Published on Mar 20, 2018
Published on Mar 20, 2018
By Dan Lyman Wednesday, March 14, 2018
“In the upcoming omnibus budget bill, Congress must fund the border wall and prohibit grants to sanctuary jurisdictions that threaten the security of our country and the people of our country,” Trump said yesterday during his visit to California to inspect border wall prototypes. “We must enforce our laws and protect our people.”
“California sanctuary policies put the entire nation at risk. They’re the best friend of the criminal. That’s what exactly is happening. The criminals take refuge in these sanctuary cities, and it’s very dangerous for our police and enforcement folks.”
The president asserted that he may even veto the spending bill if it provides funding for sanctuary cities – regardless of whether there are also provisions for the wall.
Representative Meadows echoed the president’s sentiments during an appearance on Lou Dobbs Tonight.
“On March 23, we have an omnibus coming up that will fund the entire government, and I believe that we need to put money in for the wall,” Meadows said. “Perhaps one of the pay-fors would be this: let’s take some of that money that is going in to these sanctuary cities and sanctuary states – who refuse to uphold the rule of law and make sure that their communities are safe – perhaps we take that money back and use it on a down payment on the wall.”
While President Trump has repeatedly vowed that Mexico will ultimately cover the cost of building the wall – a goal that can be accomplished myriad different ways, despite Mexico’s protestations – its construction should and can begin as soon as possible, regardless of the initial financing scheme.
Additionally, the wall could quickly pay for itself if it provides even modest results in stemming the tide of illegal aliens crossing the southern US border, as new research published by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) projects.
“The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall,” explains Steven Camarota, director of research at CIS. “Based on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall.”
President Trump tweeted a Fox News report on the CIS study on Tuesday.
The Trump administration scored a key legal victory on Tuesday, as a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the state of Texas in their efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities.
Published on Mar 11, 2018
By Adam Shaw
The twist: he is running for president of Mexico.
According to Mexican newspaper Excelsior, Ricardo Anaya Cortes met with businessmen and activists in Los Angeles — which has a large Hispanic population.
Among those he met with was Obama-era Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, now the president of the University of California.
In a tweet accompanied by a picture with Napolitano, Anaya said they “talked about the importance of supporting the Dreamers and agreed that Mexican migrants deserve respect.”
By “Dreamers,” he was referring to illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. Trump repealed the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) in September, which gave protection to some of those arrivals, and gave Congress a deadline of March 5 to pass a fix. Court orders have since extended that deadline.
According to Excelsior, Anaya said that “we are one,” and reiterated that the Mexican migrant community in the U.S. is not alone. While on American soil, he also took a swipe at President Trump by saying he would not be on the side of “an American president who has dedicated himself to insulting our community.”
Relations between Trump and Mexico have been strained since the very beginning of Trump’s campaign when he described the immigrants coming from Mexico in harsh terms.
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said in June 2015. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump has also clashed with Mexican leaders over his campaign pledge that Mexico would pay for the wall on the southern border.
For Anaya, though, even the cool actions from President Peña Nieto were too positive, with Anaya blasting Nieto for allowing Trump to visit the country in 2016.
“After Donald Trump had been insulting, and revolting at the best that Mexico has in the United States, they dared to roll out a red carpet to receive him in Los Pinos, as if he were a head of state,” he said, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
Appealing to the Mexican community, he said that those who have entered the U.S. are “the heroes of the country.”
“I want to ask you, with my heart in my hand, that every time you hear an aggressive or denigrating expression, remember that there, in Mexico, you are the heroes of the country, the brave, the enterprising, the generous, those who dared to cross the border to give their family a better future,” he said, according to CIS.
A candidate from the conservative National Action Party, Anaya has promised respectful relations with the United States but said his government would not let Washington take advantage.
“At the right time I will say personally to the president of the United States, and I will say it in his language so there will be absolutely no confusion … Mexico will not pay a single cent for that wall,” Anaya said.
The election is July 1. Reuters reported in January that since the last election, seven times as many Mexicans in the U.S. have received voting credentials under new rules that let Mexican citizens sign up at local consulates rather than in Mexico.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
BY BRENT BUDOWSKY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/09/18 11:45 AM EST
This subject is one of the most important issues facing all Americans in their daily lives. It strikes at the heart of the matter of jobs, wages, economic opportunity and the core fairness of the American economy.
In my column this week in The Hill, I urged Democrats to focus intensely on uniting the party and winning control of the House and Senate in November, in the most important midterm elections in a century.
Let’s consider three hypothetical Democratic tickets in 2020, which provide alternate models for how Democrats could regain the presidency and govern alongside a Democratic House and Senate after the presidential election.
Democrats are blessed with a large number of excellent potential candidates in 2020 and should consider and confront the mythology spread by Republicans and some insider Democrats that the most progressive Democratic candidates are not the most electable Democratic candidates.
The first model for a Democratic ticket in 2020 would be led by Sanders and Warren. This would be the progressive populist ticket offering the most bold and sweeping agenda.
