Democrats are steadfast opponents of the rule of law, encouraging illegal immigration through their support for amnesty across the board, their support for sanctuary cities, their callous disregard for criminal elements illegally crossing our borders, their demonization of ICE, their judges lawlessly thwarting President Trump’s efforts to enforce federal immigration laws, their consistent obstruction of border enforcement, their endless game-playing over a wall, their denial that a border crisis exists, their downplaying the crimes—including vehicular homicides—committed by illegal aliens, and their lack of concern over illegal narcotics shipped into this country by illegal aliens and drug cartels. They further promote immigration anarchy by opposing measures such as Kate’s Law, voter ID laws, adding a citizenship question on the census, deporting MS-13 gang members and other violent criminals, and closing loopholes for asylum that flood the legal system with meritless claims.
Having strenuously alleged that Trump was manufacturing a fake crisis on the border,14 Democrats were caught flat-footed when their second favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, reported right before Trump’s border address in January 2019 that there was indeed a border crisis.15 Post reporter Nick Miroff said the numbers are “bonkers.” At the rates occurring early in 2019, apprehensions could reach 765,000 by the end of the year, compared with 521,090 in 2018.16 A CNN/SSRS poll showed that across party lines, Americans increasingly believe we have a border crisis, including 82 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents, and 74 percent of all Americans.17
How could any reasonable person deny there’s a crisis? Eighty-seven percent of illegal immigrant families who crossed the border during several months in early 2019 failed to show up for their deportation hearings, according to ICE acting chief, Nathalie R. Asher.18 Likewise, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that 90 percent of asylum-seekers under a new program skipped their hearings.19 NBC News reported that in February 2019 apprehensions of “undocumented” immigrants crossing the border were at their highest levels in twelve years.20
Eventually, the massive scale of the problem became impossible to ignore. President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, was one of the first Democrats to acknowledge the crisis when he stated on MSNBC’s Morning Joe,
When I was in office in Kirstjen Nielsen’s job at her desk, I’d get to work around 6:30 in the morning and there’d be my intelligence book sitting on my desk, the PDB, and also the apprehension numbers from the day before. And I’d look at them every… morning, it would be the first thing I’d look at, and I probably got too close to the problem. [M]y staff will tell you if it was under 1,000 apprehensions the day before, that was a relatively good number. And if it was above 1,000, it was a relatively bad number, and I was going to be in a bad mood the whole day. On Tuesday, there were 4,000 apprehensions. I know that a thousand overwhelms the system. I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like. So, we are truly in a crisis.21
At the time, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York commented, “That is something Democrats in Congress will not admit. Perhaps they believe doing so would give a victory to Trump, which they cannot abide.”22
After the DHS announced there were 100,000 apprehensions at the southern border in March 2019 and 76,000 in February, Brandon Judd, president of National Border Patrol Council, said the current influx of migrants flooding the southern border represented the “worst crisis” that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents have encountered since the agency was established in 1924. “This is the worst it’s ever been and if we don’t do something it’s going to get worse,” said Judd.23 In April, the number of migrants apprehended increased to 109,144—the highest monthly total since 2007.24
York puts these numbers in perspective. While in the early- and mid-2000s the number of apprehensions on the southern border was around one million per year, it gradually decreased due to more aggressive border security policies and a major economic downturn. In 2011 they hit a low point of 327,577, but started to creep back up to 479,371 in 2014. Probably because of Trump’s election and his tough immigration stance, the numbers dropped again to 303,916 in 2017. But once it became clear that the Democrats and the courts would obstruct Trump’s efforts, the numbers rose again to levels approaching those of the early- and mid-2000s.
There is a major difference, however, between the situation then and now. Before, those apprehended were mostly single, adult men trying to avoid detection who were soon returned across the border. So one million apprehensions did not mean anywhere near that number remained in the United States. Today, those caught are far more likely to be families and unaccompanied children who are not trying to sneak in but want to turn themselves over to the Border Patrol, understanding that U.S. law prevents them from being returned or held more than a few days. “In short order,” writes York, “they are released into the United States.”25
Border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the nation illegally in October and November 2018 alone. For the entire year of 2018, more than half a million people tried to enter the country illegally, which is a substantial increase from 2017. These are conservative numbers that exclude people who eluded border patrol and successfully crossed into America.
There are already between 12 million and 22 million illegals in the country today.26 The United States stands nearly alone in tolerating these staggering numbers. ProCon.org found that in 2010 some 4 percent of the U.S. population consisted of illegals, while the average for thirteen other countries it analyzed was 1.3 percent.27 Investor’s Business Daily notes that past presidents—even Clinton and Obama—all acknowledged illegal immigration as a significant problem. “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country,” said Obama.28 He acknowledged the crisis again in 2014, though he obstructed all reasonable proposals to address it. In 2006, Senator Chuck Schumer and numerous other top Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act, which provided for a physical barrier along more than 700 miles of the southern border that had no fencing.29 But now, the only crisis the Democrats acknowledge is any attempt to solve the problem. Their dramatic shift from supporting to opposing border security is one of the most stunning examples of the party’s pandering to its extremist base and serving their own interests instead of the nation’s.30
THE WELFARE BENEFITS CRISIS
Speaking of an immigration-related crisis, some 63 percent of “noncitizens,” including green card holders, receive welfare benefits that were designed to assist poor and sick Americans, according to the Census Bureau. Some 70 percent of those who have been here ten years or more receive benefits. To address this problem, President Trump proposed new “public charge” rules that would make it harder for immigrants to qualify for green cards if they use or would likely use welfare programs.
