Burlington, Vermont, he is the mayor. One of the first things he does, Mark, as he says I’m gonna hire my girlfriend and put her on the city payroll. Jane Sanders, who’s now his wife was put on the payroll, and you go back and look at the local press accounts and you realize the city council said wait a minute: you’re giving her a job that we didn’t actually create, we haven’t funded and if this position were to exist you never advertised it. You never gave other people the opportunity to to take it, or to apply for it and Bernie just blew him off. So Jane had a paid job throughout his tenure.
When he ran for Congress, he discovered a secret that a lot of Washington insiders know, Mark, which is you can make a lot of money doing media buys for political campaigns. So for example, if you were a candidate for the United States Senate and you wanted to buy a million dollars in advertising and I did that purchase, I would get the million dollars, but the standard practice is I would get to keep about 15 percent as a commission.
She’d make a lot of money doing media buys, so what does Bernie Sanders do? He’s running for Congress in Vermont — he makes his wife Jane responsible for media buys, and we estimate based on the numbers . . . they set up an LLC which they registered at their home in Vermont and the owners were his wife Jane Sanders and their two children.
So it’s quite a cozy setup; so we estimate they probably made $150,000 off of that arrangement — he’s quite the crony capitalist. The big question mark that we don’t know the answer to but we have suspicions comes with the 2016 presidential race. We’re not talking about small media buys now, we’re talking about his campaign spending $83 million on media buys which means the commission is somewhere around $12 million. So who did the $83 million dollars? Where did that $83 million flow?
It went through this company called Old Town Media. Now you look up Old Town Media. It has no website; it has no footprint. It’s registered to a suburban Virginia home on a cul-de-sac. Then you find out who owns this entity — it happens to be two individuals who worked with Jane Sanders doing media buys when Bernie was running for Congress. Now Jane was asked about this by a progressive reporter actually from Vermont during the 2016 election — what did she know about Old Town Media? Did she have any involvement in it?
According the reporter, she hung up the phone.
So the question is, where did that money go? It certainly fits the pattern that we’ve seen with Bernie Sanders who for decades, for about 36 years by our accounts used the phrase, “Our politics should not be dominated by billionaires and millionaires.”
About three years ago he dropped the reference to millionaires because he’s now one, and I think the the big surprise that a lot of supporters will find is this is an individual who talks about socialism certainly has not conducted himself, his investments and and his family life not being interested in each other.
LEVIN: That’s typical of oligarchs in Russia. In these other totalitarian regimes and whether they’re communist or fascist or whatever, it’s one thing for the people, right, but it’s another thing for them, so this is an area the media and Bernie Sanders’ opponent should really pursue, nail it down.
SCHWEIZER: Yeah, absolutely it should, and you know the other thing that comes through in all this, Mark, is if you look in the Vermont press and a lot of the interviews, Bernie Sanders does not dislike or hate all rich people. He only dislikes and hates rich people who are opposed to his agenda.
So you find that there are very prominent wealthy people in Vermont who have vested interests who he goes to bat for all the time at the expense of local people. For example, there’s a gentleman who is creating these large-scale industrial wind farms where they put these big windmills, dozens of them, and if you live next door to it, suddenly you’ve got these huge windmills all around you.
Those landowners sue trying to stop him from building these — which side does Bernie come down on? On the side of Mr. Blittersdorf who’s doing this why because Blittersdorf backs him and is supportive of his campaigns.


vdare--2020-01-28--Future of the American Wokeplace: Buttigieg "Staff Members of Color" Rant About Microaggressions

From the New York Times news section : Inside the Buttigieg Campaign as Staff Members of Color Sought to Be Heard As the candidate courted nonwhite voters , employees of color were voicing their frustrations , according to interviews , documents and a recording .
The campaign said it worked to foster a progressive workplace .
By Reid J. Epstein Jan. 28 , 2020 , 5:00 a.m .
ET In early December , more than 100 members of Pete Buttigieg ’ s presidential campaign staff gathered at the South Bend City Church a mile from headquarters for a mandatory half-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than two months remained before the start of voting , a time when most campaigns are focused full-time on politics .
Buttigieg advisers say the retreat was part of an ongoing effort to foster a progressive culture that empowered employees of color .
For some of these staff members , however , the workplace itself was a problem , and working for a candidate with so little support from black and Hispanic voters had become demoralizing .
