Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Trump Just Issued 4-Word Order To All Getting In Way Of Immigration Plan And Hurting Americans

Sometimes I really love how President Trump addresses a crisis.

Published

on

Sometimes I really love how President Trump addresses a crisis. This is one of those times. This morning, he tweeted out a four-word order today to Republicans and anyone getting in the way of immigration reform: “…stop wasting their time…” He’s referring to trying to get bipartisan immigration reform through Congress before the November mid-term elections. Here’s the complete quote: “Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November. Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing anything to solves this decades-old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!”

Trump is right on this. It’s a huge waste of time trying to get this through when Republicans don’t have the votes to do it yet. Of course, Mitch McConnell could change the voting rules and go to ’51’ in the Senate and that would handle this probably. But what are the chances of that these days? Not good, so Trump’s logic here is very sound. Given, as a PR move, it doesn’t look as compassionate as the Dems are demanding on the separation of children from illegal alien parents and guardians at the border. But frankly, nothing would be good enough for the left except totally open borders and an end to ICE and the prosecution of those that break the law. That’s communism and that’s not going to happen.

It may alienate some moderates and Independents, but Trump’s base will love this. And they will love it because the House failed to pass the Freedom Caucus-supported Goodlatte bill because of opposition from RINO “moderates.” You know, Paul Ryan’s foot soldiers. The bill was a compromise that would have given DACA recipients legal status. It would have also ended chain migration, eliminated the visa lottery and funded the president’s border wall. Ryan wasn’t game for that as he supports illegal immigration.

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

From the Center for Immigration Studies:

“The Ryan bill offers amnesty and a path to citizenship for an estimated 2.2 million direct beneficiaries. This includes an estimated 1.9 million aliens believed to be potentially eligible for the proposed amnesty, which has the same basic qualifying criteria as President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (arrived in the United States before 2007 while under age 16, continuous presence for at least five years, and present illegally in June, 2012). This population includes those who could have but did not apply for DACA or who were too young to apply.

“The Ryan amnesty also includes a group that is brand new to the amnesty debate: adult sons and daughters of certain guest workers who arrived while younger than 16, who have lived in the United States for 10 years, and who are too old to qualify for green cards or temporary visa renewals. These are adults whose parents were admitted more than 10 years ago as temporary non-immigrants in one of three categories: Treaty Traders/Investors (E category), Specialty Occupations (H-1B), and Intra-company Transferees (L). All of these categories have been controversial because of fraud and/or displacement of American workers. Based on official statistics on the number and ages of temporary visa holders admitted in the relevant years, I estimate that approximately 300,000 aliens could qualify for amnesty in this category.

“The Ryan bill preserves the largest chain migration categories (unlimited spouses and parents of naturalized citizens) and eliminates other chain categories (adult married sons and daughters of naturalized citizens and siblings of naturalized citizens) and the visa lottery. These numbers are reserved for use by amnesty beneficiaries and employment-based applicants. After these applicants are accommodated, the lottery and adult married sons and daughters categories are eliminated, resulting in an annual reduction of 78,400 green cards. Meanwhile, the additional green cards from the large amnesty and the additional chain migration would cause an annual increase of about 220,000. The result is a net increase of 2.12 million green cards over 15 years (3.3 million amnesty plus chain beneficiaries minus 1.18 million fewer chain and lottery green cards).

“In contrast, the alternative bill, known as the Goodlatte bill (HR 4760), includes a more limited amnesty and deeper cuts to chain migration. The Goodlatte amnesty would be available to about 700,000 aliens who received work permits and deportation protection under President Obama’s DACA program. The amnesty does not include a direct path to a green card or citizenship, so beneficiaries would not be able to sponsor family members. Therefore, there would be no chain migration resulting from the amnesty.

