A Vote For Democrats is like poisoning the Economy!

 California’s Tax Grab 

Joe Biden isn’t the only one with plans to raise taxes. So is the People’s Republic of California. Not only are state lawmakers considering higher taxes on current residents, they also want to tax people who’ve already left the state. The backdrop to the California tax proposal is a massive $54 billion deficit. Yet rather than cut spending or end giveaways to liberal interest groups, California’s powerful government unions have demanded higher taxes. The current proposal is targeted at the wealthy and would apply to virtually all assets they hold everywhere, even outside of California. Worse, people who left the state within the last 10 years would still be forced to fork over money. The bill’s liberal backers say it’s all about attacking the rich, but every Californian would get hurt in the end. Higher taxes drive away job creators and can raise less money than intended, leading to calls for even higher taxes on even more people — all without solving the underlying spending problem. Since California is often where the worst ideas get their start, this terrible tax hike needs to fail. → Read more: California wealth tax could become first of its kind in US under new proposal (San Francisco Chronicle) → Read more: Before proposing a new wealth tax, maybe California should actually try studying it first (Yahoo)

Rabid Protestors Do Not Know The Actual Contents Of The Executive Order: here it is!

Trump's Executive Order On Immigration

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                                 

January 27, 2017

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

         By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

         Section 1.  Purpose.  The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.  Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.  And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

         Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

         In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

         Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

         Sec. 3.  Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

         (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

         (c)  To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

         (d)  Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

         (e)  After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

         (f)  At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

         (g)  Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

         (h)  The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

         Sec. 4.  Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

         (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

         Sec. 5.  Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.  During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures.

Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures.  Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

         (b)  Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.  Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

         (c)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

         (d)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

         (e)  Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

         (f)  The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

         (g)  It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees.  To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

         Sec. 6.  Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility.  The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

         Sec. 7.  Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

         (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section.  The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order.  Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

         Sec. 8.  Visa Interview Security.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

         (b)  To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

         Sec. 9.  Visa Validity Reciprocity.  The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment.  If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

         Sec. 10.  Transparency and Data Collection.  (a)  To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i)   information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii)   information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii)  information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv)   any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

         (b)  The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

         Sec. 11.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

         (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

         (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 27, 2017.

Britain to EU: Good riddance

Britain to EU: Good riddance 

By Cal Thomas

Maybe it was those college courses on the history of Europe that soured me on the idea of a united continent. How could a conglomeration of nation states noted for invading each other, pillaging and warring against each other form a union? How could a continent with different languages, cultures and money become a united states of Europe modeled after the USA?

Unity is not union. As the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed: "European unity has been tried before, and the outcome was far from happy."

The euro, which I also mocked at the time it was introduced on January 1, 1999, replaced the French franc (the Swiss wisely kept their franc), the German mark, the Dutch guilder and most other circulating currencies. Thatcher again: "The European single currency is bound to fail, economically, politically and indeed socially..." How prescient she was.

A majority of British voters literally want their country back. That sentiment was repeated in interviews with average blokes on the BBC and Sky. They are tired of being dictated to by unelected and unaccountable elite in Brussels. They are tired of the waves of immigrants who do not assimilate and seem uninterested in becoming fully British. And they are tired of being called names for wishing to preserve what was handed down to them by previous generations who fought and died so their descendants might continue to enjoy the British way of life.

Even Queen Elizabeth II, who normally remains outwardly neutral on most political issues, appeared to step in on this one. According to Breitbart London reporter Liam Deacon, there are reports that the Queen "thinks European courts that protect Islamist hate preachers 'denigrate' Britain and has demanded that her dinner guests 'Give me three good reasons' to remain inside the European Union."

Already people are comparing former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who led the exit campaign and wants to succeed departing Prime Minister David Cameron, to Donald Trump. Trump had the good fortune and perfect timing to be in Scotland when the voting results were announced. His news conference was carried live throughout Europe and on U.S. cable news networks.

Like so many of the British, Trump supporters are sick of the elites dictating to them. They, too, want their country back and are also weary of the names they are called for wishing to preserve what was handed down to them at the price of blood, sweat and tears (to borrow from Winston Churchill).