In interviews , current and former staff members of color said they believed that senior Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns and ideas about the campaign .
One said there was a daily “ emotional weight ” on people of color who felt they were employed in order to help the campaign meet its ambitious diversity targets .
Some Hispanic employees felt disrespected when managers asked them to translate text , even if they didn ’ t speak Spanish .
A follow-up meeting nearly two weeks after the retreat — organized by staff members — became emotional , according to two people who attended .
Some employees of color spoke about feeling disrespected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt stressed from having to answer questions from friends and family members about working for a candidate struggling with minority voters , the two people said .
A second meeting , on Jan. 2 , featured lengthy discussions of the importance of diversity in hiring and sometimes tearful descriptions of the difficulty of recruiting people of color to the staff , according to a recording of the session that was provided to The New York Times .
… From the beginning , Mr. Buttigieg ’ s inner circle of top advisers , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great lengths to hire a diverse staff , and they say they reached their target number : forty percent people of color , a high proportion that is usually a plus for campaign outreach to voters of color .
Chris Meagher , a spokesman , said the campaign had made an effort to hire people of color in leadership positions , including Brandon Neal , a senior adviser .
The campaign held an initial staff retreat that included a session on diversity in May , then held the December retreat in South Bend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January for workers in Iowa , Nevada and South Carolina , Mr. Meagher said .
… Yet as Mr. Buttigieg rose in the polls through last year , his struggle to win over black voters became the biggest threat to his chances , and pained many minority staff members .

From the New York Times news section:
Inside the Buttigieg Campaign as Staff Members of Color Sought to Be Heard As the candidate courted nonwhite voters, employees of color were voicing their frustrations, according to interviews, documents and a recording. The campaign said it worked to foster a progressive workplace. By Reid J. Epstein
Jan. 28, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET In early December, more than 100 members of Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign staff gathered at the South Bend City Church a mile from headquarters for a mandatory half-day retreat about diversity and inclusion. Less than two months remained before the start of voting, a time when most campaigns are focused full-time on politics. Buttigieg advisers say the retreat was part of an ongoing effort to foster a progressive culture that empowered employees of color. For some of these staff members, however, the workplace itself was a problem, and working for a candidate with so little support from black and Hispanic voters had become demoralizing. In interviews, current and former staff members of color said they believed that senior Buttigieg officials didn’t listen to their concerns and ideas about the campaign. One said there was a daily “emotional weight” on people of color who felt they were employed in order to help the campaign meet its ambitious diversity targets. Some Hispanic employees felt disrespected when managers asked them to translate text, even if they didn’t speak Spanish. A follow-up meeting nearly two weeks after the retreat — organized by staff members — became emotional, according to two people who attended. Some employees of color spoke about feeling disrespected by white colleagues. Others said they felt stressed from having to answer questions from friends and family members about working for a candidate struggling with minority voters, the two people said. A second meeting, on Jan. 2, featured lengthy discussions of the importance of diversity in hiring and sometimes tearful descriptions of the difficulty of recruiting people of color to the staff, according to a recording of the session that was provided to The New York Times. … From the beginning, Mr. Buttigieg’s inner circle of top advisers, most of whom are white, went to great lengths to hire a diverse staff, and they say they reached their target number: forty percent people of color, a high proportion that is usually a plus for campaign outreach to voters of color. Chris Meagher, a spokesman, said the campaign had made an effort to hire people of color in leadership positions, including Brandon Neal, a senior adviser. The campaign held an initial staff retreat that included a session on diversity in May, then held the December retreat in South Bend and scheduled local retreats in December and January for workers in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina, Mr. Meagher said. … Yet as Mr. Buttigieg rose in the polls through last year, his struggle to win over black voters became the biggest threat to his chances, and pained many minority staff members.
Okay, but the People of Color staffers are getting paid to help win over the People of Color voters, so maybe rather than complain about how they aren’t accomplishing what they were hired to do, they should apologize for their failures and then work harder.
Here’s a word never mentioned in this article: “gay.” One big reason Buttigieg isn’t winning over black voters is because he’s gay. But this is going to be like after the 2008 referendum in California when tons of black church ladies turned out to vote for the nice Mr. Obama and stayed to vote against gay marriage. That was so embarrassing to the Coalition of the Fringes that the NYT had to blame the California results on how Mormons control the media in California (what I call the Protocols of the Elders of Zion National Park).
