The Puzzling Lack Of Latino Support For Obama’s Amnesty Action

Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 5.03.17 PM

By Brian Anderson, November 19, 2014.

President Obama has said he will finally unveil his immigration reform executive action on Thursday night. Hardly a secret, Obama’s overreach of authority will grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, many of whom are Latino. While it’s not a surprise that most Americans are against this horrible “go-it-alone” policy, the big shock is that Latinos don’t support it with overwhelming numbers.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 48% of Americans oppose the pending amnesty action while just 38% support it. 14% of those polled are too dull to have an opinion on stuff.

As you can imagine, the support/dissent falls along political lines with more conservatives opposing amnesty and more democrats loving it. But when you break down the numbers by race, it gets real interesting:

Latinos are divided, with 43 percent supporting the action and 37 percent opposing it.

You’d expect support among Latinos to be much higher because the liberals have been so effective in racializing and politicizing the issue, but the numbers don’t lie.

Or do they? NBC refuses to believe the results of their own poll, so they decided to disqualify this one aspect while leaving the other results intact:

But the sample size here is small (just 110 Latino respondents), so the numbers have a high margin of error.

How’s that for some bullsh*t? If this poll is so flawed, why even publish it? As for that “high margin of error” that racially targeted only the Latino portion of the poll, here are NBC’s official numbers:

The rest of the NBC/WSJ poll — which was conducted Nov. 14-17 and has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points — will be released at 6:30 pm ET.

Hmmm…so with more than a 3-point margin of error, the numbers could actually be 40% of Latinos opposed to Obama’s immigration plan and 40% in favor of it. That’s an even split.

It should be noted that NBC doesn’t dispute any other portion of the poll, just the Latino numbers. Obviously, the left-leaning network doesn’t want to admit that there isn’t universal support in the Latino community for amnesty. They’ve invested too much time framing the debate as white versus brown and xenophobes versus hard-working immigrants.

Here’s something that NBC hasn’t considered: most Latinos are not illegal aliens, but rather natural-born or naturalized American citizens. As Americans, many of them can see that failing to secure the border, allowing a flood of uneducated immigrants in, and granting amnesty to millions more will be disastrous.

For many of them, they left their home countries because they were sh*tholes and they’re not too eager to recreate that sh*thole here on American soil.

This confusion on NBC’s part mirrors the mystification of the Democratic Party following the midterm election debacle, which saw traditionally democratic voters abandoning them. Blacks are not doing well under democratic rule, women have bigger concerns than free and plentiful abortions, and Latinos don’t necessarily want the depressed wages and government spending that comes with unchecked immigration.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez: No Government Money Will Be Spent on Illegals


November 19, 2014 9:03 am Invasion U.S.A.

(Newsmax) – Republicans need not worry about tax dollars being spent on implementing President Barack Obama’s planned “executive amnesty” says a Democratic congressman.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois said Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” he believes the 3 million-5 million affected by the order would have to pay for background checks and any other expense associated with being granted legal status.

Gutierrez said he believes Obama will require applicants to have been in the United States 5-10 years and have children who are American citizens. Those who pass background checks will get a work authorization for two years and a Social Security card, he said.

But Gutierrez disagreed with host Bill O’Reilly that they eventually would be granted citizenship.

“There is no citizenship. The president has no authority. Only through an act of Congress can they ever be granted citizenship,” Gutierrez insisted.

At that point, the government will be free to pursue “the really bad guys” and deportations will continue, he said.

O’Reilly expressed skepticism at that, saying the Obama administration isn’t going after criminals now. They are deported and then come right back into the country, he said.

Gutierrez said those affected would not be allowed to sign up for welfare, food stamps and housing benefits. He cited the 800,000 “DREAMers” who were made legal in June 2012 who can’t get Pell Grants to go to college.

O’Reilly warned that once executive amnesty is signed a flood of new immigrants will be crossing the border. And some of those already here will simply not pay the fees and become legal, essentially staying in the same situation they are in now.
– See more at:

How Obama’s Amnesty Will Become Citizenship


November 19, 2014


RUSH: This is Luis Gutierrez. He’s a Democrat in Chicago. He was on The O’Baxter Factor last night, and the question: “It’s interesting. The people who have children who are American citizens who’ve been here between five and 10 years — they submit a fingerprint, do background check on ’em, and, if they’re clean — they can stay and get working papers, and get on the books, and then citizenship is right down the road.”