The second model for a Democratic ticket would be led by former Vice President Joe Biden, running with a vice-presidential nominee such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on a ticket that combines vast presidential calibre experience and a widely respected younger generation progressive leader.
The third model for a Democratic ticket would be led by Rep. Joe KennedyIII (D-Mass.), a rising star of House Democrats, running with a vice presidential nominee such as California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who formerly served as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus in Congress, or Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).
This ticket would offer a bold and daring move for dramatic political and generational change.
Behind the scenes of the national Democratic Party, it is commonly accepted wisdom, though not proven by facts, that the most progressive candidates are not the most electable candidates. In some states and districts this might be true.
But, in terms of winning the national popular vote and an electoral vote majority, there is a credible case that the most clearly progressive and politically aggressive Democrats can indeed win, and potentially win big.
The most important and powerfully persuasive data in modern American politics is that virtually every poll in 2016 showed Sanders defeating Donald Trump by 10 percent or more. In the Real Clear Politics summary of 2016 polling, Sanders ran ahead of Trump by an average margin of more than 10 percent and often by much larger margins.
Whether one supports Sanders or any other potential candidate in 2020, the case is clear that a strong progressive program and message would give Democrats a decided advantage in any campaign against the scandal-ridden and crony-capitalist-dominated presidency of Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.
The town meeting that will bring national attention to Sanders, Warren and Moore will dramatize why most voters will economically and financially benefit by a program that maximizes income equality, economic justice and fairness and economic opportunity for poor and middle-income voters in red and blue states alike.
While I could support Sanders, Warren or any of the progressive Democratic change candidates who could run on the ticket in 2020, it is important to disabuse the false notion, which is contrary to the facts demonstrated by national polling throughout 2016 and beyond, that progressive candidates are less electable.
Americans want a clear message of progressive change and would enthusiastically support a Sanders-Warren ticket, or any other ticket running on a similar program in 2020.
Whoever the Democratic nominee in 2020 is, he or she should, and almost certainly will, run a visionary and aggressive campaign that promises to bring the next great era of progressive leadership to America and could well realign American politics for a generation after the post-Trump era.
Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the U.S. House of Representatives. He holds an LLM in international financial law from the London School of Economics.
BY AVNER ZARMI MARCH 9, 2018
He’s a gun-grabber from the word go, utterly dedicated to a woman’s right to murder the fruit of her womb, and celebrates the full range of possible psycho-sexual unions, including, generously, the one likely to bear such fruit. He favors Medicare for all without a hint of how to pay for it, and he demands the total abolition of any meaningful border between California and the drug cartels.
Oh, yes — he happens to be the grandson of one of the masterminds of the 1972 slaughter of eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.
Born and raised in San Diego, Campa-Najjar had a fairly conventional upbringing — if you consider a four-year sojourn in Gaza part of a normal childhood. When his neighbors began to make things a bit too hot, Campa-Najjar and his Mexican-American mother decided it was time to return to the land of effete decadence, the Hotel California.
Campa-Najjar wants to run against the ethically challenged (investigated by the FBI for campaign finance abuse), rock-solid conservative (ACU rating: 97%) Republican Duncan Hunter. Hunter seems to have little to worry about: He carried the district with 63.5% of the vote in the last election, though that is a decline from the previous election, which he won by a handy 71%. In terms of money, Hunter has a big edge: his war chest is over $400,000, as opposed to Campa-Najjar’s $34,000.
In 2012, Campa-Najjar was an Obama campaign deputy regional director. After Obama’s victory, Campa-Najjar was rewarded by Obama’s Labor Department: he was chosen to serve as head of the Office of Public Affairs of the Employment and Training Administration. Unable to afford the move to Washington, he instead worked with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in communications and marketing.
Raised in the shadow of terrorist Muhammad Yussuf Najjar, Ammar Campa-Najjar says that he has shunned the family business, so to speak, to give peace a chance. He has forged ties with the progressive Jewish community. He says that he rejects his grandfather’s terrorism, and that his “goal is for our generation to be better than our predecessors, and find a way to end this conflict.”
Laudable, if true. But the Jewish Telegraphic Agency only cites the praise of two rabbis, who are anonymously quoted. And Campa-Najjar’s stated commitment to the Bernie Sanders “Our Revolution” agenda sure calls into question his actual level of support for the security needs of Israel, our only reliable ally in the Middle East.
The would-be president castigated Israel for an ostensibly “indiscriminate” war on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and, while admitting that he didn’t really know the facts, asserted, twice, that Israel killed over 10,000 innocent civilians in the course of that conflict. … That’s seven times the self-serving figure asserted by Hamas.
The Israeli authorities believe the true figure was far lower, both because Hamas inflated the overall numbers of combatants and noncombatants killed, and because Hamas deliberately misrepresents many of its own dead gunmen, who often fought out of uniform, as civilians — to demonize Israel, and to minimize its own losses.
To quote Campa-Najjar himself: “California 50 deserves better.”