At one point, Mr. Schmuhl, tears in his eyes, told staff members that he understood people of color on the campaign were “hurting,” according to three people who were present. … On Jan. 1, the campaign’s national engagement coordinator, Raven Hollins, circulated a survey soliciting examples of microaggressions in the workplace, asking that only people of color complete it. The first question asked whether employees of color had experienced any of six microaggressions from a white colleague, a list that included being interrupted and being “called the name of a different staff member of color.” Ms. Hollins declined to comment.
But for some reason the survey didn’t ask if any white person had touched your hair, which is a mesoaggression in itself.
Also during the Jan. 2 meeting, Buttigieg aides responsible for meeting the campaign’s diversity goals spoke in emotional terms about the difficulty of hiring minority candidates, the recording shows. Alexis Gonzaludo, a member of the campaign’s fund-raising department, told colleagues that “my stomach is in knots” as she talked about the difficulty of attracting diverse candidates. She said she had become dismayed when she looked in the campaign’s hiring database and “it’s just like, a bunch of white dudes.” “It’s been a shock, but not a surprise — really hard to find diverse candidates,” Ms. Gonzaludo said. “I feel a lot of pressure to, like, just hire someone.”
This is the future of the American workplace: endless meetings in which Persons of Color get incoherently emotional.
You can see why tech companies are letting Indians take over their firms: diversity is not working, so creeping racial monopolization by somebody who feels zero white guilt at least might get some work done.
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-01-27--Based Bill Barr "Berated" By Bozos On Bench—Bars Budging

From the “ good ” kritarchs , now to Based Bill Barr acting like President Trump ’ s hero , Andrew Jackson—the man who is supposed to have said of Supreme Court decision `` John Marshall has made his decision ; now let him enforce it ! ''
.
Based Bill is defying the kritarchs illegal and unconstitutional actions .
U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Board of Immigration Appeals [ BIA ] were berated by a federal appeals court for thwarting its orders and holding up a Mexican citizen ’ s request to seek a special visa for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. Barr and the board rebuffed the Chicago-based appeals court ’ s decision that immigration judges can waive the objectionable status of certain visa applicants with criminal convictions , a three-judge panel said on Thursday .
The “ board flatly refused to implement our decision , ” the appeals court said .
“ We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order , and we hope never to see it again.
” The judges called the board members lucky that the visa applicant didn ’ t ask the court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Immigration Board Chided by Appeals Court in Visa Case , By Malathi Nayak , Bloomberg , January 23 , 2020 ] It is of special note that the court did not hold Barr and the BIA in contempt .
Most likely because their decision is not based on law .
It is inane for the court to claim that a bureaucrat in the Executive Office for Immigration Review ( EOIR ) , the immigration courts , holds a power that the Attorney General says they don ’ t and is prohibiting them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to waive a law that says a certain class of aliens may not obtain an immigrant visa or adjust status , that waiver is not mandatory and can only be exercised at the direction of the President , per Article II of the Constitution .
Clearly the Attorney General is acting on behalf of the President .
It is also common for courts to claim that all waivers of grounds of inadmissibility are waiveable by the Executive Branch , which is not true , only certain grounds of inadmissibility are waiveable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
Even so , no waiver is mandatory , all waivers are at the discretion of the President or by a subordinate official at his direction .
Of importance is a return to Alexander Hamilton 's attitude towards the courts .
They have no ‘ force.
” If the court had found Barr and the whole BIA in contempt , what does that mean as the U.S .
Marshal enforcing that contempt order is an Executive Branch officer , and it would be unlikely for any order from the court to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own Marshals .
Perhaps the courts are realizing if they push too far , they will be seen to be powerless .
They only power they have is persuasion ; if the Executive is not persuaded , then the Executive should ignore illegal and unconstitutional court orders .
General/President Jackson is smiling from on high .
It is time for the Executive Branch to push back more on the kritarchs .
The first choice should be the next illegal aliens ordered admitted to the United States by Kritarch Dana Sabraw .
The Treason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more illegals brought to the United States under illegal orders from kritarchs .
“ I hope we ’ re not the first or the last , because there are many parents who also have their children here , ” he told CBS News .
Beth Baltimore , an immigration attorney at Justice in Motion , echoed Antonio ’ s sentiments .
