Tag: Amnesty

Member Post


http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20181122/e47b488b-ae67-4e79-9691-46a554614078 All due respect to the Chief Justice who defended his colleagues against a Trump accusation in a rare remark (saying no, judges don’t have political agendas even if they always frustrate the President in the 9th Circuit). However, if they hold no political leanings, why can’t we question a suspicious pattern? Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


By now you are familiar with the unjustified attempt at amnesty that precipitated a whirlwind of controversy about children being “torn from their mother’s arms” at the border. It turns out the mother left a husband and three children in Honduras before making the extremely dangerous journey across Mexico with the youngest child. The husband […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Victor Davis Hanson describes the philosophical conceits employed by defenders of illegal immigration — and explains how they’re undermining American society.

Member Post


So at first there were 800000 “dreamers”. Then there were 650000 who registered for DACA. Now there are 1800000 eligible under Trump’s proposal for legalization and eventual citizenship. But what about ending chain migration? Well that will come “after a few years”. WHAT? What about the visa lottery? Well in some sort of muffled way […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are amused by the media frothing over President Trump allegedly trying to have Special Counsel Robert Mueller fired seven months ago, while largely overlooking the fact that Mueller wasn’t fired. They also discuss President Trump’s major concessions on amnesty in his his immigration legislation framework – concessions that haven’t stopped his critics from accusing the president of being a white supremacist who is tearing apart families. And they throw up their hands as the majority leader in the California State Assembly proposes penalties of six months in jail or $1,000 fines for any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw without being asked.

Mark Krikorian joins Michael Graham for a bonus podcast to react to the new amnesty deal coming from the White House. “It’s time to burn your #MAGA hats,” the long-time immigration-enforcement activist says. “Burn it and put it on Twitter so President Trump will see it.”

Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, lays out all the flaws in the White House plan, including it’s open door to at least 4 million more immigrants via chain migration, which would take another 17 years.

In this special sneak-preview of Friday’s “Michael in the Morning” podcast, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies  talks about Trump’s “s—hole” comment, the current state of the DACA debate and why, no matter what Trump says, it’s all but certain Democrats will never make a deal.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are thrilled to see Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez planning to leave Congress and take his toxic, divisive immigration rhetoric with him. They also slam Project Veritas for trying to plant a fake accusation against Roy Moore with the Washington Post in an attempt to discredit the Post’s earlier stories on Moore. And they they sigh as President Trump takes a political shot at Elizabeth Warren by calling her ‘Pocahontas’ while honoring Navajo Code Talkers from World War II at the White House, not because Warren doesn’t deserve criticism for her suspect claims of Cherokee heritage but for injecting politics into a a ceremony that should have been free of it.

Recorded on September 28, 2017
As Congress and the White House wrestle over immigration reform—funding for a border wall, protecting Dreamers—what is the public’s attitude? Timothy Kane, the Hoover Institution’s J. P Conte Fellow in Immigration Studies, highlights the findings of a new Hoover/YouGov survey on immigration and which policy ideas enjoy consensus approval.

Victor Davis Hanson examines how permissive attitudes towards illegal immigration undermine respect for the rule of law and traditional notions of citizenship.

Richard Epstein explains why both the legal and policy complexities of immigration make the issue more difficult to tackle than most pundits imagine.

The Core Dilemma of Immigration


shutterstock_220487467On the Corner, Mark Krikorian writes:

[T]he disposition of the 12 million illegals already here is not the core dilemma we face. The core dilemma is how to we make sure we don’t end up with another 12 million illegal aliens. The very act of accepting the anti-borders crowd’s version of the “core dilemma” represents a surrender – once you’ve bought into their proposition, you’re left only to negotiate the price. (Fred Bauer makes a similar point about the “Amnesty Trap.”) As NR’s editorial put it: “Once the illegal population has measurably diminished, then we can have a discussion about what to do with the balance of the illegal population.” In other words, this is a secondary question, not the “core dilemma.” Until Republican politicians – all of them, not just Trump – internalize that fact, they’re going to remain at a disadvantage, always in the defensive when discussing illegal immigration. “Enforcement First” isn’t just a slogan – it’s a strategy.

This strikes me as correct: The United States — as well as several other countries — is perfectly capable of absorbing, assimilating, and integrating millions of immigrants, but there’s little point in doing so if we’re going to find ourselves in the same situation again in a few decades, if not sooner.