Scottish separatists vow to hold another vote because their leader, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, wants to remain in the EU. But the die has been cast. I suspect the EU will eventually fall apart and the nations that currently comprise it could return to their previous borders and currencies, but it is to be hoped not their previous feuds. A status quo ante would be good news for Vladimir Putin, who has viewed a united Europe as an impediment to his plan to restore "greater Russia."

The main lesson for Britain and the U.S. is that the people, properly informed and engaged, don't have to put up with elitist big government whose leaders think they can run people's lives and who callously "import" immigrants from nations that do not have a democratic history, much less practice religious pluralism.

We can take back our countries and make them what the founders intended them to be. Britain is on the way to doing so, though the left will not give up easily, if at all. The other shoe may be about to drop in the U.S. this November.

Immigration then and now!

Immigration then and now!

When examining the facts, Democrats are stuck in the past on immigration and not examining the crucial facts related to modern day immigration.

Then

After the depression of the 1890s, immigration jumped from a low of 3.5 million in that decade to a high of 9 million in the first decade of the new century. Immigrants from Northern and Western Europe continued coming as they had for three centuries, but in decreasing numbers. After the 1880s, immigrants increasingly came from Eastern and Southern European countries, as well as Canada and Latin America. By 1910, Eastern and Southern Europeans made up 70 percent of the immigrants entering the country. After 1914, immigration dropped off because of the war, and later because of immigration restrictions imposed in the 1920s.

The reasons these new immigrants made the journey to America differed little from those of their predecessors. Escaping religious, racial, and political persecution, or seeking relief from a lack of economic opportunity or famine still pushed many immigrants out of their homelands. Many were pulled here by contract labor agreements offered by recruiting agents, known as padrones to Italian and Greek laborers. Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, Bohemians, and Italians flocked to the coal mines or steel mills, Greeks preferred the textile mills, Russian and Polish Jews worked the needle trades or pushcart markets of New York. Railroad companies advertised the availability of free or cheap farmland overseas in pamphlets distributed in many languages, bringing a handful of agricultural workers to western farmlands. But the vast majority of immigrants crowded into the growing cities, searching for their chance to make a better life for themselves.

Immigrants entering the United States who could not afford first or second-class passage came through the processing center at Ellis Island, New York. Built in 1892, the center handled some 12 million European immigrants, herding thousands of them a day through the barn-like structure during the peak years for screening. Government inspectors asked a list of twenty-nine probing questions, such as: Have you money, relatives or a job in the United States? Are you a polygamist? An anarchist? Next, the doctors and nurses poked and prodded them, looking for signs of disease or debilitating handicaps. Usually immigrants were only detained 3 or 4 hours, and then free to leave. If they did not receive stamps of approval, and many did not because they were deemed criminals, strikebreakers, anarchists or carriers of disease, they were sent back to their place of origin at the expense of the shipping line.

For the newcomers arriving without family, some solace could be found in the ethnic neighborhoods populated by their fellow countrymen. Here they could converse in their native tongue, practice their religion, and take part in cultural celebrations that helped ease the loneliness. Often, though, life for all was not easy. Most industries offered hazardous conditions and very low wages--lowered further after the padrone took out his share. Urban housing was overcrowded and unsanitary. Many found it very difficult to accept. An old Italian saying summed up the disillusionment felt by many: "I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, found out three things: First, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved at all: and third, I was expected to pave them." In spite of the difficulties, few gave up and returned home.

When considering the economics of immigration, there are three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. 

First, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. However, by itself a larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives.

Second, there is the fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government. There is general agreement that less-educated, lower-income immigrants are a net fiscal drain; and more-educated, higher-income immigrants are a net fiscal benefit.

Third, there is immigration's effect on the wages and employment opportunities of native-born workers. Basic economic theory predicts that immigration should create a net gain for natives, but to do so it redistributes income from workers in competition with immigrants to workers not in competition and to owners of capital. Theory also predicts that the size of the net gain will be tiny relative to the size of the economy and the size of the redistribution. Because the least educated and poorest Americans are the most likely to be in competition with immigrants, they tend to be the biggest losers from immigration.