“In addition, the Goodlatte bill would eliminate several large chain migration categories and the visa lottery. The categories eliminated (after one year) would be: adult sons and daughters of naturalized citizens and permanent residents, and siblings of naturalized citizens. In addition, the category for parents of naturalized citizens would be replaced with a temporary visa for parents, although the parents of naturalized amnesty beneficiaries would not qualify. Together these provisions would reduce legal immigration by approximately 138,000 per year (accounting for the one-year grandfathering of chain green cards). This would result in a net decrease of about 1.23 million green cards over 15 years (138,000 times 14 years minus 700,000 amnesty beneficiaries).”

The Goodlatte bill would have resulted “in a net decrease in green cards of 1.23 million over the next 15 years because it offers a much smaller amnesty and makes prompt, deep cuts to chain migration categories.” Downtrend points out that Ryan and his attendant RINO moderates now plan to pursue a “compromise bill” that the center notes “would result in a net increase of 2.12 million more green cards through amnesty and chain migration over the next 15 years.” That’s an open borders invasion, plain and simple. It is absolutely unacceptable and the wall would not be part of it either. President Trump does not intend to compromise with Paul Ryan and the RINOs. Good for him.

It’s really tough to make any meaningful progress when you not only have Democratic leftists against you, but members of your own party led by Paul Ryan. This is why a number of Republicans want to forcibly oust Ryan and install the Freedom Caucus’ Jim Jordan as Speaker of the House. I applaud President Trump for having a strong, reasoned stance here and basically telling Republicans to strengthen their hand before they make their move.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Immigrants Living On Taxpayer Dime Got Rude Awakening Thanks To Trump’s ‘New Rule’

Immigrants just got a harsh wake-up call from President Trump!

Published

on

A new rule is being cooked up by the Trump administration that will send a rude awakening to immigrants living on the taxpayer dime. Trump’s new rule brings up the “public charge” in what the New York Times stated was a law that was about 100-years-old but was reworked in 1999. President Donald Trump’s new rule, which is in the works, not in action, could affect up to 1 million people in New York alone.

It has to do with immigrants using resources for welfare benefits and being listed in the realm of being a “burden” on the funds.

The New York Times stated: “But a new rule in the works from the Trump administration would make it difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants who use those benefits to obtain green cards.

New York City officials estimated that at least a million people here could be hurt by this plan, warning that the children of immigrants seeking green cards would be most vulnerable.

That’s because if applicants use any welfare benefits, even for children who are United States citizens, that could indicate they would be a burden on government resources. “What feels deeply concerning,” said Bitta Mostofi, New York City’s commissioner of immigrant affairs, “is the impact on the welfare of children, period.”

The spin they put on it makes it seem like this will leave families without food and that President Trump is going after immigrant children. What it should really be looked at is a rule that helps people become more motivated to get jobs and provide food for their families on their own, not live on the government dole while other people work 60 hours a week just to have funds for the welfare of others taken out of their check via taxes.

There are two ways to look at their new possible rules. The liberals will say it’s an attack on children and immigrants. The people with more common sense will say it’s about time that people started working for themselves. That brings up the classic debate that many of the working class are tired of hearing about – taxes and welfare. People who work for a living don’t like seeing their money given to people who refuse to work for a living.

Being on welfare because you have to is one thing. Some people are unable to work and need help. That’s different and most Americans are happy to help in that scenario. When people are on tough times, then sometimes they need a little bit of help, and that’s acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of. However, there are people who milk the system and refuse to work and that needs to be stopped at all costs. Being on welfare because you purposely choose not to work is a bad thing and any president that we have should be inclined to get people off the couch and back to being productive.

Just for reference, the public charge fact sheet states:

“Introduction

“Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.

“Background

“Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to permanent resident (obtaining a green card) is inadmissible if the individual “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status will not be granted.

“Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a noncitizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received federal, state, or local public benefits. Some noncitizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

“Definition of Public Charge

“In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge” as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

“Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

“In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

“Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

  • Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
  • Housing benefits
  • Child care services
  • Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Emergency disaster relief
  • Foster care and adoption assistance
  • Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
  • Job training programs
  • In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
  • Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
  • Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
  • Unemployment compensation

“Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for ongoing cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

“Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.”

Continue Reading

News

Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!

Published

on

Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend