Paul Ryan Favors Legal Status for Immigrants Trump Wants to Send Home…

Screen Shot 2015-11-16 at 12.22.58 PMBY

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he supports allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. without gaining citizenship, and that he doesn’t believe mass deportation, an idea promoted by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, is feasible.

Immigration “starts with border enforcement,” Ryan said in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program that will air on Sunday, according to a transcript provided by the network. “It starts with enforcing the rule of law. But you need to have a vibrant, legal immigration system. I think you could have a pathway to legal status. Earn your way to legal status, but not to citizenship.”

When asked whether he advocated the deportation of some 11 million undocumented immigrants now estimated to be living in the U.S., the Republican from Wisconsin said, “I do not. I can’t imagine how it could happen. So no.”

Ryan, 45, who was chairman of the the House tax-writing panel before becoming the leader of the chamber in October, said he wants to reform and simplify the tax code. He favors reducing the number of tax brackets to two or three, cutting rates for companies to enhance job prospects, and changing how businesses are taxed on their international operations so that employers repatriate overseas earnings.

The stakes of moving forward are high, Ryan said. Failure means “the country stays on the path it is on, deep poverty, flat wages, working families falling behind, a wreck of national security, followed up by a debt crisis,” he said.

‘Reflect Longevity’

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that social safety net programs, together with rising debt interest payments, will drive budget deficit to $1 trillion in 2025, compared with $485 billion in fiscal year 2014.

That’s why Ryan says lawmakers need to address entitlement spending and the nation’s budget deficits. “The good news on these issues is that if we reform them for the next generation now, we can guarantee that people in or near retirement don’t have any changes in their benefits,” he said.

To that end, Ryan said he supports raising the retirement age to help sustain Social Security and Medicare. “For younger people, when they age, we should change the retirement age to reflect longevity,” he said. “Just to make the program finances work.”

Ryan also said he thinks Congress and the Obama administration can find common ground on tax policy, funding the government, and highways. “Those are three things that will produce certainty in this economy in the next few months,” he said. “Let’s go do that.”

Neil Cavuto embarrasses student who wants free college and has no idea how to pay for it

I don’t mean to be Captain Obvious, but we live in a day and age where entitlement thinking is running amok, and the youth of our nation are so twisted up with the “gimme, gimme, gimmes,” they drop their brain in the toilet and flush it down the drain.

Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

Fox Business host Neil Cavuto confronted a student demanding free college and a $15 minimum wage for student workers on campus with all sorts of facts and figures, which turned into one of the most painful to watch, cringeworthy interviews ever.

If this girl represents the norm for young, college aged kids these days, it’s time to weep for our future.

From TheBlaze:

Keely Mullen, an organizer for the Million Student March movement, joined Fox Business Network anchor Neil Cavuto on the air Thursday to discuss the movement’s demands for free public college, student debt cancelation and a $15-an-hour minimum wage for student workers. In the awkward 9-minute interview, Cavuto repeatedly cited facts and figures that seemed to fluster the student.

When asked who would pick up the tab for the demands she listed, Mullen said, “The 1 percent of people who are hoarding the wealth and causing a catastrophe students are facing.”

“If the 1 percent just had their taxes raised a few years ago back to almost 40 percent then to pay for the healthcare law, they had them raised another few percentage points, then they had their deductions limited to raise another couple points — depending on the state or locality — they’re pushing over about 50 percent in taxes,” Cavuto told Mullen. “How much more do you think they should pay?”

This question, asked near the beginning of the interview, became the main focus of the discussion, but Mullens wasn’t really able to provide a true answer.

Mullen did say the rate should be raised to “enough until we have a system where not one in two families are threatened with poverty.” And when asked if she and her friends and family would pay more in taxes for her demands, she said “we already are.” However, according to Forbes, 45 percent of households pay no federal income taxes.

“They’ve done studies on this, Keeley, I don’t want to get boring here, but even if you were to take the 1 percent and take all of their money — tax it 100 percent — do you know that couldn’t keep Medicare, just Medicare, in this country going for three years?” Cavuto asked. “Did you know that?”