Her group has been spearheading on-the-ground efforts to locate deported parents across Central America , from large cities to remote villages , who could qualify for relief under the litigation surrounding family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re in touch with many of them , over 100 .
And we ’ re hoping that some may be able to have the same kind of relief that these parents were granted , ” she said .
[ Migrant Parents Deported Without Their Children Make Historic Return To The U.S. , By Camilo Montoya-Galvez , CBS News , January 23 , 2020 ] Time to put the kritarchs in their place .
Defiance is the watchword of the day , pray Ken Cuccinelli understands this .

From the “good” kritarchs, now to Based Bill Barr acting like President Trump’s hero, Andrew Jackson—the man who is supposed to have said of Supreme Court decision "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". Based Bill is defying the kritarchs illegal and unconstitutional actions.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA] were berated by a federal appeals court for thwarting its orders and holding up a Mexican citizen’s request to seek a special visa for immigrants who were victims of a crime in the U.S. Barr and the board rebuffed the Chicago-based appeals court’s decision that immigration judges can waive the objectionable status of certain visa applicants with criminal convictions, a three-judge panel said on Thursday. The “board flatly refused to implement our decision,” the appeals court said. “We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.” The judges called the board members lucky that the visa applicant didn’t ask the court to hold them in contempt. [Barr, Immigration Board Chided by Appeals Court in Visa Case, By Malathi Nayak, Bloomberg, January 23, 2020]
It is of special note that the court did not hold Barr and the BIA in contempt. Most likely because their decision is not based on law. It is inane for the court to claim that a bureaucrat in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the immigration courts, holds a power that the Attorney General says they don’t and is prohibiting them from exercising.
Even if they held the power to waive a law that says a certain class of aliens may not obtain an immigrant visa or adjust status, that waiver is not mandatory and can only be exercised at the direction of the President, per Article II of the Constitution. Clearly the Attorney General is acting on behalf of the President. It is also common for courts to claim that all waivers of grounds of inadmissibility are waiveable by the Executive Branch, which is not true, only certain grounds of inadmissibility are waiveable, others can't be waived by law.
Even so, no waiver is mandatory, all waivers are at the discretion of the President or by a subordinate official at his direction.
Of importance is a return to Alexander Hamilton's attitude towards the courts. They have no ‘force.” If the court had found Barr and the whole BIA in contempt, what does that mean as the U.S. Marshal enforcing that contempt order is an Executive Branch officer, and it would be unlikely for any order from the court to be enforced against the Attorney General by his own Marshals. Perhaps the courts are realizing if they push too far, they will be seen to be powerless. They only power they have is persuasion; if the Executive is not persuaded, then the Executive should ignore illegal and unconstitutional court orders. General/President Jackson is smiling from on high.
It is time for the Executive Branch to push back more on the kritarchs. The first choice should be the next illegal aliens ordered admitted to the United States by Kritarch Dana Sabraw. The Treason Bar and activists are counting on many more illegals brought to the United States under illegal orders from kritarchs.
“I hope we’re not the first or the last, because there are many parents who also have their children here,” he told CBS News. Beth Baltimore, an immigration attorney at Justice in Motion, echoed Antonio’s sentiments. Her group has been spearheading on-the-ground efforts to locate deported parents across Central America, from large cities to remote villages, who could qualify for relief under the litigation surrounding family separations. “There are hundreds more, we’re in touch with many of them, over 100. And we’re hoping that some may be able to have the same kind of relief that these parents were granted,” she said. [Migrant Parents Deported Without Their Children Make Historic Return To The U.S., By Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News, January 23, 2020]
Time to put the kritarchs in their place. Defiance is the watchword of the day, pray Ken Cuccinelli understands this.


vdare--2020-01-27--Kritarchs Ordering Already-Deported Illegals Returned

Kritarchs are ordering that illegal aliens be returned to the United States after their deportation .
Nine migrant parents who were expelled from the U.S. after being separated from their children in 2017 and 2018 set foot on American soil once again early Thursday morning in a historic , court-mandated return .
Advocates hope the reunions will be the first of several reliefs granted to some of the hundreds of fathers and mothers deported to Central America without their children .
