Tuesday, July 28, 2015

For Kate and America’s Sake, Don’t Let Them Get Away with It

C’mon Nancy, are you really going to go there? How could you stoop so low? Haven’t you the slightest bit of compassion for murdered Kate Steinle and her grieving family? Must scoring political points even trump American lives?

For my relatives who only get mainstream media spin, here is what’s really going on. An illegal alien shot and killed complete stranger, 32 year old Kate Steinle, while enjoying strolling with her dad along a San Francisco pier. Kate’s scumbag murderer had been convicted of 7 felonies and deported five times. And yet, this criminal kept returning to the US without consequence.

The reality is many bad people are entering our country illegally unabated. Heck, Obama even rolls out the welcome mat. Uneducated and unskilled, Obama is confident he can woo them with taxpayer funded handouts, making them future Democrat voters. Consequently, the Obama Administration has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens.

While the coddling of criminal illegals has been going on for many years, Kate’s senseless murder was the straw that broke the camel’s back in the hearts and minds of many Americans.

In his heart-wrenching appeal to congress to pass Kate’s Law, Kate’s dad said the last words he heard his daughter say before she died was, “Help me dad.”

In a nutshell, Kate’s Law says when these deported illegal criminals get caught sneaking back into the US, they get a mandatory five years in jail. Politicians/officials who disobey this law also go to jail. Makes sense? Of course. Will Kate’s Law save Americans lives? Absolutely.


[VIDEO] NFL upholds Tom Brady's four-game suspension

Via: Fox News

[VIDEO] MARK STEYN EXPLAINS WHY PEOPLE LIKE TRUMP SO MUCH, ANSWERS WHETHER HE THINKS TRUMP CAN WIN THE NOMINATION


Maybe that’s why Trump is so hated by the GOP establishment – he is showing them just how much they’re hated by so many Americans.




EXCLUSIVE: CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO HOSTS WEIGH IN ON GOP DEBATE CRITERIA

Breitbart News reached out to leading conservative talk radio hosts to find out what exactly their listeners are saying about the upcoming GOP primary presidential debate, which will feature the top 10 candidates on the debate stage while the other six candidates will have a secondary event.

Fox News and Facebook are hosting the first GOP primary presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on August 6th, but in order to accommodate the 16 official GOP candidates, Fox News set out debate criteria in order for the candidates to make the debate stage that evening. One of the requirements is that the GOP candidates who make the top ten out of an average of five national polls will make the debate stage where Fox News will moderate and air the event. The others will participate in a secondary forum.
Conservative radio host Bill Bennett spoke exclusively to Breitbart News about how his listeners are responding to the debate criteria where, as it stands now, the only Indian-American Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and the only GOP female candidate Carly Fiorina are on the cusp of making the cut.
“I would say that most of my audience would prefer to have all the GOP candidates on one stage, at least for the first debate. They don’t think we should be excluding certain candidates this early in the primary. I agree with them,” Bennett told Breitbart News. “At least for the first debate or two, we should give all the candidates a chance to make their case before a national audience. If we do, I think the debate should be at least two hours long.”
Bennett highlighted the time constraint issue.
“Lincoln and Douglas went for more than three hours and there were only two of them. I do applaud the RNC though for shortening the total number of debates. We can’t have an extended primary debate season like we had in 2012 where we start to bleed our candidates dry,” Bennett added.
Radio host Howie Carr also spoke to Breitbart News about the debate criteria.
Carr, host of the “Howie Carr Show,” is broadcasted on at least seven New Hampshire stations and is also aired on roughly 25 stations across the northeast, so he has a wide range of listeners who have weighed in on the debate requirements.
“Awhile back, I anticipated that as crunch time arrived for the Fox debate, the candidates who didn’t seem to be making the cut would start complaining,” Carr told Breitbart News. “So for a couple of months now, I’ve been asking the candidates on the fringe how they felt about maybe not making the cut.”
Carr stated that both Fiorina and Jindal have said they plan to abide by the rules.
“I believe Carly actually said the last time we had her on was that she had learned a long time ago to worry about things you can change, not events you can’t change,” Carr recalled. “She also said she was confident everything would work out.”
“My listeners, as far as I can tell, like both of them a lot. About Jindal, I’ve heard more than once, ‘He’s so smart and articulate, it’s too bad he doesn’t have a chance,’” Carr stated. “I think my listeners, like me, are sorry they’re not making the cut but… 10 is too many for a debate. Hell, in 2012, six were too many.”
Carr added that too many candidates during a time-limited debate would take away from the top contenders.
“I’ll tell you who didn’t get a good response last week: Rick Santorum, when he called for two debates, drawing straws for placement, odds-evens, etc. People were texting in, ‘Go home Rick’ and ‘Can’t this guy get a job?’ and ‘This guy hurt Romney more at the end than Obama did.’ It sounds like sour grapes to complain about being excluded,” Carr recalled.
On the issue of the only GOP female candidate and only GOP Indian-American candidate possibly not making the stage, he added, “I don’t think ‘diversity’ is a big issue here. Carson’s in, so are the two ‘Hispanic’ senators.”
He said all the candidates have been to New Hampshire numerous times, concluding, “To the victor belongs the spoils.”
Conservative talk radio host Lars Larson of the “Lars Larson Show” agreed with Carr on the issue of time.
“I would love to see all of them in there, the only problem is—the reaction I get from my audience and my reaction personally—is… if the total length of the debate is only say 90 minutes, then you’re down to four to five minutes per candidate,” Larson explained to Breitbart News.
He added that in those four to five minutes, there must also be time for asking questions, which leads to “everybody gets a tiny little taste that’s only a little bit longer than a campaign commercial to hear each candidate on each subject.”
Because of the issue of time, Larson understands the criteria cut off, adding it shouldn’t be changed to accommodate race or gender of particular candidates.
“I understand why they have to put the limits on,” Larson concluded.

