Illegal Immigration Bullet Points



Immigration Law, Definitions, and Brief History in “Modern” USA

If you do not have a Visa, a Green Card or citizenship in the United States and are currently living in the country, you are subject to deportation. Getting deported is a very serious aspect of immigration law; it is the process of the United States government removing illegal immigrants from the country. Deportation may eliminate your ability to secure a visa in the future. The United States Government may deport you for the following reasons:

  • If you enter the United States while being deemed “legally inadmissible” by the immigration laws of the federal government
  • Entering the country without a legal visa
  • Failure to renew a conditional permanent residency visa
  • Aiding an illegal immigrant with entering the country
  • Conviction of a criminal offense
  • Endangering national or public security
  • Participating in a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of securing an immigrant visa

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas.  The INA continues to influence the field of American immigration law.  To enforce the quotas, the INA created the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  The INS served as the federal agency that enforced these caps for remainder of the 20th century.

When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. Different categories of aliens include resident and nonresident, immigrant and non-immigrant, and documented and undocumented (“illegal”). The terms “documented” and “undocumented” refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S.  Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit.  The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.

The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA by equalizing the allocation of visas across foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and encouraging worldwide immigration.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 revolutionized the process of alien entry into the United States.  The IIRIRA eliminated the term “entry,” replacing it with “admission.”  An application for admission occurs whenever an alien arrives in the U.S. regardless of whether the arrival occurs at a designated port-of-entry. Applicants at either designated ports or otherwise must submit to an inspection by U.S. customs, even if the applicant possesses an immigrant visa.  The IIRIRA also employs the term “arriving alien” to describe applicant aliens attempting to enter the U.S., regardless of whether they arrive at a designated port, a non-designated point on the border, or are located in U.S. waters and brought to shore.

Post-9/11 reform

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS.  The Bush Administration had designed the Department of Homeland Security to foster increased intelligence sharing and dialogue between agencies responsible for responding to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism.  Within the Department, three different agencies – U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – now handle the duties formerly held by the INS.  Currently, the CBE handles the INS’s border patrol duties, the USCIS handles the INS’s naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions, and the ICE handles the INS’s deportation, intelligence, and investigatory functions.

Refugee and asylum seekers

The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the U.S. laws relating to refugee immigrants.  Under the Refugee Act, the term “refugee” refers to aliens with a fear of persecution upon returning to their homelands, stemming from their religion, race, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinions.  Anyone who delivers a missing American POW or MIA soldier receives refugee status from the United States.

The United States, however, denies refugee status to any alien who actively persecuted individuals of a certain race, political opinion, religion, nationality, or members of a certain social group.   As a matter of public policy, the government also typically refuses refugee applicants previously convicted of murderer.   For refugees who have “firmly resettled” in another country, the United States will deny a request for refugee admission.  The government considers refugees “firmly resettled” if the refugees have received an offer of citizenship, permanent residency, or some other permanent status from a foreign country.

Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States.  The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.

To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear.  A proof of actual fear requires meeting both a subjective and an objective test.  The subjective test requires that the refugee actually have an honest and genuine fear of being persecuted for some immutable trait, such as religion, race, and nationality.  Seekers of asylum must show a fear that membership in a social or political group has caused past persecution or has caused a well-founded fear that persecution will occur upon returning.  The applicant meets the objective standard by showing credible and direct evidence that a reasonable possibility of persecution exists upon the applicant’s return to the homeland.

The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.

Deferred Action (DACA/DAPA)

Deferred action is an administrative relief from deportation; DHS temporarily authorizes non-U.S. citizens to remain in the U.S.  Through deferred action, a non U.S. citizen may apply for employment authorization for the duration of the temporary stay.  Recipients of deferred action grants, however, cannot claim lawful status during that time, but they are considered lawfully present in the U.S.  In other words, they are not accruing unlawful presence, which could later render them inadmissible to the U.S. if and when they apply for permanent legal status.  DHS grants deferred action on a case-by-case basis.

In June 2012, the Obama administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  The program aimed to grant deferred action to those under 31 as of Jne 15, 2012, who entered the U.S. before their sixteenth birthday and continuously resided in the U.S> without lawful status since at least June 15, 2007.  The policy rationale was to prevent deportation of young adults and children, who grew up as Americans yet did not voluntarily enter the U.S. without lawful status.