Escorted by a group of advocates , faith leaders and lawyers , the eight fathers and one mother arrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle of night , carrying conspicuous smiles fueled by the improbable opportunity to see their children in person for the first time in more than a year and a half… Thursday ’ s unprecedented return was made possible through a court ruling issued last September by the federal judge overseeing the case surrounding the separation of migrant families by the Trump administration .
Judge Dana Sabraw [ Right , appointed by George W. Bush ] of the U.S. District Court in San Diego ordered officials to allow 11 migrant parents who were unlawfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the U.S. so they could reunite with their kids and pursue their asylum cases in America .
Sabraw found that many of the parents had been given false information by officials and were , in some cases , coerced into waiving their rights and signing off on their deportation .
After months of back-and-forth , the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) and the administration established and agreed on a mechanism for them to do so .
[ Migrant Parents Deported Without Their Children Make Historic Return To The U.S. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 23 , 2020 ] It is red letter law that no judge can order the admission of an alien .
The admission of aliens is within the sole judgement of the Executive Branch and once removed , no alien has any legal basis to go to a court to review that decision .
The most disappointing part of this is that the alien were allowed to return with the agreement of the Trump Administration .
Of course , all is based on the lies of aliens , claiming that they received bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no factual basis for their claims , but as an experienced former official , I can tell you what their claim likely is : they did not like their options when confronted with hard decisions , such as to continue a hopeless asylum claim while in custody .
That is what is called a dilemma , not coercion , something that is common in immigration cases , especially the 2018-19 border surge .
In my experience , illegal aliens did not like tough choices and routinely accused immigration officers of bad faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than desirable choices .
Sadly , the Trump Administration did not deport the children with the parents .
I can not understand this decision , most likely it was sabotage by Obama holdovers in the immigration bureaucracy and the saboteurs in the Secretary ’ s position , Kirstjen Nielsen , and Kevin McAleenan .
In reality , none of the children brought by their parents qualified to treated as unaccompanied minors protected by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .
This is all the more surprising since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Kritarchs are ordering that illegal aliens be returned to the United States after their deportation.
Nine migrant parents who were expelled from the U.S. after being separated from their children in 2017 and 2018 set foot on American soil once again early Thursday morning in a historic, court-mandated return. Advocates hope the reunions will be the first of several reliefs granted to some of the hundreds of fathers and mothers deported to Central America without their children. Escorted by a group of advocates, faith leaders and lawyers, the eight fathers and one mother arrived in Los Angeles International Airport in the middle of night, carrying conspicuous smiles fueled by the improbable opportunity to see their children in person for the first time in more than a year and a half… Thursday’s unprecedented return was made possible through a court ruling issued last September by the federal judge overseeing the case surrounding the separation of migrant families by the Trump administration. Judge Dana Sabraw [Right, appointed by George W. Bush] of the U.S. District Court in San Diego ordered officials to allow 11 migrant parents who were unlawfully deported without their children to come back to the U.S. so they could reunite with their kids and pursue their asylum cases in America. Sabraw found that many of the parents had been given false information by officials and were, in some cases, coerced into waiving their rights and signing off on their deportation. After months of back-and-forth, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the administration established and agreed on a mechanism for them to do so. [Migrant Parents Deported Without Their Children Make Historic Return To The U.S., By Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News, January 23, 2020]
It is red letter law that no judge can order the admission of an alien. The admission of aliens is within the sole judgement of the Executive Branch and once removed, no alien has any legal basis to go to a court to review that decision.
The most disappointing part of this is that the alien were allowed to return with the agreement of the Trump Administration. Of course, all is based on the lies of aliens, claiming that they received bad information or suffered from coercion.
There is no factual basis for their claims, but as an experienced former official, I can tell you what their claim likely is: they did not like their options when confronted with hard decisions, such as to continue a hopeless asylum claim while in custody. That is what is called a dilemma, not coercion, something that is common in immigration cases, especially the 2018-19 border surge.
In my experience, illegal aliens did not like tough choices and routinely accused immigration officers of bad faith and coercion when the alien was given less than desirable choices. Sadly, the Trump Administration did not deport the children with the parents. I cannot understand this decision, most likely it was sabotage by Obama holdovers in the immigration bureaucracy and the saboteurs in the Secretary’s position, Kirstjen Nielsen, and Kevin McAleenan. In reality, none of the children brought by their parents qualified to treated as unaccompanied minors protected by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. This is all the more surprising since the Trump Administration has finally discovered this fact.