Connect with us

News

Undocumented Citizens Face Major Defeat – Huge Border Loophole Set To Close

‘after illegally crossing the border’

Published

on

Representative Diane Black (TN-R) introduced legislation in the House that would label illegal border crossing a felony, even for a first time offender. Under the Zero Tolerance for Illegal Entry Act, people detained after illegally crossing the United States border, even first time offenders, could be charged with a felony and minimum sentencing requirements of a year and one day would apply.

Black states of the legislation: “First of all, we change it from a misdemeanor to a felony. So if you cross the border, it now is a felony and so the significance of that is not only the difference in the incarceration time that you might be held but the fact that later down the road if you try to get back into the country, if you have a felony, it would be more difficult or potentially impossible to come. So if you, later on, think, ‘well I would like to do this through the legal means,’ it would disqualify you from getting a green card.”

Currently, detention after illegally crossing the border into the United States for the first time is treated as a misdemeanor. This is significantly less serious than a felony with a jail sentence of fewer than six months and generally less than that.

The bill also seeks to place a mandate on all employers requiring them to use E-verify. E-verify is a system that allows businesses to confirm the immigration status of applicants and therefore making the determination if they are legally able to work in the United States. The bill also seeks to significantly strengthen the penalty against all those that enter the country illegally in defiance of U.S. immigration laws by shifting the funding from sanctuary cities to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

Trending: Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Black notes that the most significant and often primary reason many people seek to cross into the U.S. illegally is for economic reasons, seeking a better life than where they originally come from. She believes adding the E-verify requirement will be an encouragement for those people to seek to enter the country by legal means.

She states: “E-verify, even though we’ve talked about it for years it has never been something that’s been in place all the way across the line. That would keep someone from coming here illegally if they thought they couldn’t get work. ‘Why would I come if I can’t get work.’”

That particular point seems to be a point of contention in House negotiations as immigration reform is a hot button issue currently being discussed. Two previous measures have been presented and both failed to gain the votes needed to keep them alive to be sent to the upper chamber for further review.

Black, however, is not detoured, believing the simplicity of her version of the bill will make it a much easier sell. She states: “We’ve got the big bills that we do that have a lot of moving pieces in it — you get the ‘I don’t like this one and I don’t like that one,’ so it’s kind of the alphabet soup that can keep you from actually being able to move something. But I think this for me is simple enough that we could get this moved.”

Black is currently running for governor of the state of Tennessee against Knoxville entrepreneur Randy Boyd. She is currently leading that run by a narrow margin and has named immigration as a central part of her campaign as it is a critical issue in her state currently.

A 2017 analysis of labor force participation rates using the government’s Current Population Survey (CPS) data for Tennessee, shows that: “immigrants (legal and illegal) accounted for all of the net increase in the number of working-age (16-65) people holding a job in Tennessee between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2017 – even though the native-born accounted for 77 percent of growth among the total working-age population. Prior analysis indicates that 30 percent to 40 percent of immigrants in Tennessee are in the country illegally. Of the 229,000 immigrants in the state working, 70,000 to 90,000 are likely to be illegal immigrants.”

According to the Tennessee Star, even activist, pro-illegal immigration attorneys admit there is an illegal immigration problem, stating:

“On April 7, 2017, Nashville activist pro-illegal immigration lawyers Elliot Ozment, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Tricia Herzfeld and Anthony Orlandi, sued Metro Nashville, Davidson County and Sheriff Daron Hall, on behalf of Saudi national Abdullah Abriq, who overstayed his student visa, and “hundred and likely thousands of immigrants” subject to detainer requests issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and that “[u]pon information and belief, the Defendants have taken custody of, and detained, thousands of Administrative Detainees over the past five years.”

ICE has the responsibility and authority to detain foreign nationals who overstay their visas and those who have entered the U.S. illegally even if they have not committed a criminal offense.

So far in the fiscal year 2017, thirty-seven percent of immigration offenders adjudicated in immigration court involving either simple immigration violations and/or a criminal offense, have been allowed to remain in Tennessee. Of cases where the judge permits the offender to remain, over 1,000 of the cases involve immigration violations while sixteen are classified as ‘criminal/national security/terror.”

Black states she believes this is simply “common sense” legislation that tackles the concerns of her own constituents as well as those of the rest of the nation. “People want the border protected, and they’re not against immigration. they’re really not — they just want people to do it legally,” she said.

This bill would also seek to cut funding from all sanctuary cities and counties that refuse to honor requests from ICE for illegal aliens being detained by local law enforcement. Their funds would be stripped from them and instead given to ICE to fund the effort to secure the borders.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform or (FAIR) recently issued a report identifying some 564 jurisdictions that qualify for sanctuary status because in one way or another as they have effectively taken steps to “protect illegal aliens or obstruct efforts by the federal government to enforce immigration laws.”

Dan Stein, President of FAIR credits “radical groups, posing as ‘immigrants’ rights’ organizations” for pushing policies that put protecting illegal aliens over the safety of American citizens and legal immigrants – ‘There is no rational justification for protecting deportable criminals. Yet, under pressure from radical groups, posing as ‘immigrants’ rights’ organizations, 564 jurisdictions have decided that protecting foreign criminals is more important than the safety of their local communities,’ charged Dan Stein, president of FAIR. ‘Countless Americans have been needlessly victimized, and some have lost their lives, because local sanctuary policies prevented the perpetrators from being identified as deportable aliens, or prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement from taking them into custody.’

FAIR notes in the report – Sanctuary policies and practices come in many forms including “welcoming resolutions,” local ordinances and internal law enforcement policy. These policies and practices often “forbid state and local officials (including law enforcement officers) from asking people about their immigration status; reporting suspected illegal aliens to the federal government; holding criminal aliens for arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); or otherwise cooperating with or assisting federal immigration enforcement agents.”

The Hill notes that earlier this year, Black also introduced legislation that would create a “border wall trust fund,” allowing people to donate money toward President Trump’s border wall.

Black said the bill would allow those “who really want to see a secure border” to donate to a trust to raise money for the security measure.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.