“Yeah, I don’t believe that,” Mullen said in response. “Yeah, I’m sorry, that just sounds completely ludicrous to me.”

Kelley doesn’t seem to understand one of the most fundamental rules of the universe, which is sad for a girl her age:

There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

“Free college,” is as mythical a creature as the unicorn that poops rainbow-colored ice cream cones, because the price for education is always being paid by someone.

If a student isn’t paying for it, the rest of us who are working to provide for our families are. Why should hard working Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck be forced to pay for some stranger’s care or education?

Sure, they say the middle class and lower income people won’t be affected, but when top earners — who typically own the businesses where we all work — are taxed so heavily they flee the country, who’s going to be left with the bill?

To make matters worse, when these earners leave, they’re taking jobs with them, which means increased unemployment. How can the average Joe pay his own bills, plus pay out the backside for taxes so some entitled brat can go to college, if he has no work?


This is why liberalism is a mental disorder. It defies logic.

Another Obamacare Co-Op Shuts Down




Consumers Mutual Insurance of Michigan has announced it will be winding down its operation prior to 2016, making it the twelfth Obamacare co-op to fail this year.

An FAQ on the insurer’s website reads, “[You] will need to purchase health insurance from another company prior to December 15, 2015 in order to have coverage on January 1, 2016.” Consumers are also told that, as long as they continue to pay their premiums, the co-op will handle their claims through the end of the year.

The closure of Consumers Mutual represents a grim milestone for the Obamacare co-ops, as more than half of the 23 original co-ops have now failed. Previous closures include the co-ops in Arizona, Utah, South Carolina, Colorado, Iowa/Nebraska, Louisiana, New York,Nevada, Tennessee, Oregon, and Kentucky.

The Obamacare co-ops are non-profit insurers created to offer lower cost options to consumers on the exchange. Their rates were often among the lowest in a given state. However, those low rates turned out to be a problem when enrollment did not meet expectations or when healthcare claims exceeded expectations. An Inspector General’s report published this summer found that 22 of the 23 co-ops lost money in 2014. Nineteen had claims that exceeded premiums.

No statement about the closure has, so far, been released by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services. Several of the co-ops that have failed in the last month cited an announcement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on October 1 that it would only pay 12.6% of requests made under the so-called risk corridors program.

Risk corridors is a pool of money which insurers who earn more than anticipated pay into so that those who earn less than needed to cover expenses can draw from it. In 2014, only $362 million was paid into the pool, and $2.87 billion was requested from it. Because HHS is prevented by law from supplementing the pool with additional funds, it could only pay out 12.6% of claims.

Candidates unload on budget deal



Republican presidential candidates are slamming the budget bill negotiated by congressional leaders, calling it a grave mistake.

The deal would raise the debt ceiling and set spending levels through 2017, providing an extra $80 billion over the next two years for defense and non-defense spending. The deal also restructures Social Security Disability Insurance and averts premium spikes for some Medicare enrollees.S

The agreement is expected to pass the House on Wednesday and is likely to be a big topic of discussion when the Republican presidential candidates gather Wednesday evening for the third presidential debate.
Here’s a look at what the candidates are saying about the deal that was negotiated, in part, by outgoing Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio.).

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Ted Cruz bashed the deal as capitulation to the Democrats and another example of the party’s failure to abide by its promises to voters.

“This is not a ‘grand bargain’ or negotiation — it is complete and utter surrender,” Cruz said in a statement.

“It is a slap in the face to conservatives who rose up across the country in 2014 on a promise that we would stop the disastrous runaway spending and debt in Washington. We now have a GOP Congress, but no one watching this budget surrender would know it.”

He said the deal is a “golden parachute” for the retiring Boehner that gives up on the budget caps put into effect by sequestration, what Cruz called “the one successful attempt at spending restraint in the Obama era.”

“President Obama and Speaker Boehner are heading into retirement. Some people get a gold watch. Obama and Boehner are settling for at least $80 billion in additional spending and debt above the budget caps. Unfortunately, our children and grandchildren will be left to foot the bill long after they are gone.”