Charlie Daniels: ‘America Needs a Leader’ Like Ronald Reagan By Charlie Daniels

Remember back in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when the Berlin Wall was coming down and all the talk about perestroika and glasnost were making the rounds, when Gorbachev came to power and was being viewed as the great Russian reformer who would bring about the long-awaited change that would bring the deprived population into prosperity and twenty-first century convenience, when scores of MiG fighter jets were mothballed at obscure Balkan air bases and the Russian leadership was making overtures about better relations and stronger ties with the west?
Remember when western leaders were acting as if the long east-west struggle between communism and capitalism had run its course and that the awful Mutual Assured Destruction policies were a thing of the past? Back when the KGB was disbanded – it was actually never disbanded – it just changed its name and never lost its intimidating power.
Remember when the old Soviet Union started to crumble, when the two Germanys were reunited and the eastern Europeans found themselves on their own for the first time since before the second world war, when the west was breathing an excited sigh of relief, thinking that, at last, Russia had seen the error of their repressive ways and were ready to become a true democracy? It was right then that I said, “This ain't real, and the Russians are not our friends” – the government that is, not the people.
The truth of the matter is that under Ronald Reagan's relentless military buildup, Russia's fevered attempt to keep up had finally caught up with them. The Soviet Union was broke, they couldn't enter the arena of supersonic war planes, “Star Wars” missile shields and all the technologic wonders that America was putting on the battle lines.
They were simply outspent, outgunned and outmaneuvered, left with little else but a very bleak future of ever-increasing military spending, which took the “guns or butter” proposition to an untenable level.
Russia's nuclear system was old and unproven. Its borders were long and expensive to patrol. The levels of secret police it took to control the restless populations were unsustainable. The war in Afghanistan, and the fact that they weren't being regularly paid, had drained the morale of the Russian army.
Their crops regularly failed, and after decades of the "one size fits all" Communist doctrine, the people had become unproductive and restive.     
So, Russia made their overtures and bided their time, waiting for the Western World to be lulled to sleep in their desperate quest for "peace in our day." They waited for the election of a leader of the free world whose idealism outweighed his good sense, someone who was unwilling to accept, that in most of the world, the only thing they respect is power and a leader who is willing to use it should it become necessary.
From 1987 to the present day, we have come from "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," to (tell Vladimir) “After my election, I have more flexibility.”
The Russian bear has come out of its long hibernation and is back in the business of empire building. The Crimea has fallen, and the Ukraine is just a matter of time. America and the west has lost its power to intimidate, and left to his own devices, it looks as if Obama will eventually strip it of its ability to be the greatest fighting force the world has ever known.
Russia will become more belligerent as time goes by, vying for influence in the Middle East and gobbling up the Balkans, reestablishing the parts of the old Soviet Union they consider to be profitable for them.
America has left a long trail of unfinished wars, broken promises, imaginary red lines and the likes in the decades since Reagan transformed the American military from an organization that couldn't even mount an operation to rescue the Iranian hostages into the best of the best.
America needs a leader, not a poll follower, an ideologue or someone naive enough to believe that if you'll be nice to the bad guys, they'll be nice to you. America needs a leader with the guts to stand by an ally and let the world know it, even in uncertain times.
America needs a leader who wants to preserve, not circumvent, the constitution. She needs a leader who has respect for the rights of the states and will leave them to a reasonable amount of self-governance, a leader who knows when to hold ‘em and knows when to fold ‘em. She needs a leader who recognizes political correctness for the sham it is and refuses to hide behind it.
Is such a person out there?
I truly don't know, but I pray to my God that there is, that they will come forth, and with His guidance, lead this nation out of the spiritual, fiscal and dangerous morass we find ourselves in. America needs a uniter, someone who would never sink to dividing the races for political purposes, someone who will bring back our military superiority, destroy ISIS by whatever means necessary and make this nation proud to go back to work.
Tall order?
Sure is.
Can it be done?
It’s happened before.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
Charlie Daniels is a legendary American singer, song writer, guitarist, and fiddler famous for his contributions to country and southern rock music. Daniels has been active as a singer since the early 1950s. He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry on January 24, 2008.


[VIDEO] EXCLUSIVE: Video shows Hillary Clinton boarding private jet just hours after launching global-warming push – and she's using a FRENCH aircraft that burns 347 gallons of fuel every hour!

Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign's push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.

The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary's ride was made in France. 

The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.

And she has used the same plane before, including on at least one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees.




On Monday the Democratic presidential front-runner announced the details of her initiative to tackle climate change, calling it 'one of the most urgent threats of our time.' 

But shortly afterward, a videographer working with the conservative America Rising PAC spotted her at the private air terminal in Des Moines.

FIfteen seconds of video shot just after 12:00 noon, local time, shows Clinton walking up the plane's stairs while an aide hodls a giant black umbrella over her head to sheld her from falling rain.

'Despite her campaign’s best efforts to rebrand her as a down-to-earth fighter for "everyday Americans," Hillary Clinton’s jet-setting ways are just further confirmation that she’s out of touch with the American people,' the group's communications driector Jeff Bechdel told DailyMail.com.

'It’s that kind of hypocrisy that makes the majority of voters say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.' 



Via: Daily Mail


Did ICE Violate Its Own Deportation Guidelines in Arresting Chicago-Area Unionized Meatpackers?

On Friday, June 26, workers from the Ruprecht Company’s meatpacking factory in Mundelein, Illinois, walked off the job in a spontaneous strike against a pending immigration audit. Several weeks later, eight Ruprecht workers, three of whom are members of UNITE HERE Local 1, have been apprehended by immigration authorities.
In a statement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said the eight workers were picked up after the department discovered the workers had records that fall within its priorities for arrest during a routine immigration audit. ICE claims the workers’ past charges include drunk driving, theft and felony fraud. But organizers argue that the audit and subsequent arrests, which took place while a group of Ruprecht workers were in union negotiations and followed the filing of two unfair labor practices (ULPs) could violate ICE’s own rules against interfering in workplaces that are in the midst of labor disputes.  
(Garrett Wilber/ Flickr)  According to a December 2011 memorandum between ICE and the Department of Labor, “ICE agrees to refrain from engaging in civil work site enforcement activities at a worksite that is the subject of an existing DOL investigation of a labor dispute.” The memorandum opens the door to several exceptions to this pledge, including national security issues, but primarily creates a space for ICE and the DOL to consider individual cases. 
Dan Abraham, organizing director for UNITE HERE Local 1, says the department should heed its own edict. “ICE should stay out of the workforce when there is collective bargaining, and immigration audits should not be conducted in workplaces where there are unfair labor practice charges pending,” he says.
ICE contends that it “plays no role in any ongoing labor disputes when conducting investigations involving an employee’s eligibility to work lawfully in the United States.” But an immigration audit can have consequences that weaken a unionized workplace. Tim Bell, an organizer with the Chicago Workers’ Collaborative who is not involved with the Ruprecht case but is a longtime organizer with immigrant workers, says he has seen several cases where an audit has caused unionized employees to either quit their jobs for fear of deportation or be apprehended as a result of the audit.
The result, says Bell, is “the union loses its members and the company figures out ways to replace those workers,” often with temp workers.