GUTIERREZ: There is no citizenship! The president has no authority. Only through an act of Congress can they ever be granted citizenship.


GUTIERREZ: Think of it this way. Here’s how I look at it. It’s like he’s gonna set them aside and say, “I’m not gonna prosecute these people.”


RUSH: Right. So here’s how this works. So O’Baxter there says, “And eventually, Luis, they’re gonna get citizenship, right?” “Oh, noooo, no, no, no, no! No, no, noooo. You misunderstand! There is no citizenship. The president has no authority. Only through an act of Congress can…” Luis, do you understand what you’re saying here? He has no authority to do what he’s gonna do, either!

He has no authority to grant this pardon, unless they call it that. That would be interesting, if they call this a pardon. If the president wants to pardon five million illegals. But they’re not calling it that. They’re saying, “We’re suspending deportation.” Everybody knows what’s going on here. They are being granted amnesty. For Gutierrez to say, “No, no! The president has no authority to grant citizenship.”

You know how this works? Here’s exactly what’s gonna happen. A short period of time after this action is taken — and it will be “a short period of time.” It isn’t gonna take very long. It will happen next year. But let’s say all this happens on Friday. Obama… By the way, what do you think is gonna come first, the grand jury decision in Ferguson or Obama announcing amnesty on Friday? What do you think’s gonna happen first?

Or do you think they’re gonna happen at the same time? We’re gonna get the grand jury decision and then we’re gonna have a rebirth of the Sixties civil rights era. In fact, they’re out there selling it that way. You have John Lewis and all these guys, “It’s gonna be Selma all over again!” They’re so excited about it. They’re excited about the grand jury coming down to Ferguson with a no-true bill, meaning no indictment.

They’re excited about that. They are promoting this thing. They want there to be no indictment of the cop. They want to be able to riot in the streets. They want to be able to reenact Selma. They want to reenact the civil rights battles of the sixties. It’s amazing! They all want to go back to the good old days. They all want to go back to the nostalgic good old days where they made their bones and relive it and do it all over again.

I got audio sound bites to prove this.

So here’s Obama going to Vegas. He’s gonna announce amnesty, whatever, on Friday. And in St. Louis, the civil rights groups have put out this list of targets that they want the protestors to hit. They are businesses and industries that have nothing to do with what happened in Ferguson, like Anheuser-Busch, like Emerson Electric. (That’s a big power company there.) It’s a long list. It’s a riot list.

“These are the targets. Here’s a place to go! Set this on fire, blow up that place, whatever.” (laughing) It’s right out in the open, right out in front of us. So the question is: Do we get split screen of this on Friday, a slow news day, and then maybe will Ray Rice’s suspension be lifted and it be announced he can play in the NFL? Whether anybody will pick him up or not’s another thing.

Okay. What time will Obama announce amnesty on Friday? Okay, he’s gonna be in Vegas. So that puts him on Pacific time. So he’s not gonna do it before the program ends. So three p.m. Eastern’s noon there. He’s just getting to work, on a normal day. I would say he’s gonna time this to ruin as many Friday nights as he can. Maybe earlier in the day, the grand jury in Ferguson will reveal whatever they’re going to reveal.

Oh, man, the left is so excited, folks! They got a twofer coming up here. I mean, it is the good old days. They’re gonna actually bring the sixties back to life and reenact and redo everything. The same old people that were doing it back in the sixties are gonna find themselves in Ferguson and in St. Louis. Anyway, what’s gonna happen here when Obama does this whenever he does it on Friday.

Luis Gutierrez here says, “No, no. There is no citizenship. Only through an act of Congress can they ever be granted citizenship.” Which makes me laugh. Only through an act of Congress can they get citizenship? Well, only through an act of Congress can Obama do what he’s gonna do, but he’s gonna do it anyway without one.

So what’s gonna happen sometime soon, next year — it won’t be long — Chuck Schumer or some other prominent Democrat will miraculously appear before microphones and cameras, and he’ll have a look of pained suffering on his face, and he’ll say that he’s very conflicted. He’s still joyous and celebratory and happy over the fact that we, via President Obama’s executive action, have opened the doors of our country to five million of the greatest people in the world.

“But what were we thinking when we did not grant them citizenship? What good is allowing them to stay here legally if they can’t vote? What kind of country are we? What has happened to us? How, on the one hand, could we grant them permanent permission to stay in our country, and at the same time deny them the most valuable right, the most precious right that our citizens have — and that is the right to vote?

“How in the world could we have denied that? What were we thinking?” So the effort will be launched to grant them citizenship, and if the Republicans oppose it — which they won’t — then Obama will come back and do another executive action claiming, “Well, Reagan did it, and Bush did it.”

This is all about six months from now. And the New York Times has a story here today. It’s the same thing. “Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration –” Wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold it. Did the New York Times not get the memo? This is not an executive order. Because Reagan didn’t do an executive order. Reagan didn’t do any executive action. What do you mean, executive order? That’s not what this is. Well, it is, you know. But the AP, the Drive-Bys are trying to tell us this is what Reagan did. Anyway, the headline of the New York Times piece: “Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration Is Unlikely to Include Health Benefits.”

Now, you can’t convince me Jonathan Gruber’s not somewhere in this story. How stupid do they think we are? We’re gonna grant amnesty, but it doesn’t contain citizenship, and it doesn’t contain health care? (laughing) Right. How stupid do they think we are? No health benefits, no health insurance, no citizenship. We’re just gonna grant them temporary amnesty against deportation. So it’s gonna be the same drill. After this happens, a short time later, Chuck Schumer will be back at the microphones, after crying over the fact that we forgot to make them citizens.

He’ll do it again. He’ll say, “What kind of country are we? What were we thinking? This shows just how much farther we have to go to be a good people, to be a good country. What were we thinking? Five million people who have worked and struggled and have been separated from their families, and they’ve paid taxes, and they’ve made this country what it is, and we are denying them health care benefits? Who in the hell do we think we are? How did this travesty happen?” And the move will be on to grant them health care benefits and citizenship within six months of Obama’s executive action. You know it and I know it.


Half of UK councils face financial collapse


Half the UK’s local councils are at risk of collapse, the government’s official auditor has said, warning that one in six may be unable to provide basic services this year. The warning comes after severe cuts in national government funding.

In a report produced by the government’s official auditor, the National Audit Office (NAO) on Wednesday, 52 percent of councils were said to be at risk of not having enough resources to fund public services, including education and social care.

Additionally, around 16 percent of councils were said to be struggling to fund public services within the current financial year.

“Auditors report that 16 percent of single-tier and county councils (those authorities responsible for social care and education) are not well placed to deliver their 2014-15 budgets,” the report says.

“Auditors are also concerned about the longer-term financial sustainability of single-tier and county councils, reporting that 52 percent of these authorities are not well placed to deliver their medium-term financial strategies.”

However, the Public Accounts Committee, which oversees auditing inspections, said much of the blame was to be laid on the Department for Communities and Local Government, who they accused of not monitoring the financial activities of some councils in the UK.


The Committee’s chair, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, also said austerity measures imposed by the national government had pushed local councils to the brink of their budgets, with “potentially disastrous” consequences.

“Worryingly, local authorities with the highest level of deprivation have seen the biggest cuts, potentially putting vulnerable people at risk. It is authorities with high cuts which have seen the biggest spending reductions for social care services,” Hodge said.

“Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, local authorities with a high cut in spending power had reduced their funding for adult and children’s social care by 12.7 percent and 4.3 percent. This is compared with authorities that had low cuts, which had reduced funding for adult social care by 1.2 percent, but had increased spending on children’s social care by 14.8 percent.”

The NAO also found that local government across the UK was to be cut by around 37 percent from 2010 to 2015-16, with many councils seeing more than a quarter of their overall funding completely slashed.

However, DCLG minister Kris Hopkins defended the government’s cuts, saying austerity was still needed to “tackle the deficit left by the last administration.”

“The reality is since 2010 budgets have been balanced, council tax has fallen by 11 percent in real-terms and public satisfaction with local government has been maintained,” he said.

“But there is still much councils can do to cut waste and make sensible savings, such as using their reserves, making better use of surplus public sector assets, clamping down on fraud, boosting council tax collection rates and sharing back offices.”