Former Gov. Mike Hucabee (R-Ark.)

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee directed his ire at the the Social Security changes in the budget bill, which he said would “raid $150 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund.”

“Social Security is a promise to America’s seniors — not a piggybank slush fund for Washington politicians,” he said in a statement.

“Americans shouldn’t sacrifice their Social Security benefits so we can bailout irresponsible Washington politicians.”

GOP leaders have tried to use the Social Security provisions to garner votes for the deal, arguing they represent the biggest reform of entitlement programs since the 1980s.

Ben Carson

Ben Carson told The Hill in an interview that he’d never agree to raise the debt ceiling if president and criticized GOP leaders for waiting until the last minute to reach an agreement.

He added in an additional statement that “only in Washington is borrowing even more money to pay the interest on money we already borrowed a common sense bi-partisan plan.”

“It appears Congress believes it is impossible to stop this reckless fiscal irresponsibility,” he said in that statement.

“Perhaps it is time for a new Congress.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen Rand Paul’s spokesman told The Hill he’s “strongly opposed” to the deal and will elaborate on Tuesday afternoon at a pre-debate event in Colorado.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

A campaign spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio said he’s against the deal but deferred to his Senate office for details.

Sarah Ferris contributed.

Boehner presses for budget vote over conservative opposition…



WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republican leaders on Tuesday pushed toward a vote on a two-year budget deal despite conservative opposition, relying on the backing of Democrats for the far-reaching pact struck with President Barack Obama.

In his last days as speaker, John Boehner was intent on getting the measure through Congress quickly to head off a market-rattling debt crisis next week and a government shutdown in December. The deal also would take budget showdowns off the table until after the 2016 presidential and congressional elections, a potential boon to the eventual GOP nominee and incumbents facing tough re-election fights.

“The agreement isn’t perfect by any means,” but the alternative was a debt limit increase without any entitlement reform or money for troops, Boehner told reporters. “So this is a good deal.”

The Ohio Republican also said his goal was to “clean out the barn” for the next speaker. “I’ve done my best to clean it up,” he said.

A coalition of Democrats, Republican defense hawks, and GOP pragmatists appeared poised to power the legislation into law over opposition from the tea party forces that eased Boehner out.

“We can’t stop it. He’s in league with the Democrats,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said of Boehner. “I mean I don’t think there’s anything you can do at this point.”

But Massie also said “it’s a long game” and conservatives were winning the war as they had forced Boehner to resign.

The House budget vote slated for Wednesday would come on the same day as the GOP caucus nominates its candidate, widely expected to be Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. The speaker-to-be held off on assessing the deal, saying he had to review it, but he expressed frustration with the rush job.

“I think this process stinks. This is not the way to do the people’s business,” Ryan said. “Under new management, we’re not going to do the people’s business this way.”

The two-year pact would give both the Pentagon and domestic agencies $80 billion in relief from budget constraints in exchange for cuts elsewhere in the budget.

The White House said Tuesday it was “promising” that Democrats and Republicans could come together to reach an agreement that would “break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driven decision making.” Capitol Hill Democrats are likely to solidly support the agreement, which follows an outline they have been promoting for months.

“We successfully secured equal increases in funding defense and non-defense priorities,” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. “We have extended the solvency of Social Security Disability Insurance and protected millions of seniors from a significant increase in their Medicare Part B premiums and deductibles next year. Most importantly, we have affirmed that the full faith and credit of the United States is non-negotiable and inviolable.”

The legislation would suspend the current $18.1 trillion debt limit through March 2017. The budget portion would increase the current “caps” on total agency spending by $50 billion in 2016 and $30 billion in 2017, offset by savings elsewhere in the budget. And it would permit about $16 billion to be added on top of that in 2016, classified as war funding, with a comparable boost in 2017.

It also would clean up expected problems in Social Security and Medicare by fixing a shortfall looming next year in Social Security payments to the disabled, as well as a large increase in Medicare premiums and deductibles for doctors’ visits and other outpatient care.