Whether the eight workers are eligible for relief under some of the Obama administration’s prosecutorial discretion or deferred action programs is unclear. In November 2014, immigration authorities divided ICE priorities for deportation into three categories, with individuals who had felonies at level one, the “highest priority” for apprehension and removal for the department. Some immigrants who are in deportation proceedings may qualify for asylum under the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) plan, but the order has been stalled amidst a legal battle around its constitutionality.
By the estimation of the detained immigrants, however, the enforcement priorities don’t appear to make a significant difference, says Hena Mansori, supervising attorney of the National Immigrant Justice Center’s Adult Detention Project.

Obama Thinks His Hypothetical 2016 Chances Are Pretty Good


obamasmug
While discussing democracy during his last speech in Ethiopia on Tuesday, President Obama jokingly graded his presidency — Certified Fresh — and his imaginary 2016 chances. 
“I actually think I’m a pretty good president," he said. "I think if I ran, I would win."
"But," he added, "I can’t."
He went on to promote the American style of government, noting that some African leaders "change the rules" to stay in office and only see their power end because of death or coups. "The point is," Obama said, "I don’t understand why people want to stay so long. Especially when they’ve got a lot of money."
He noted that he's “still a pretty young man, but I know that someone with new insights and new energy will be good for my country ... Old people think old ways. You can see my gray hair, I’m getting old.”
After the speech Obama was scheduled to return to the U.S., where the leading presidential candidates from his party are both older than him.

Walsh hints at deception if LA gets Olympic bid

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said if Los Angeles ends up getting the 2024 Summer Olympic Games bid originally slated for Boston it means “somebody didn’t tell me the truth.”
In an interview today on Boston Herald Radio, Walsh said he is interested to see whether the United States Olympic Committee heads west after ending its pitch to put the games in the Hub.
“I was given a commitment that L.A. was not in the mix, I was given that commitment several times by the chairman of the USOC,” Walsh said. “I’m interested to see what happens.”
Walsh referenced a Boston Herald report on Sunday that quoted Anita L. DeFrantz, a member of both the USOC and the International Olympic Committee, as saying L.A. is “perpetually ready” to host the Olympics.
“It can host with only two years’ notice,” DeFrantz said, adding that much of the infrastructure needed for the Olympics is already in place for the two-time host city. Los Angeles is also the host for this year’s Special Olympics, which are happening this week.
But Walsh said that news comes as a surprise to him.
“I was specifically told that L.A. is not going to be part of this,” he said.
Evan Falchuk, who opposed the Boston bid and was spearheading a ballot question to bar use of taxpayer funds, told Herald Radio the mayor should have expected some deception from the USOC.
“Marty Walsh had so many misrepresentations either made to him, or that he did not question throughout the process that it’s interesting he would be frustrated that they were suddenly not telling the truth about some other city,” he said. “They were telling us lies about our city and our state for months and we needed political leaders to stand up and say no, but we didn’t with very few exceptions.”
The mayor also expressed frustration at a report in which a USOC board member questioned whether he was fully behind the bid.
“If they are questioning my commitment, then they haven’t been following the Olympic bid,” he said, “because I think I was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Olympics from day one.”