Putting aside economic theory, the last 13 years have witnessed an extraordinary situation in the U.S. labor market — all of the employment gains have gone to immigrant workers. This is extremely puzzling since the native-born account for about two-thirds of the growth in the working-age population, and should therefore have received roughly two-thirds of the employment growth. Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants even though natives account for most of the increase in the working-age population.

NOW

Key Findings from Research:

Impact on Aggregate Size of Economy

• George Borjas , the nation's leading immigration economist estimates that the presence of immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year.
•  But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.

Impact on Wages and Employment

• Using the standard to textbook model of the economy, Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration. This benefit is referred to as the immigrant surplus.
• To generate the surplus of $35 billion, immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion.
• The standard model predicts that the redistribution will be much larger than the tiny economic gain. The native-born workers who lose the most from immigration are those without a high school education, who are a significant share of the working poor. 
• The findings from empirical research that tries to examine what actually happens in response to immigration aligns well with economy theory. By increasing the supply of workers, immigration does reduce the wages for those natives in competition with immigrants. 
• Economists have focused more on the wage impact of immigration. However, some studies have tried to examine the impact of immigration on the employment of natives. Those that find a negative impact generally find that it reduces employment for the young, the less-educated, and minorities.

Immigrant Gains, Native Losses

• Recent trends in the labor market show that, although natives account for the majority of population growth, most of the net gain in employment has gone to immigrants. 
• In the first quarter of 2013, the number of working-age natives (16 to 65) working was 1.3 million fewer than in the first quarter of 2000, while the number of immigrants working was 5.3 million greater over the same period. Thus, all of the employment growth over the last 13 years went to immigrants even though the native-born accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the working age population. 
• The last 13 years have seen very weak employment growth, whether measured by the establishment survey or the household survey. Over the same time period 16 million new immigrants arrived from abroad. One can debate the extent to which immigrants displace natives, but the last 13 years make clear that large-scale immigration does not necessarily result in large-scale job growth.

Fiscal Impact

• The National Research Council (NRC) estimated in 1996 that immigrant households (legal and illegal) create a net fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) on all levels of government of between $11.4 billion and $20.2 billion annually. This has not changed.
•  The NRC also found that the fiscal impact of immigration depends heavily on the education level of the immigrant in question. 
• At the individual level, excluding any costs for their children, the NRC estimated a net lifetime fiscal drain of -$89,000 (1996 dollars) for an immigrant without a high school diploma, and a net fiscal drain of -$31,000 for an immigrant with only a high school education. However, more educated immigrants create a lifetime net fiscal benefit of +$105,000. 
• A just-released study from the Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an illegal immigrant used nearly $14,400 more in services than it paid in taxes, for a total fiscal drain of $55 billion. 
• The Heritage study is absolutely clear that the fiscal costs associated with illegal immigrant households is directly related to their educational attainment. They find that illegal immigrant have on average only 10 years of schooling. 
• The importance of education. 59 percent of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school access one or more welfare programs, and 70 percent have no federal income tax liability. In contrast, 16 percent of households headed by an immigrant with bachelor's degree access welfare and only 21 percent had no federal income tax liability. 
• In a study for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level.
• Illegal immigrants with little education are a significant fiscal drain, but less-educated immigrants who are legal residents are a much larger fiscal problem because they are eligible for many more programs.

For this reason amnesty increases costs in the long run. Heritage's just-released study confirms the finding that amnesty would substantially increase costs over time.

Allahu Akbar Orlando — Analysis of the Absurd

Allahu Akbar Orlando — Analysis of the Absurd

BO Gets It Wrong, Again

By Mark Alexander

"We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die. ... Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions." —George Washington (1776

)

Historically, the worst in America brings out the best in America. Whether the catastrophic Islamist 9/11 attack 15 years ago, or the devastating Islamist attack in Orlando last weekend, killing 49 civilians and leaving many others in critical condition, first responders, friends and neighbors, and most Americans nationwide, are quick to rally in support of victims and their families. This unity in moments of great tragedy speaks volumes about the combined character of our nation.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said about most leftist demagogues and many of their loyal constituents. When a political machine depends on a generationally tried and true "divide and conquer" strategy — one that foments discontent and division based on income, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, education, occupation and the like — in order to achieve its political objectives, predictably their politics of disunity will emerge before the blood on the walls has dried.