In the data, “noncitizens” include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors such as guest workers, and permanent residents who have not been naturalized. These groups receive welfare, sometimes on behalf of U.S.-born children, despite barriers to keep them from doing so. This is because most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for benefits, and the restrictions don’t apply to all programs and especially not to noncitizen children. Further, some states provide welfare to new immigrants, and noncitizens, including even illegal immigrants, can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are granted U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.31
Leftists often tout the virtues of illegal immigrants compared to American citizens—absurdly, AOC asserts that illegals “are acting more American than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be.”32 In fact, illegal immigration sucks enormous resources away from needy American citizens. A whopping 4.7 million noncitiz
en households received welfare according to the 2014 report. Noncitizen households are almost twice as likely to receive welfare (63 percent) as native-headed households (35 percent). Some 45 percent of noncitizen households use food assistance programs compared to 21 percent of citizens’ households, and 50 percent of them receive Medicaid compared to 23 percent of citizens. Thirty-one percent of noncitizen-headed households receive cash welfare compared to 19 percent of citizen households.33 If you think these statistics bother Democrats, you are mistaken. At a Democratic presidential debate, when candidates were asked whether their healthcare proposals would cover illegal immigrants, every one of them raised their hand.34
As noted, Democrats adamantly oppose a census citizenship question, arguing that illegal immigrants could be targeted by law enforcement if they admit their status. But that’s a smokescreen because Trump’s proposal wouldn’t require them to specify whether they have legal status, only whether they are citizens. In fact, the Democrats didn’t object to such a question as recently as 2010. The real reason they oppose it is that a higher noncitizen response rate leads to increased political power for Democrats because the census determines the apportionment of U.S. House seats, presidential electors, and intrastate seats, not to mention the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars of federal funds.
“Disproportionate numbers of noncitizens, who tend to reside in heavily blue areas,” writes Ben Weingarten, “mean disproportionate political representation and largesse for those blue areas.” The Constitution doesn’t necessarily mandate this result, but it is the current practice. The cases concerning whether “persons” in the appropriate constitutional provisions includes noncitizens haven’t been conclusively determined. Congressman Warren Davidson has proposed a constitutional amendment, the Fair Representation Amendment, to clarify the issue, providing that representatives shall be apportioned solely “by counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.” Davidson correctly notes that the practice of counting noncitizens dilutes the influence of citizens, especially in states with lower noncitizen populations.35
BORDER WALLS WORK—SO DEMOCRATS OPPOSE THEM
Truth be told, the Democrats are no more serious about border security today than they were in 1986, when they falsely promised President Reagan that they’d secure the border in exchange for amnesty for some three million illegal immigrants. Democrats are experts at seducing Republicans into abandoning their principled commitments. Over and over again, in contentious political skirmishes, Republicans immediately act to honor their side of the bargain and accept the Democrats’ promise of future action. But that future never comes.
During the 2018–2019 government shutdown battle, Democrats wouldn’t even agree to offer Trump as much as yesteryear’s Democrats offered Reagan and Bush 41. They accused Trump of intransigence, despite his multiple compromise overtures and despite their refusal to make any concessions beyond the anemic $1.3 billion they had already committed for the wall. They simply demanded that Trump unilaterally abandon his signature campaign promise for their disingenuous assurance to contemplate certain half measures on border enforcement at an unspecified future time.
Among their arguments against the border wall, Democrats said it would be an inefficient use of federal funds—as if fiscal responsibility were part of their vocabulary. They also maintained that focusing on border enforcement was imprudent because most illegal immigration occurs from people overstaying their visas. Even if that’s true, it’s ridiculous to oppose border enforcement just because some illegals enter by other means.