Christian Schools Ask Supreme Court To Strike Down ObamaCare Abortion Mandate

A group of Christian schools wants the Supreme Court to strike down an Obamacare mandate that they provide health plans that enable access to abortion-inducing pills, the latest religious nonprofits to challenge the law's mandate.
The group of four universities petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday after a lower appeals court upheld the mandate earlier this month. The universities are Southern Nazarene University, Oklahoma Wesleyan University, Oklahoma Baptist University and Mid-America Christian University.
"The government should not force faith-based organizations to be involved in providing abortion pills to their employees or students," said Gregory S. Baylor. Baylor is senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the schools.
The petition is the latest from several religious nonprofits objecting to an accommodation in the healthcare law for birth control and the abortion drugs.
Under the accommodation, the nonprofits' health plans must include coverage for such products. The catch is that the nonprofits don't have to pay for that coverage, which is then paid for by the insurer or third party.
The religious universities would rather get an exemption to the coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception. An exemption means that the people covered under the universities' health plans wouldn't get any access under their insurance.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the accommodation on July 14. The court ruled that it found the accommodation did not "substantially burden" the schools' religious exercise or infringe their First Amendment rights.
The schools disagree.

[VIDEO] PLANNED PARENTHOOD INVESTIGATION REPORTEDLY SHOWS DOCTORS DISCUSSING HOW TO MAXIMIZE REVENUE FROM SALE OF FETAL TISSUE *GRAPHIC FOOTAGE*

In a new video just released by the Center for Medical Progress, a former clinical worker at StemExpress described her job of identifying pregnant women “who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest fetal body parts after their abortions.”

Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist, said she “unsuspectingly took as job as a ‘procurement technician'” at the fetal tissue company StemExpress, which was allegedly the primary buyer of fetal body parts from Planned Parenthood.
She said she fainted on her first day on the job when she was asked to dissect a “freshly aborted” baby.
Concerning Planned Parenthood’s repeated denials that they make any money from the exchange of body parts for cash, something that would be illegal under federal law, O’Donnell said, “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”
The new video also shows undercover footage of Dr. Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, who operates abortion clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada.
She was secretly videotaped in the Planned Parenthood pathology lab, where babies are taken after being aborted. She also talks about making money for body parts: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”
Dr. Katherine Sheehan, medical director emerita of Planned Parenthood in San Diego, talks about their relationship with Advanced Bioscience Resources, a company that allegedly buys and sells baby parts into the abortion aftermarket. “We’ve been using them for over 10 years, really a long time, you know, just kind of renegotiated the contract. They’re doing the big government-level collections and things like that.”

Will Hillary’s ‘Half A Billion Solar Panels’ Promise Send Billions To China?

Hillary Clinton’s newest campaign promise to install half a billion solar panels across the country has been praised by liberal media outlets and environmentalists, but could this pledge end up benefiting China?
On Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised to install half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term and get the U.S. to a point where it can generate enough green energy to power every home in the country.
“Through these goals, we will increase the amount of installed solar capacity by 700% by 2020, expand renewable energy to at least a third of all electricity generation, prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of asthma attacks each year, and put our country on a path to achieve deep emission reductions by 2050,” Clinton’s website boasts.
While there’s no doubt U.S. companies and green energy interests would benefit from the “competitive grants and other market-based incentives” Hillary promises to implement under her plan, the deal will also be a boost to the oppressive Chinese government.
“Mrs. Clinton’s plan would be a huge boost to China and Taiwan, where over 70 percent of solar photovoltaics are made,” Daniel Kish, senior vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“It’s also a huge boon to Japan and Malaysia, who make the lion’s share of the remaining world production,” Kish said. “I’m not sure Americans are going to be comfortable with Chinese solar panels covering their houses, plugging into their electricity systems and taking their jobs as official government policy.”
Thanks to government subsidies, China is the world’s largest producer of solar panels, and could see huge benefits from increasing solar energy incentives in the U.S. A 2014 report by the European Commission found that “China and Taiwan together now account for more than 70% of worldwide production.”
“The majority of panels [in the U.S.] are manufactured abroad, with the plurality coming from China and many from other Southeast Asian countries and Korea,” a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association told TheDCNF. “The imposition of tariffs on Chinese panels is beginning to have an effect on Chinese imports, however, and we’ve seen domestic production increase over the past six months as Chinese imports decline.”