The emerging budget side of the deal resembles a pact that Ryan fashioned two years ago in concert with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to ease automatic spending cuts for the 2014-15 budget years. A lot of conservatives disliked the measure and many on the GOP’s right flank are already swinging against the new one, which would apply to the 2016-17 budget years.

“I’m not excited about it at all,” Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said of the agreement. He called it “a two-year budget deal that raises the debt ceiling for basically the entire term of this presidency.”

Boehner was pushed aside by conservatives in his own party after repeatedly turning to Democrats to pass must-do legislation in an era of divided government. Many Republicans also resented being kept in the dark. The pending deal fits both criteria.

Among the proposed spending cuts are curbs on Medicare payments for outpatient services provided by hospitals that have taken over doctors’ practices, and an extension of a 2 percentage-point cut in Medicare payments to doctors through the end of a 10-year budget. It requires the sale of 58 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, cuts crop insurance payments to insurance providers and requires new auctions of spectrum to communications companies.

The budget side of the deal is aimed at undoing automatic spending cuts which are a byproduct of a 2011 budget and debt agreement, and the failure of Washington to subsequently tackle the government’s fiscal woes. GOP defense hawks are a driving force, intent on reversing the automatic cuts and getting more money for the military. A key priority for Democrats is to boost domestic programs.

The focus is on setting a new overall spending limit for agencies with operating budgets set by Congress each year. It will be up to the House and Senate Appropriations committees to produce a detailed omnibus spending bill by the Dec. 11 deadline.

Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

Lawmakers strike major budget deal

Screen Shot 2015-10-26 at 6.51.18 PM

By Manu Raju, Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett, CNN

(CNN)Bipartisan congressional leaders and the White House struck a major fiscal deal on principle Monday that would raise the debt ceiling and lift budget caps on both defense and domestic programs, according to congressional sources familiar with the deal.

The agreement could be voted on as early as Wednesday, the same day House Republicans are expected to nominate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, to replace retiring Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, as House speaker.

The final details are being ironed out and a bill could be introduced later Monday as negotiators draft the language to prepare for it for vote.

This deal would avoid a potential debt default on November 3, and it would reduce the chances of a government shutdown on December 11.

The agreement includes top line numbers for defense and domestic spending levels for the next two years, but Congress will still need to pass some type of omnibus spending bill that includes specific levels for various federal agencies to avoid a shutdown in December.

The deal includes $80 billion in increased defense and domestic spending over two years‎, a senior House source told CNN.

It also includes more money for the Pentagon’s overseas contingency account.

That new spending would be offset by sales from the strategic petroleum oil reserve, use of public airwaves for telecommunications companies and changes to the crop insurance program — among other measures. Moreover, the deal would spread out increases in Medicare premiums over time so beneficiaries don’t feel them acutely. It would also aim to preserve the Social Security disability trust fund, sources said.

Conservatives sharply panned the deal.

“It’s emblematic of five years of failed leadership,” said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Michigan.

But Sen. John McCain says he will support the deal, even though it is $5 billion short on defense funding in 2016 and more than that in 2017.

“I think it is saleable,” he told reporters after leaving a Senate GOP Conference meeting.

Boehner’s office negotiated many of the details directly with the White House, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid were also part of the discussions as the framework was developed, according to a source familiar with the talks.

As he walked off the floor and back to his office, McConnell signaled leaders were on the cusp of a deal to raise the debt ceiling and budget caps.

“Yeah, we’re still talking,” he said.

He was then asked if he feels good about where they are he repeated, “We’re still talking.”

On the floor, Reid signaled talks were moving forward as well.

“There is no reason to have one — that is a crisis,” he said.

House and Senate GOP leaders scheduled a closed door meeting for rank-and-file members for Monday evening to discuss the emerging deal.

The legislation could be filed as early as Monday night with a House vote likely Wednesday — the same day as House Republicans vote to elect a new speaker.

The deal is not yet final, and could ultimately change. But the discussions are moving quickly since Boehner wants to wrap up the divisive fiscal issues before he hands the gavel on Thursday to Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is expected to win House leadership elections.