Though Democrats claim the wall won’t work, they really oppose it precisely because it would work, as experience has shown. One illuminating example is San Diego. Before construction of forty-six miles of reinforced fencing along the border there in 1986, there were 629,656 arrests. In 2016, by contrast, there were just 31,891 arrests.36 San Diego’s illegal crossings decreased by 95 percent after it built the wall and instituted personnel and technological measures.37 Likewise, after a physical barrier was constructed at Yuma, crossings there dropped by 90 percent.38
Through its vast experience Israel has learned about the effectiveness of border walls. David Rubin, originally from New York, lived in Israel for almost three decades and was mayor of the city of Shiloh. The author of Trump and the Jews, he is a supporter of Trump’s border wall based on his knowledge and experience with the wall between Israel and Egypt, which successfully reduced illegal crossings. He attributes the Democrats’ opposition to Trump’s wall to their disdain for Trump and dismisses Schumer’s and Pelosi’s contention that a physical wall is pointless. “I don’t think you can stop illegal immigration with just scanners and patrols,” said Rubin. “… Empirically it doesn’t work. We’ve seen that what works is a physical border with high-tech measures. That, along with patrols and enhanced tech, are the elements that you need to have if you truly want to put a stop to illegal immigration. If somebody is opposed to having those three elements, then I don’t think they really want to stop it.”39
The effectiveness of Israel’s border walls is irrefutable. The country’s walls and other security policies nearly eliminated illegal border crossings.40 “Israel… had a real problem with illegal immigrants coming in from the southern border, about 16,000 in one year,” explained Senator Ron Johnson. “In two years, they constructed a 143-mile fence, about $2.9 million per mile, and it cut that illegal immigration rate from about 16,000 to I think 18. Cut it by 99 percent.”
Lauding the success of border walls, President Trump tweeted, “There are now 77 major or significant walls built around the world, with 45 countries planning or building walls. Over 800 miles of walls have been built in Europe since only 2015. They have all been recognized as close to 100% successful.”41 While the New York Times lamely attempted to debunk some of Trump’s claims in a so-called “fact check,” their rebuttals were mostly quibbles over semantics. They also cited “experts” to provide brilliant observations such as, “People will find ways to cross walls.”42
“Trump’s numbers ring true,” writes the Daily Caller’s Evie Fordham. “There are 77 major walls or fences around the world, and many of them were built after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a tally by University of Quebec geography professor Elisabeth Vallet cited by the Washington Post. Roughly 50 of the structures were constructed after World War II.… USA Today also reported: ‘Since the start of Europe’s migrant crisis in 2015, at least 800 miles of fences have been erected by Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Slovenia and others—a swift and concrete reaction as more than 1.8 million people descended on Europe from war zones from Afghanistan to Syria.’ ”43
Other countries besides Israel understand that walls work. India built a series of walls that successfully blocked Pakistani terrorists from entering, and many believe the barriers have prevented war between the two nuclear powers. The United Nations erected a highly effective wall dividing Cyprus to separate Turkish and Greek fighters. Morocco built a 1,700-mile system of border barriers to prevent the Algerian funded terrorist group Polisario Front from infiltrating, and its effectiveness helped to end the Western Sahara War after sixteen years. The Brits built walls in Northern Ireland to separate and pacify Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods. After ISIS subsumed northern Iraq, the Saudis built an effective 600-mile border fence and ditch system stretching from Jordan to Kuwait. Kenya was successful in reducing invasions of Somali terrorists with their 440-mile border fencing.44 Other nations built walls specifically to prevent illegal immigration, such as India on its border with Bangladesh, Spain to keep out African migrants, and Greece, Turkey, and Hungary.45
Walls help reduce not only the entry of illegals but also the flow of drugs. Having substantial barriers instead of open frontier allows enforcement agents to place their resources at points of entry to interdict illegal narcotics. With open frontiers, agents are spread thin trying to stop bogus asylum seekers from entering betwee
n points of entry, explains Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz. While most drug seizures occur at points of entry, that doesn’t mean that more drugs don’t enter between points of entry without being detected, he argues. Horowitz concedes that interior enforcement against illegal immigration is also important to stopping the drug flow but notes that, sadly, Democrats vehemently oppose those measures as well.46
“THE ENTHUSIASM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS FOR PROTECTING IMMIGRANTS [NOT BORDERS]”
It’s crystal clear that Democrats don’t really want to stop illegal immigration, as exemplified by their lawless establishment of sanctuary cities. The left always seems to have limitless compassion for lawbreakers and little concern for the law-abiding. Examples abound, such as the case of Gustavo Garcia, an illegal immigrant whose lengthy criminal record began in 2002. Garcia was detained in a Tulare County, California, jail for ten hours for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Before he was released, ICE officials notified deputies that he was a violent criminal who’d been deported twice, but California’s sanctuary laws prevented the sheriff’s office from detaining him for ICE. Two days later he shot and killed a man, wounded two others, and critically injured a motorist, then died in a high-speed pursuit following a shoot-out with police.47
As reported by the Daily Caller, Tulare County sheriff Mike Boudreaux commented, “ ‘We have one man that essentially [has] been on a personal reign of terror.’… The sheriff expressed deep ‘frustration’ about being hamstrung by the state’s sanctuary laws. ‘The Tulare County Sheriff’s Office is equally as frustrated with this situation,’ Boudreaux said, citing ICE’s lament about the needless suffering caused by releasing Garcia. ‘Because of California law, detainers can no longer be recognized by local law enforcement.’ ” Never held accountable for their heinous enabling of such tragedies, leftists continue to masquerade as compassionate altruists.
Guilty by Reason of Insanity Page 42