Indeed, that was abundantly apparent after the murders in Orlando, when Barack Obama and his water boys wasted no time converting this tragedy into political fodder, propping up their political agenda upon the coffins of the dead. The contrast between the unifying good of the American people and the gross politicization of this tragedy by BO et al. was crystal clear. BO is not only divisive, but he appeals, directly, to the absolute worst in America.

Breaking from my usual narrative column, allow me to share some categorical observations about the Orlando attack.

The Perpetrator

As you know, the assailant, Omar Saddiqui Mateen, was the son of Afghan immigrants, and his father has ties to the Taliban. He was 29, divorced and remarried to Noor Salman, who prosecutors are now seeking to indict as a co-conspirator on 49 counts of murder and 53 counts of attempted murder. She also had knowledge that Mateen was considering a Disney property as an alternate target.

Mateen was working as a security guard for a British company, G4S, which has been the recipient of substantial DHS funds since 9/11. In other words, our tax dollars supported the Orlando assailant.

Over the last 10 years, Mateen was indoctrinated in part by the online teachings of Islamist cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki and affirmed by members of his own Florida mosque.

He selected his target, an "LGBT" nightclub, based on Islam's mainstream prohibition against homosexuals. He had previously visited this club, either as a patron or casing his target. If the former, he will likely become a "gay cause célèbre" for those who blame Christians and Republicans for not unconditionally embracing the LGBT agenda.

Notably, an Islamist imam who preached that it was merciful to murder homosexuals came to Orlando in April of this year. After the attack, his father posted a video message noting that his son should have refrained because "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality."

Mateen modeled his attack after the Paris and Brussels assaults, as well as the San Bernardino and Chattanooga attacks.

I have spent some instructive time consulting with counterterrorism analytical groups over the course of the last five presidential administrations. While the focus of those groups has always been the prevention of WMD attacks — and BO's Iran deal certainly ratchets up the potential of that threat vector — the most likely terrorist threats have always been low-tech assaults aimed at soft targets.

As I wrote in "Islamic Jihad — Target USA," "The most likely near-term form of attack against civilians on our turf will be modeled after the conventional Islamist assaults in the Middle East — bombings and shootings, as we have now seen in Paris, London, Berlin, Brussels, Sydney, Toronto, Boston, New York and Washington. These attacks were low tech but effective in terms of instilling public fear." Indeed, the 9/11 attacks started with box cutters, and subsequent attacks at Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino and now Orlando have all been low tech.

The Failed Investigation of Mateen

The day of the attack, FBI investigator Ron Hopper said the assailant bragged about "having ties to terrorist organizations." He added in the most politically correct phrasing, "We do have suggestions that that individual may have leanings toward a particular ideology." (Of course, Hopper would be reassigned to some FBI outpost on a Pacific island if he dared use more descriptive language than BO.)

Now, what "particular ideology" might that be? The assailant dialed 911 and swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State shortly after his initial assault.

Indeed, Mateen was the subject of two extensive FBI investigations based on his Islamist connections and his assertions of allegiance to radical Islam. The first investigation began in May of 2013 and lasted 10 months, and the second was launched three months after the conclusion of the first, and lasted four months.

On further review, according to FBI Director James Comey, Mateen had made "statements that were inflammatory and contradictory." Comey said, "First, he claimed family connections to al Qaeda. He also said that he was a member of Hezbollah, which is a Shia terrorist organization and a bitter enemy of the Islamic State, or ISIL. He said that he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so he could martyr himself. When this was reported to us, the FBI's Miami office opened a preliminary investigation."

Some of his co-workers expressed concern that if they reported him, they would be viewed as insensitive to Islam and might, themselves, become subject to discrimination charges.

To be clear, the fact that Mateen was not arrested prior to this incident isn't so much about an FBI failure as it is about Barack Obama's blinding Islamophilia. This is clearly reflected in his administration's policies, which set the bar so high for prosecuting Islamists that the FBI took no further action.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said this week, "We've got three examples now of folks on the radar — Major Nidal Hasan, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and now Omar Mateen — who were on our radar, who were looked at, are then dismissed."