It’s still uncertain whether the two sides — particularly in the House — could win over the rank-and-file and push the matter to final passage. But if Pelosi agrees to back the package, and Boehner can deliver a large segment of his conference, it could be enough to overcome opposition from conservative factions. Two sources said Monday that Boehner and Pelosi were having “productive” discussions.

The possible deal could give both sides cover. The White House has said that the debt limit should not have any corresponding budget cuts and should pass without restrictions in order to meet the November 3 deadline to avoid a possible default.

But if a budget deal moved at the same time, Republicans could point to the cuts Democrats agreed to in order to argue they were winning concessions from the White House. One source familiar with the discussions said that the two sides were looking at the possibility of a two-year budget deal, effectively decreasing the chances of a shutdown December 11.

Boehner was expected to discuss the matter with his leadership team later Monday afternoon.


Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 4.36.18 PM


Breitbart News has unearthed another overlooked 2013 videothat documents

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) 58%

and Democratic Congressman

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) 18%

’s aggressive stumping for

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 80%

’s amnesty and immigration-expansion plan.

In a speech at the Erie House in Chicago, Ryan and Gutierrez provided more details about how they aimed to institute a formal open borders policy for the United States—that is, a federal policy of allowing any employer to legally hire any worker regardless of where they live.

This vision for the free movement of people across international boundaries is similar to immigration policy the European Union has among solely European countries– over the objections of rising insurgent populist parties. In his speech, Ryan lays out how the same legal structure could be adopted for the United States and all the foreign countries of the world.

“We want to have an immigration system that… has gates open to the people who are coming in pursuit of their version of the American dream,” Ryan told the crowd.

Ryan made the case for dissolving borders—declaring unabashedly that the United States “is more than [its] borders.”

“America is more than just a country,” Ryan said. “It’s more than Chicago, or Wisconsin. It’s more than our borders. America is an idea. It’s a very precious idea.”

This statement is significant because while a country has borders, “ideas” do not. If America is an “idea” rather than a “country” that means that refugees in Somali have as much “right” to a job in the United States as the children of the American revolution. In fact, every year, the U.S. issues five times more green cards than there are members of Daughters of the American Revolution.

Ryan began his speech by assuring the audience that he and Gutierrez see eye to eye on immigration.

“Luis talked about his peaceful protests and the arrests that resulted from them,” Ryan said. “That just goes to show that Republicans and Democrats might do things a little differently, but we don’t always see things differently. And that’s the point I just simply want to make here today.”

Activists for immigration expansion warmly received the couple’s message: Ryan and Gutierrez were even enthusiastically greeted by a mariachi band.

Even though Gutierrez has made clear previously that he has “only one loyalty…and that’s to the immigrant community,” Ryan seemed proud to inform the audience that he has been one of the biggest boosters of Gutierrez’s immigration policies, which prioritize the needs of foreign nations and foreign citizens above those of American citizens.

“Luis is right,” Ryan said. “Back in 2005, he and I tried to work on that legislation back then. I cosponsored that bill that Luis was the coauthor of. You know what, we’ve been trying to fix this system for years.”

While best-selling author Ann Coulter has repeatedly made the point that the United States is a nation “created by settlers, not immigrants,” Paul Ryan told his audience that America is not a nation with clearly delineated borders and sovereignty, but is instead an amorphous “land of immigrants.”

When people come to this country in pursuit of that [American] idea, they are expanding that idea, they are making our country better. We are a land of immigrants… This country is made great by the people who come to this country in search of a better life, in search of a dream.

America, however, was not founded by immigrants at all— and the history of America is one of assimilation, not ongoing immigration— as President Calvin Coolidge argued in his day before signing a bill that helped end all immigration growth for the next fifty years.

Despite this history, Ryan opted to retell a revisionist version of the past— one used by progressives to rob Americans of the vocabulary necessary to articulate their opposition to unprecedented waves of low-wage, third world workers into the country. In Ryan’s retelling, the history of the United States is a history of unbridled, large-scale immigration with no regard for the amount of immigration, its duration, or its origins:

I’m a product of a wave of immigration just like current immigrants are—Irish immigration. Most people in this country are a product of the various waves of immigration that we’ve had to America because that is America.