Member Post


So, posit that the polls are accurate and that Donald J. Trump is set to lose in a Goldwater-like landslide that not only sweeps Hillary Clinton into the presidency but also devastates down-ticket Republicans, sending the Senate and House back into Democrat control. In such a scenario, the odds of Hillary Clinton passing a “Comprehensive […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

In Practice, the Trump Deportation Plan Might Look More Like a Form of Amnesty


Trump-ShrugDonald Trump says “everything is negotiable” about his immigration plan. That statement yesterday comes after BuzzFeed’s editor suggested Trump told New York Times editors — in an off-the-record chat — that he would be willing to compromise on the plan, including mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. Many Trump supporters might assume the GOP presidential candidate intends to send some 11 million of these folks packing, with many or most never to return. This could be a brutal and oppressive process. And expensive.

But as my colleague Marc Thiessen has pointed out, what Trump really has been proposing is something that might eventually allow almost all to eventually get permanent legal status here in America.

Here is an example of Trump talking about his deportation plan:

You Fools!


shutterstock_195769607I try not to rant in my writings. I read way too much ranting on right-leaning blogs and even in supposed news sources. The left, meanwhile, views ranting as a kind of constructive psychotherapy – which used to be fine when they did it in small, cozy living rooms with groups of screwed-up fellow travelers. But in the whining age of social media, some of the rest of us become collateral rantees and, all told, it is kind of embarrassing.

Because ranting is an exposure of pain — and, as such, is fundamentally an act of self-pity. A man becomes a fanatic and his political statements become a rant when he reveals the personal toll that some social evil has exacted from him. If someone starts to tell you about the inevitable rise of the ocean levels due to climate change and their eyes begin to well up with tears, it is likely that the source of their anguish is unrelated to the environment. Global warming has merely opened the door for all to see the misery within.

But this cadenza is a little too long already.

Of Lost Causes and the Reagan Coalition


WalkerScott Walker has joined the Light Side of the Force. And judging by the howls of derision and scorn that have erupted from the left, center, and even some provinces on the right, the Death Star of amnesty for illegal aliens and unrestricted cheap labor for small and large businesses across America might – just might – have a critical vulnerability.

By now the news is widespread, especially among those of us who have been begging and pleading with our elected officials to enforce the immigration laws for a generation. But if you missed it, Walker, admitting that his position has evolved from his earlier support for some kind of “pathway to citizenship,” has come down firmly and unequivocally on the side of secure borders, interior enforcement, and (be still my beating heart) E-Verify.

There is no substitute for a somewhat lengthy quotation from Walker, who unveiled his immigration plan on Glenn Beck this past week (apologies to those who have read this several times already):

Member Post


In an excess of enthusiasm for the man after his performance at CPAC, I rashly contributed $100 to Scott Walker. For the following reasons, it does not now appear to me that this money was spent wisely. Ethanol: Going against what I am sure are his core beliefs, Walker has abased himself before the corn […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

The Perverse Logic of Immigration Politics


254375359_f6b69dab13_zPresident Obama supports amnesty for foreigners who are in the United States illegally, as well as their prompt re-categorization as legal permanent residents with access to the full gamut of valuable benefits: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare subsidies, in-state college tuition, earned income tax credit payouts, Daylight Saving Time (to bring them out of the shadows), etc. The President selectively refuses to enforce existing immigration laws, and sues the border states to stop them enforcing laws that he will not. He establishes a program of expedited resettlement for minors from the poorest and most dysfunctional states of Central America into U.S. communities. The President does all this administratively, thwarting Congressional oversight, and frustrating state and congressional attempts to ascertain where migrants are being held and resettled. He loudly advertises these policies to our southern neighbors, directly precipitating a massive humanitarian border crisis and ensuring its chronic repetition. Meanwhile, his nominee for Attorney General states in her confirmation hearing that she supports the right of illegal immigrants to freely compete with Americans in the labor market. This is not Alice in Wonderland – it’s the United States in 2015. Or, in the words of one David Mamet character, “the United States of Kiss My [Expletive].”

These executive actions amount to a de facto open borders immigration policy, specifically favoring the lowest of low-skill populations in the hemisphere. Yet this policy enjoys nearly unanimous support from the president’s party. It’s almost as though the Democrats see political advantage in deliberately ginning up an immigration catastrophe.

Why are Democrats unanimously bending over backwards in support of a policy that is unpopular, unlawful, and manifestly harmful to one of its core constituencies? Given that the party pretends to champion those most at risk from this policy, the degree of unanimity is surprising. But in fact the strategy makes sense for a number of reasons.