Notably, this hypersensitivity toward Muslims is similar to that harbored by Bill Clinton. In 1999, his administration denied a request by an FBI agent to open a case file on Saudi nationals who were taking flight lessons. The agent was informed by a flight training supervisor that he thought it curious the Saudis were learning to fly heavy commercial aircraft, but showed no interest in mastering takeoffs or landings. Twenty months later, it would become tragically apparent why.

As for the assertion that because Mateen was not directly involved with a terrorist network, he is a "lone wolf" or "self-radicalized," that is grossly misleading. Each of the thousands of Islamist terrorist acts worldwide is unified by their allegiance to Islam.

Years ago, in order to better understand the Islamist threat, I coined the word "Jihadistan," which is a borderless nation of Islamic extremists comprising ISIL, al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world. Most of these groups and individuals are autonomous by the standard hierarchal nation-state definition, and are connected by ideology rather than centralized command and control. This makes identifying and containing this enemy more challenging.

BO's Obfuscatory Response

In his remarks the day of the Orlando attack, Obama did not use the words "Muslim" or "Islam."

Two days later, he angrily insisted that he would not associate Islam with these acts of terrorism worldwide. "What exactly would using [the term 'radical Islam'] accomplish?" BO huffed. "What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."

Fact is, the correct answer is all of the above, and indeed, failing to identify a threat by name ensures it does not go away. Do the math — the number of Islamist terror attacks, foreign and domestic since Obama took office has increased tremendously.

Columnist Monica Crowley observed, "The fact that we are still having this conversation [about calling Islamic terror what it is] all these years after 911 is absurd, outrageous and dangerous. ... [Obama] has an ideologically allergic reaction to linking Islam with terrorism. ... If he makes that connection then he is going to have to pursue a more aggressive policy in the Middle East and he has never been prepared to do that."

Indeed, as I wrote in "Patriots v. Appeasers," respected researcher Graeme Wood published an objective and comprehensive exposition on the Islamic State, highlighting the absurdity of claiming that Islamic terrorism is anything but Islamic.

Wood notes, "Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group's theology, told me, 'embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion' that neglects 'what their religion has historically and legally required.' Many denials of the Islamic State's religious nature, he said, are rooted in an 'interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.'" 

Wood concluded, "The reality is that the Islamic state is Islamic. Very Islamic."

Obama reiterated that Islam is a religion of peace, and unquestionably many, perhaps most Muslims, are people who want to live and raise their families in peace. But there is something that distresses me about each of these incidents: Where is the unified national condemnation for these attacks from American Muslim leaders? Where is it?

BO has demonstrated such limitless ineptitude and penchant for obfuscation in every aspect of national security that even his staunchest political allies should duck and cover whenever BO pontificates on the subject.

Obama's most catastrophic foreign policy failure was his ill-advised withdrawal from Iraq, the centerpiece of his 2012 re-election campaign. That political charade created the power vacuum that gave rise to the Islamic State.

The folly of mass migration

The folly of mass migration

Small ethnic communities enrich a culture, but large ones will ruin it. Pro-migration do not understand the implications of creating an indistinguishable global melting pot.

Europe has a problem of illegal mass migration, much of it in the guise of unfounded asylum claims. This, of course, is an open door policy implying mass migration without limits – a process that would enormously increase mass migration to Europe from the poor countries of the world, and transform Europe beyond recognition.

A failure of vision

The desire to make mass migration okay is founded on four failed assumptions.

·        First, that mass migration is a normal part of human life;

·        Second, that it cannot be controlled;

·        Third, that almost all migration is beneficial to the host society; and

·        Fourth, that migration is a right not a privilege and that the host society has no right to choose who can live amongst it.

Together, these assumptions take the politically fashionable and emotionally comfortable route of focusing almost exclusively on the needs and desires of actual and potential immigrants, and almost completely ignoring the needs and desires of both Europeans and sending countries. Thus, they fall into the trap of so much of the current migration debate – failing to imagine and project a vision of the sort of world that it might be desirable to create in the long term.

The active promotion of mass migration does nothing to stem its causes. It intensifies a world of flux, divided families, splintered communities, cultural alienation and ethnic resentments. A different, humane vision is needed, one of a world of “sustainable societies”. This involves stabilizing the world so that most people are able to live in their society rather than feeling they have to leave it.