Immigration 'surge' continues, 30,000 expected, U.N. demands 'empathy' over 'enforcement'

This year's "surge" of illegal immigrant children and teens is continuing at last year's historic pace, with about 30,000 expected to reach the United States, according to humanitarian groups.
Different this year: Many more are being stopped in Mexico as they flee Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, cutting the number making the dangerous trek through Mexico to the U.S. border in half.
"The numbers are surging," said Linda Hartke, president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service [LIRS], one of the country's premier humanitarian-immigration groups that helps with the legal and housing of immigrants, especially children.
"We've seen no change in the numbers," added Alaide Vilchis Ibarra of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the U.S. "They just aren't making it here," she said.
Urged to take action by President Obama, Mexico has moved to seize the children and families. But instead of evaluating their request for asylum, the humanitarian officials said that Mexico is arresting and eventually deporting them home. While in detention, the conditions are horrible, Ibarra said.
Some 100,000 immigrants were stopped in Mexico last year, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. When calculating for just the 70,000 youths who surged over the border last year and the thousands believed to have died or were taken by gangs while making the trip, that suggests possibly 200,000 youths actually tried to make it into the United States.
Nicole Boehner, protection associate with UNHCR, raising concerns on how immigrant children seeking asylum are handled by U.S. officials, said that protections for Mexican children reaching the U.S. be strengthened.

Monday, July 27, 2015

How Our Current Immigration System Impedes Black Progress

African-Americans lose out when immigration favors low-skill labor.
Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric and the San Francisco murder of Kathryn Steinle by an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy criminal history have revived the national debate over immigration policy. While pro-immigration forces have correctly condemned Trump for his stereotyping of illegal Mexican immigrants, federal immigration authorities often release undocumented detainees with criminal records into American towns and cities while their deportation cases proceed. Between 2010 and 2014, 121 such illegal immigrants have been charged with murder. Better enforcement policies can limit these criminal acts. But often lost in the debate over immigration—legal and illegal—thus far has been the way the current system hurts low-wage, native-born Americans, especially in the black community.

Over the last 15 years, teen employment rates have collapsed, from 45 percent in 1999 to 27 percent in 2013. Among black Americans, the rate dropped from 27 percent to 17 percent. The availability of cheap immigrant labor—while not the only cause—has contributed to this trend. Fewer job opportunities for black youth mean fewer legal sources of income as well as the loss of valuable experiences and habits of work that paid employment provides.

The trend’s long-term effect on black men has been damaging. Based on the 2010 census, economists Derek Neal and Armin Rick estimated that 78 percent of 25–29 year-old white males were employed compared with 57 percent of black males. The figures are worse for less-educated black men. Only a quarter of black men without a high school diploma were employed, while almost one-third were incarcerated. More black men with a GED and no additional education were incarcerated than legally employed. These two less-educated groups comprise almost 25 percent of all black males in this age bracket. While I have argued elsewhere that a more important cause of this joblessness is the chaotic and often abusive homes in which many disadvantaged black youth live, black employment is also adversely affected by our current immigration policies, which allow vast numbers of low-skill newcomers to enter our economy.

Defenders of such policies cite studies that point to the overall positive impact of immigration on the U.S. economy; they downplay the evidence of its negative effect on less-educated, lower-earning native-born Americans. They also slight the effects of job competition by claiming that most illegal (and some legal) immigrants take jobs that native-born workers won’t do. Interestingly, the same liberals who jumped all over Jeb Bush for his perceived suggestion that American workers are lazy for not working more hours claim that native-born workers reject strenuous physical labor. They overstate the case: while native-born workers might not take, say, seasonal agricultural jobs, most would accept permanent, even if physically demanding, urban service jobs. Undoubtedly, employers would have to offer higher wages for these jobs if the supply of cheap immigrant labor was cut off.

Some liberals, especially those in the professional class, claim that immigration should be seen as a moral issue. Those who flee unbearable conditions have been victimized once, they say; we shouldn’t victimize them again after they enter the United States illegally. Of course, these professionals feel particularly comfortable making these arguments. They benefit from the increased demand for professional services, including teachers and social workers, and the lower prices for domestic and household services, that our immigration system makes possible.

Why shouldn’t the United States adopt immigration policies such as those already in place in Canada and other countries—policies that would restrict the arrival of less-educated workers and emphasize skills that the economy needs? Such a system would be beneficial to both the economy as a whole and a significant share of black men of modest means.


The State GOP Wave

Republican governors and local lawmakers push back against Obama-era progressivism with an array of pro-growth policies.
Shortly before leaving office in January, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley found himself speaking on the phone to a utility-company employee about setting up an account for his family’s new private residence. Asked how he spelled his last name, O’Malley, a Democrat, responded: “Like the outgoing governor.” The woman on the other end of the line quipped, “Ah, yes. The tax man.”


O’Malley himself tells this story, perhaps to burnish his left-of-Hillary credentials for a 2016 presidential run. But the tax-happy reputation he gained in Maryland—by one estimate, he hiked taxes and fees 40 times during his two terms—probably cost his party the governorship last November. Republican challenger Larry Hogan, founder of the antitax group Change Maryland, defeated the Democratic candidate, then–lieutenant governor Anthony Brown, in a state that Gallup recently declared America’s second-most Democratic. Hogan wasn’t the only 2014 GOP gubernatorial candidate to win in deep Blue territory. Republicans also captured the governor’s mansion in Massachusetts (the country’s most Democratic state, according to Gallup) and in Illinois (the ninth-most). Republicans picked up a governor’s seat in GOP-leaning Arkansas, too, with Asa Hutchinson succeeding term-limited Mike Beebe. The Democrats, by contrast, took only one governorship from Republicans, in Blue-tinted Pennsylvania.
JOSE LUIS MAGANA/AP PHOTO
. . . and Larry Hogan in Maryland.
The victories continued a remarkable state winning streak for Republicans since Barack Obama became president. Pundits initially described the 2008 election as a major leftward shift in American politics, and it’s easy to see why: as the Obama era opened, the GOP held just 22 governorships and 14 state legislatures. But voters almost immediately began electing Republican lawmakers who rejected Obama’s call for bigger government and higher taxes. And they kept electing them last year, despite failed efforts by Democrats’ union allies to unseat incumbent Republican governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio. Today, Republican governors rule in 31 states, and the party has gained nearly 900 state legislative seats, giving it control of 30 state legislatures; Democrats hold the majority in 11, with eight split, and one (Nebraska’s) unicameral and officially nonpartisan.

That leaves the Republican Party with an array of highly visible elected officials in states likely to decide the 2016 presidential election. Further, if the GOP maintains momentum through the next election cycle, it will control a majority of state governments during the upcoming redistricting process, which will determine the election map for Congress and state legislatures throughout the 2020s. The long-term balance of power in American politics may well rest, then, with how the Republican governors perform during the next few years. And the Democrats know it: the national party’s Legislative Campaign Committee has launched a special fund-raising campaign—Advantage 2020—to help state parties retake state capitols.

Republican candidates’ recent success resulted partly from local voter backlash against state tax increases during the Great Recession. Confronting budget crises back in 2009, with tax collections plunging 8 percent as the economy reeled, many governors assumed that voters would accept a bigger government pinch on their income. After all, Obama had just won the presidency decisively, running on a liberal platform. States proceeded to pile on $29 billion in new taxes in 2009, according to the National Conference of State Legislators—collectively, the largest single-year state hike ever recorded. It turned out to be a bad move politically. Republican gubernatorial hopefuls ran successfully against the rising taxes and in favor of restraining spending in New Jersey, where Democratic governors had raised taxes by approximately $5 billion over eight years; in Wisconsin, where Democrat Jim Doyle had boosted them by $3 billion over the same period; and in six other states with tax-friendly Democratic governors.


Popular Posts