As a result of the nation’s green card gusher ushered into law by Ted Kennedy’s in 1965, the nation’s middle class has experienced sustained compression. Real average hourly wages are lower today than they were in 1973; all net job creation among working-age people went to foreign workers from 2000-2014; the number of struggling Americans forced to rely on welfare has reached a record high.

A plurality of American voters would like to see immigration paused in order to allow wages to rise, the middle class to expand and immigrants already here to assimilate.

According to a recent Pew poll, by nearly 10-1 margin Republicans want to reduce, not increase, the number of immigrants.

However, Ryan argues the opposite, suggesting that our immigration policy does not serve our “family interest.”

We all must acknowledge that we have an immigration system that is broken. It is not serving our interests as a nation. Our broken immigration system does not serve our national security interests. Our broken immigration system does not serve our economic security interests, and our broken immigration system does not serve our family interests… That’s why Luis Gutierrez and myself and other Republicans and Democrats are doing everything we can this year to try to make sure that we find common ground united behind the common theme that this is the greatest country in the world, attracting people in search of this great dream, and that we want to make it possible and real.

Ironically, Ryan’s desire to import an even larger influx of new immigrants, who prefer big government policies by a margin of two-to-one, may not bode well for a Republican Party of limited government conservatism.

Analysis shows Paul Ryan would be Vice President today if not for the enormous immigrant voting-bloc he helped create – a voting bloc that enthusiastically rejected his platform of entitlement and tax cuts.

A 2014 report authored by University of Maryland professor James Gimpel, found that: “the enormous flow of legal immigrants in to the country — 29.5 million 1980 to 2012 — has remade and continues to remake the nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.”

Examining the data in this study led the Washington Examiner’s Byron York to conclude: “The bottom line is that more immigration favors Democrats; there is no prediction of Democratic electoral ascendancy that doesn’t rely on demographic factors as the main engine of the party’s dominance.” As Reuters has reported: “Immigrants favor Democratic candidates and liberal policies by a wide margin, surveys show, and they have moved formerly competitive states like Illinois firmly into the Democratic column and could turn Republican strongholds like Georgia and Texas into battlegrounds in the years to come.”

Indeed, Breitbart News has previously exposed how the same electoral transformation is underway in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Experts say immigrants’ support for Democrats has nothing to do with Republican rhetoric, but rather is based on policies. Scholars have documented how Republicans will struggle to court immigrant voters unless they drop their platform of limited government policies.

If Paul Ryan believed that his message of cutting Medicare and corporate taxes was a winner with immigrant voters, presumably Ryan would have encouraged the Romney campaign to devote its time, money, and resources to winning California and its treasure trove 55 electoral votes— a state in which  half of California children have a foreign-born parent.

Nevertheless, Ryan concluded his address with a call to action:

It’s high time we fix this broken system… to renew this belief, this idea that America is a land of immigrants and that that makes us a healthy country, that makes us a prosperous country, that makes us a country that passes on to each generation the idea that you can come here, and you can make a better life for yourself and, as a result, a better country for everybody else.

Ryan’s desire to codify the Brussels principle— of allowing people to legally cross into and out of the country without interference—  would have the ultimate effect of dissolving any national identity and transforming the United States into a global commercial destination similar to the Cayman Islands— a place where companies can park their money.

As Pat Buchanan puts it:

Will the West endure, or disappear by the century’s end as another lost civilization? Mass immigration, if it continues, will be more decisive in deciding the fate of the West than Islamist terrorism. For the world is invading the West…. Countless millions are determined to come to the West, legally if they can, illegally if they must. And the more who succeed, the more who come… Western nations will be swamped. The character of their countries will be altered forever, and smaller countries will become unrecognizable. And as this is happening, ethnic and racial clashes will become more common… America is our home. We decide who comes in and who does not, how large the American family becomes, whom we adopt and whence they come… It has become the issue of 2016. Indeed, it is the issue of the 21st century.