The illusions of mass migration

The approach to mass migration embodied and rests on four assumptions, each of which is open to serious challenge:

Mass migration is normal

This assumption tells us that the instinct “to migrate between different environments is part of our inheritance”. This approach may be described as ‘migration-apologetics’, which regards present trends as historically unexceptional and thus not to be resisted. Of course, there has always been migration, especially of an ‘invasive’ sort which was resisted by wars as people sacrificed their lives to defend their way of life. Arabs conquered their way across North Africa; Moguls invaded India; Romans, Vikings and Normans invaded Britain, killing or driving away those who stood in the way of their migration.

People from China and Korea moved to Japan, taking land from the indigenous Ainu. Over a 200-year period, 55 million Europeans migrated to North America and Australasia, committing genocide against those who already lived there and obliterating the societies of the Native Americans, the Maoris and the aborigines.

Aided by war and genocide, what is currently happening is indeed far from normal. A hundred years ago, most people in the west rarely moved even to the next village; now whole villages from Syria are relocating to Europe. People once, at most, moved to a neighboring country, one often culturally and ethnically similar, whereas now they move around the world to radically different cultures whose populations have a completely separate history and character.

Migration is historically rare. The fact that there was virtually no border controls until the 20th century illustrates this: there was no need to control borders because so few people ever wanted to cross them. Virtually no society anywhere in the world throughout history has ever wanted to attract migration for its own sake – the white settler colonies (US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are virtually empty lands built on migration; as such, they are extraordinary historical anomalies.

The historical rarity of migration allowed humanity to evolve different languages, cultures, customs and family names unique to each society. Human immobility is such that intensely localized regional accents emerge, with, for example, villages in Ireland just a few miles apart having distinguishable speech patterns. None of this would have happened in a world of mass migration.

Mass migration on the current scale is unprecedented. There is more migration from the non-west to the US now than there was from Europe at its peak of emigration a century ago. Britain gave shelter to 200,000 Huguenots and 100,000 Jews, but never in modern history has Britain’s population growth been almost exclusively driven by migration; in the past, population growth was almost exclusively self-generated. Since the Second World War, migration from the ‘third world’ has increased the British population by 5 million more than it would otherwise have been, and current levels of migration are predicted to push the current figure of 59 million up to 68 million by 2030.

Mass migration cannot be stopped

The second assumption is that mass illegal migration cannot be stopped. This is demonstrably false. In 1924, the US government passed legislation that effectively closed the door on European migration, opening the door to migration from poor countries with new legislation only in 1965. Australia has shown in recent years that tough policies can reduce illegal migration to virtually zero.

Pro-migration campaigners who tell the people of Europe that “mass migration cannot be stopped, so it must be welcomed” are adopting the policies of despots through history of quelling opposition by telling opponents that resistance is futile. The evidence is otherwise. All that is needed is political will.

Mass migration is mostly beneficial to the host society

The third assumption is that mass migration is beneficial to the host society. This is at best contentious. In a relatively empty land in the past, such as Australia, Canada or the US, the desire to boost the population via mass migration can make sense. But today, mass migration only makes crowded countries even more crowded and unpleasant to live in. It can also create severe problems of coexistence between communities of people forced into unwilling proximity.

What happens when countries like Syria are empty of its civilized roots?  The World Bank said that Africa had lost a third of its professionals in recent decades as western nations reduced migration controls for skilled workers, and that the brain drain was delaying economic growth in the continent, increasing the wealth divide between the west and the rest. Promoting mass migration just creates a world where everyone with education and energy seeks to move to the west. This retards development where it is most needed and leaves countries in a state of disarray. What becomes of Syria when the mass migration ends? No one speaks about that.

Most migration to Europe is not from full countries to empty ones, for the simple reason that most of Europe is still more densely populated than most of the developing world. Most of the people migrating each year are in fact moving from a less to a more densely populated land. Problems stemming from this are complex and overwhelming.

Mass migration is a right not a privilege

The fourth (and most philosophical) assumption is that migration is a right of individuals, but that societies as a whole have no significant rights to decide who lives among them, except on grounds of “security”. This is the founding principle of the People Flow report, and it is thoroughly wrong. Migration has always been a privilege, not a right; throughout history, societies have always had the fundamental right to determine who should belong to them. It is hypocritical to profess belief in democracy and then deny people any democratic control over migration policy, one of the crucial influences on a society’s development.

The intolerances of western liberalism

The People Flow authors make a mistake common among pro-migration advocates: seeing a nation as nothing more than a geographical entity with a functioning economy and a legal system. But a nation is first and foremost its people. It is the French people that define what France is, not lines on a map.

The pro-migration are effectively trying to abolish nationhood, denying a country the right to sustain its own culture.

British-born white people, the progeny of the generation who survived the Nazi attempt to obliterate Britain as an independent nation state, now account for only 60% of the population of London. England has for more than 1500 years been a Christian country – its flag is a cross, its head of state is head of the national church – but in its second city Birmingham, Islam is now more worshipped than Christianity. In two boroughs of London, whites are already in the minority, and they are expected to become a minority in several cities in the coming decade.

If current trends continue, the historically indigenous population of Britain will become a minority by around 2100. Islam is the fastest growing religion, and much migration to Britain comes from Muslims fleeing Muslim lands – around 75% of intercontinental asylum seekers are Muslim. But where are the limits? In an extreme example, would British Christians have a right not to live in an Islamic majority state?

For an answer to this, consider what that most liberal of American writers:

“A characteristic of our present chaos is the dramatic migration of tribes. They are on the move from east to west, from south to north. Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety or even the pursuit of happiness. But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.”

But at what point are people of the west allowed to say that enough is enough, it is time for us to be allowed to preserve our culture? This is an issue of almost total, mind-numbing hypocrisy among western governments and political elites. They defend the inalienable right of other peoples – the Palestinians, Tibetans, and Native Americans – to defend their culture, but not the right of their own peoples.

It is vital to emphasize that mass migration and the remarkably intolerant ideology of multiculturalism are exclusively western phenomena.

Indeed, the striking thing about the mass migration debate in the west is its determined parochialism. If people in Japan, China, or Africa were asked whether they have a right to oppose mass migration on such a scale that it would transform their culture, the answer would be clear. Yet uniquely among the 6 billion people on the planet, westerners – the approximately 800 million in western Europe, North America and Australasia – are expected by the proponents of mass migration and multiculturalism to abandon any right to define or shape their own society.

This liberal hypocrisy was perfectly illustrated when the British government gave full UK passports to 200,000 people living in British overseas territories, such as St. Helena, Montserrat and the Turk & Caicos Islands. The inhabitants were allowed to live in Britain, but there was no reciprocal right for British people to live there. The justification for this one-sidedness was given in the House of Lords by the foreign office minister Valerie Amos:

“The right of abode is non-reciprocal. The territories which fall within the scope of the Bill are for the most part small islands. In consultations on the content of the Bill the governments of the territories concerned made clear that granting British and European citizens the right of abode in their territories would risk fundamentally altering the social, cultural and economic fabric of the territories.”

Britain too is a small island, yet other British government ministers tell the British people that they must embrace mass migration, and that it is simply racist for British people to oppose the altering of their country’s social, cultural and economic fabric. It is largely about being a minority, and being outnumbered. But western people are a global minority. There are more citizens of either India or China than all the people of Europe, North America and Australasia put together. There are as many people in Bangladesh and Pakistan together as in the US.

The wellspring of diversity

Pro-migrationists tell everyone else they should “celebrate diversity” within our nations, while they work to destroy the diversity between nations. Small ethnic communities enrich a culture, but the question of scale is crucial. If it continues, unfettered mass migration would simply stir all the different nations into one indistinguishable global melting pot.

For myself, I like Ireland because it is Irish, I like Sweden because it is Swedish, I like Vietnam because of the Vietnamese, and I like Japan because it is Japanese. Yet I like diversity. I leave the last word to a universally respected author, who struggled against another ideology that tried to transform the culture of a nation against the will of the people, and tried to make all nations under its control the same. In accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, Alexander Solzhenitsyn talked at length about the struggles of people around the world to retain their culture and identity, and then alluded to mass migration, the multicultural ideology and the global melting pot:

“In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the leveling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion...the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colors and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”