ICE Director Squashes “Retaliation Charge” by Democrats

During an interview, Thomas D. Holman (Deputy Director and Senior Official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]) deals with the charge by the Left that sending more ICE agents to California and other sanctuary cities is retaliation. Director Holman squashes that charge with common sense thinking and notes that immigrant communities would rather the state and these municipalities cooperate with ICE… the entire interview can be heard here:

These sanctuary cities are not safer either… another Democrat lie.

“You’re a Humanitarian, Trump is a Nazi” – Ingraham to Vicente Fox

Laura Ingraham receives former Mexico President Vicente Fox who has most noticeably been a virulent critic to U.S. President Donald Trump since the American 2016 elections.

Main Stream Media Blames Schumer For Failed Shutdown

Larry Elder goes through an interview where CNN’s Brooke Baldwin presses Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) about what the Democrats got in return for shutting down the government. Even Brooke Baldwin is taken back by the spin. Other clips from CNN show that the onus lays at Schumer’s feet… what I mean by that is when you have lost CNN, you know you are in deep doo-doo.

The Legal Term IS “Illegal Alien”

Larry Elder introduces the millennial and Leftist to law. “Illegal Alien” is the term used in our statutes. “Undocumented immigrant, for instance, is a made up term, not found anywhere on our law books. A montage of Democrats agreeing with President Trump finishes out a good portion of the audio.

Here is more at the LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS:

Is the term “illegal alien” racist? What is the appropriate term to describe the status of those who broke our laws either by illegally entering or over-staying the time allowed under a student, work or other temporary permit?

Cindy Rodriguez of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists considers the term “illegal” to be a pejorative, used by “reactionary commentators and politicians” and “radio talk shows.”

“If you can control the words people use,” Rodriguez says, “you can frame the issue… That’s how propaganda works. Repeat the words continually until it reshapes the way people think.”

Attorney Gloria Allred represented gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s Mexican-born housekeeper. Allred said the term “alien” should apply only to those “from outer space.”

Words matter.

The term “illegal alien” does not only apply, of course, to persons of Mexican or Hispanic heritage. “Illegal alien” is a race- and ethnicity-neutral term. The U.S. Code defines an “alien” as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”

The word “alien” appears numerous times in the U.S. Code and is applied to those who live here legally (tourists, resident aliens, students on visas), as well as to those who live here illegally.

The term “illegal alien” is used throughout U.S. law in statutes and court cases – all referring to non-U.S. citizens who illegally enter and/or unlawfully stay here. The code painstakingly defines the procedures to grant “immigrant status” to an alien – a privilege reserved for those who follow the law.

Guess what term doesn’t appear in U.S. immigration law? “Illegal immigrant.”……………

“I wish I had killed more [cops]” – Illegal Alien

(Via DAILY CALLER) President Trump’s re-election campaign released a new ad on Saturday slamming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats as “complicit” in future murders committed by illegal immigrants.

The ad featured Luis Bracamontes, an illegal immigrant on trial for killing two police officers who told a judge he only wished he “had killed more of the mother******s.”….. (See more via CBS)

Reagan Regretted Trusting Democrats Regarding Amnesty

Mind you, to be clear, Reagan didn’t regret “amnesty,” he regretted TRUSTING THE DEMOCRATS who did not live up to securing the border ….. sound familiar? Larry speaks with John Heubusch of the Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute:

THE STREAM has this excellent article,

  • What Trump Could Learn From The Reagan Immigration Amnesty: The Reagan Amnesty Of 2.7 Million Illegal Immigrants Was Paired With The Promise Of Controlling The Border

Of which I excerpt a portion of:

…In his book, Reagan: The Life, H.W. Brands writes about the president’s interpretation of a 1986 immigration bill at the time.

“Al Simpson came by to see if he had my support,” Reagan recorded in October 1986, shortly after the measure cleared the House. “They have one or two amendments we could do without, but even if the Senate conference can’t get them out, I’ll sign it. It’s high time we regained control of our borders, and this bill will do it.”

The legislation at the time was widely viewed as an enforcement-first measure, said then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who advised Reagan on the matter along with other Cabinet officials.

“It is very definitely a teachable moment,” Meese, the Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow emeritus at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal, when asked how the 1986 legislation might inform President Donald Trump in his negotiations with congressional Democrats on codifying the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), implemented by his predecessor.

The Reagan amnesty of 2.7 million illegal immigrants was paired with the promise of controlling the border and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants. The legislation was better known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, named for its sponsors, Simpson and then-Rep. Romano Mazzoli, D-Ky.

The problem with the 1986 law was that the promised enforcement didn’t occur, but the amnesty did, Meese said….

President Reagan’s Remarks at Signing Ceremony for Immigration Reform and Control Act in Roosevelt Room. November 6, 1986

California vs. America

Below are two positions taken by a left leaning columnist and a right leaning columnist that essentially say the same thing. SOMETHING, mind you, Dennis tapped into some time ago in his article entitled, “AMERICA’S SECOND CIVIL WAR.” Here are the other two articles mentioned in these audios:

  1. Tim Arango of the New York Times: “In Clash Between California and Trump, It’s One America Versus Another
  2. Michael Walsh* at American Greatness: “Democrats Fire on Fort Sumter

Before beginning I just wish to say that California is working against the clear Constitutional mandates that the Federal government controls and protects its borders… and the Trump administration is working against the Constitution in its trying to fight against California’s legalization of marijuana. NOTE! If you are for the state of California choosing to legalize pot, but against the state defining marriage as between one-man and one-woman… you are a confused individual who makes choices on emotion and not Constitutional foresight/understanding. When Walsh and Prager discuss “arresting California lawmakers,” in my minds eye the legal standing ta do this is Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution — which reads:

  • “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government

I have been warning about this for years in regard to The Golden State… California is setting itself and our country up for a world of hurt.



* Michael Walsh is a journalist, author, and screenwriter. He was for 16 years the music critic of Time Magazine. His works include the novels, “As Time Goes By,” “And All the Saints” (winner, 2004 American Book Award for fiction) and the “Devlin” series of thrillers; as well as the recent nonfiction bestseller, “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace.” A sequel, “The Fiery Angel,” is scheduled to appear in 2018.

Obama and Krugman Held White Supremacist Views

Here are some portions of the LARGE and EXCELLENT article at THE ATLANTIC JOURNAL:

…In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.

Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.

“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?


A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”


Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found to promote a similar agenda.

This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”

Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”

Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016,’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”

But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”

It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.