In November 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions to address illegal immigration and to prioritize deporting felons not families.  The executive actions expanded the DACA program by extending the period from two to three years, removing the age requirement, and easing the continuous residency requirement (continuous residency since June 15, 2007 changed to January 1, 2010).  The executive actions also introduced the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.  The DAPA program permits parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents (LPR) to apply for deferred action if they have continuously resided in the U.S. since January 1, 2010 and had a U.S. citizen or LPR child as of November 20, 2014.

The expanded DACA and DAPA programs, however, are on hold due to a pending Supreme Court case, United States v. Texas.  USCIS is not currently accepting applications for the expanded DACA or DAPA programs.


“Some operations have taken place that have been focused on individuals, deporting individuals that have recently crossed the border. That is consistent with the kinds of enforcement priorities that the president and the secretary of homeland security discussed more than a year ago,” Earnest said at the daily briefing for reporters. “Certainly, people should take from this the understanding that the administration is quite serious about enforcing our immigration laws.”

Johnson said the batch of deportees were among immigrants who crossed the southern U.S. border illegally since May 2014. That’s when the U.S. began experiencing a surge of families and unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Officials say such crossings decreased by early last year, but began to pick up again in recent months.

Obama Administration officials expressed concern with the spike in the number of families and unaccompanied children apprehended at the southern border — particularly since illegal migration tends to slow down during colder months. In October and November 2015, just over 12,500 families were apprehended, compared with 4,577 during the same two months in 2014. Meanwhile, 10,588 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the southern border in October and November 2015, according to federal officials — more than double the number of minors who tried to cross into the United States during the same period in 2014.

The proposals to increase deportations appear to have stirred some dissent within the Obama administration. Just before Christmas, unnamed “people familiar with the operation” disclosed the plans to the Washington Post — a highly unusual leak about planned law enforcement actions. The disclosure of the planned raids drew immediate criticism from Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley condemned the planned actions, while front-runner Hillary Clinton issued a more muted statement through a spokeswoman, who said Clinton had “real concerns” about the plans. Word of the planned raids also highlight a political predicament for Clinton, who endorsed quick return of illegal immigrant children in 2014 but is also trying to court Latino voters.


Democrats LOVE Illegal Immigration


It appears to be true. But, hold on: it looks like some “Establishment Republicans” may be in the tank with Democrats. Two versions of comprehensive immigration bills are set to be introduced, debated, and voted on in the House of Representatives this week. Will they show up on the floor? Listen today to get the skinny!

DHS Secretary Nielsen details the truth of illegal immigration and the treatment of children by border agents. Watch this press briefing.



noun: “
an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses; an amnesty for political prisoners; an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.”

We will here this word often in the next month or two in combination with “Immigration Reform.” Accomplishing true immigration reform is critical to this Congress to complete before the mid-terms in November. Why? Listen today to find out what is at stake, what plans Congress has, and where our ongoing immigration dilemma actually lies today. Enjoy!


Discharge Petition: What is It?


The U.S. House of Representatives is frantically trying to get 218 signatures on such a petition. What is it? How does it work? What are they trying to accomplish with it? Answers to these and other questions coming right up! Thanks for listening.

MS-13: Illegal Immigrants or “Animals?”


President Trump was accused by the Mainstream Media of in a White House round table calling ALL illegal immigrants “Animals.” As often occurs, the MSM got it wrong — many feel on purpose. The President with that remark referenced ONLY members of the MS-13 gang — a vicious and violent gang that originated in El Salvador that systematically tortures, rapes, sometimes hacks off victims limbs and ev n decapitates victims. 

Let’s look closer at MS-13 and it’s impact in the USA. 

Immigration Explosion!


It’s time for Americans to receive the truth about Immigration: legal AND illegal immigration into the United States. How many legal immigrants do we bring in? How does that compare with the rest of the World? What is the timeline for legal immigration? Listen to today’s broadcast for this information and much more.

The “Wall”

Today everyone knows what you mean when you simply begin a conversation to talk about “The Wall” — that of course references the Wall President Trump has repeatedly promised to build between the U.S. and Mexico to eliminate most of illegal crossings into the U.S. from Mexico.

We are constantly bombarded by leftist talk show hosts, Democrat politicians, and even a few Republicans with an emphatic statement: “No wall on the U.S. southern border will stop illegals coming into the U.S. And thinking so is just plain lunacy.” Of course the “lunacy” reference is pointed directly at the President who some say is actually mentally deficient. (But that’s another story for another time.)

In all the talk and debate about “The Wall,” it seems important to take this discussion out of the political arena and find some facts that will either prove or disprove historically how such a wall (or one similar) has actually worked in either keeping people out or keeping people in. Believe it or not, there are quite a few historical examples. Let’s pull the plug on “The Wall” emotions and try to find some factual context on which to make a non-emotional decision: should we or should we not build “The Wall.”


The Biblical Wall of Jericho is one of the earliest examples of a defensive wall constructed by a community. Two sets of walls found in Jericho, and excavated by Ernest Sellin and Carl Watzinger, date back to anywhere between 1950 BC and 1550 BC. But the earliest evidence of a wall is believed to date to 7825 BC. The most famous Wall of Jericho, however, is the one mentioned in the Biblical account of the wall that the Israelites destroyed using the Ark of the Covenant (Book of Joshua). The wall is believed to have stood five feet thick, anywhere between 12 and 17 feet tall, surrounded by a 27-footwide and nine-foot deep ditch. It is hypothesized that the Wall of Jericho was constructed not only for defensive purposes, but also to protect the city from floods and for ceremonial usages. The Tower of Jericho may have been a means to draw individuals into the city. After the wall came tumbling down, according to biblical text, every man, woman, and child in the city of Jericho was put to the sword save for the family who harbored Israeli spies during the siege.

Hadrian’s Wall

Hadrian’s Wall, constructed between 122 AD and 128 AD for inspection by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, was a reaction to rebellions that Rome experienced by the provincial peoples of Britannia. The wall stood an impressive ten feet wide, 16 to 20 feet tall, and 73 miles long, following the course of the Tyne River. Historians disagree on the explicit purpose of Hadrian’s Wall, though it is widely considered to have been an attempt at curbing immigration as well as providing an opportunity to tax anyone crossing the wall. In this endeavor, Hadrian’s Wall was a success. Even when a different wall was constructed during the reign of Antoninus Pius farther north (the Antonine Wall), the Romans opted to permanently keep its legions along Hadrian’s Wall. Until the end of Roman rule in the province of Britannia, Hadrian’s Wall stood strong. When Rome lost its hold on the province, however, the wall was largely dismantled for parts by the “barbarian” populations against whom it had stood.

The Great Wall of China

The Great Wall of China was not always so great. It began as a series of independently constructed walls as long ago as the 7th century BC. Over time, they became connected into a single vast wall spanning a staggering 5,500 miles during the Ming Era. The wall’s military purpose was to defend China against the multitude of invaders that plagued the borderlands – primarily the Mongols and the Manchu. But the walls provided other economic and social benefits for China, allowing the Chinese to enforce economic duties along the Silk Road as well as decrease the number of immigrants from Central Asia. As a means of maintaining control over citizens of China and their trade, the Great Wall was quite successful. However, the wall failed to keep invaders out entirely. Genghis Khan and his Mongol warriors, the Liao, the Jin, and the Manchus all managed to invade and take territory across the wall. Though this wall has never been altogether destroyed, its maintenance was, and is, such a colossal undertaking that large sections of it have fallen into disrepair over time.

Moscow’s Kremlin Walls

When Moscow was founded in the 12th century it was fortified only by wooden fences and rudimentary walls. However, under Tsar Ivan I, Muscovy began a concerted project to construct a wall around the Kremlin made of oak (1339-1340). In 1365, these walls were razed and a new wall made of limestone was constructed under the reign of Dmitrii Donskoi in the late 14th century. These walls were never toppled though they were largely redone and renovated by Tsar Ivan III (or Ivan the Great) in the late 15th century. This version of the Kremlin wall, finished in 1495, was over a mile in length varied in height from 16 feet to over 60 feet and in thickness from 11 feet to over 20 feet. The Kremlin walls failed, however, to keep Batu Khan, the Poles, and Napoleon out of Moscow despite never being physically destroyed. While the Kremlin’s walls originally served a solely defensive purpose, they stand today as a powerful symbol of Russian national identity.

Wall Street’s Walls

I bet you never thought about THESE walls. In the seventeenth century, the wall on what is now Wall Street created a barrier between the Dutch and their Native American neighbors. The fortified wall stretched from Pearl Street, which was one shoreline of Manhattan at the time, to the other shoreline, modern day Trinity Place. During this period, Wall Street was also the marketplace where owners could hire out their slaves. The rampart was removed in 1699, but the corners of Pearl and Wall Street remained a location for trade and business. After the Buttonwood Agreement in 1792 that organized a traders’ association—which was the origin of the New York Stock Exchange—businesses slowly flocked to the area, pushing out residents in the nineteenth century, and the Wall Street of today was born.

Berlin Wall

Officially known on the East German side as the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart, this infamous wall is an extraordinary example of a society’s attempt to halt the movement of its own people, separating Germans (and often families) into two different worlds. The Soviet, eastern side of Germany had a vested interest in keeping out the ideals, culture, and economic models of the West during the Cold War. Upon completion, the wall stood 87 miles long with another wall running parallel to the original just 300 feet behind it. In its infancy the wall was primarily made of barbed wire but over time it evolved into an extremely formidable border. Concrete, barbed wire, and a no man’s land of empty space between the walls makes this barrier system one of the most daunting walls in human history. It was not to persist, however. In October of 1989, the East German government decided to allow some citizens to emigrate to West Germany, which resulted in a swarming of the wall checkpoints by thousands of citizens. And on November 9, the Berlin Wall was officially opened.

Korean Demilitarized Zone “Walls”

Snaking across the width of the Korean peninsula, this wall creates a 160-mile-long, two-and-a-half-mile-wide buffer zone between North and South Korea. The DMZ was constructed along the 38th Parallel and is considered to be the most heavily militarized border in the entire world. Incidents and incursions continue along the DMZ, although recent peace talks have begun ever so slightly to depressurize the border. The two countries have agreed to allow families divided between Northern and Southern halves of the border to reunite in a rare effort at cohabitation. Such efforts do not erase recent episodes of landmine explosions, cross-boundary rocket fire, and propaganda radio broadcasts, however, but may ease tensions along the political powder keg that is the DMZ. Since the Korean conflict ended in 1953 in a truce, the state of war between Seoul and Pyongyang continues to validate the existence of the world’s most heavily guarded border. This wall stands as perhaps the most effective anti-migrant fortification in all of human history. It has kept the populations of two independent nations almost entirely secluded from one another for over six decades.

West Bank Barrier

This monster of a wall currently runs along the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line (or the Green Line) that separates Israel from the territories of the West Bank. This barrier runs a staggering 330 feet in width at certain places and up to 26 feet high. The primary reasons for the construction of this barrier (which began in approximately 2000) are contentious. The Israeli government states that the wall is being built to protect Israeli citizens from suicide bombers and radical terrorist organizations. Opposition groups argue that the barrier is a land-grab disguised as a defensive perimeter. Though construction on the wall has not yet been completed, some reports indicate that there has been a marked decline in the number of suicide attacks within Israel.

The Pakistan Wall

Yep. Believe it or not, Pakistan is building a wall right now between their country and Afghanistan. After decades of unsuccessfully controlling the flow of terrorists and criminals who quietly slip back and forth across the porous 1,500-mile border between the two countries, evading capture, the Pakistan government chose to stop the illegal and deadly border crossings with a wall. The wall is not concrete, but consists of a comprehensive border system that includes two layers of 12-feet-tall barbed-wire fencing, surveillance cameras, solar lights, an intrusion detection system, and hundreds of manned forts and thousands of observation posts. It is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019.


Wow! Not a single detractor of President Trump’s wall even mentions a single historical wall that in most cases has been very successful at doing one of two things: keeping people in, or keeping people out. With the furor surrounding the funding and construction of “The Wall,” I thought it timely to simply ask a few questions for all to ponder as the historical walls above and their impact from their construction are being discussed. These questions all apply to not any wall but “The Wall:”

  1. If such walls have pretty much worked historically, why the fuss by many to not just fund “The Wall,” but to with all the energy that can be mustered actively campaign to stop its construction? Surely NO American thinks spending $25 Billion on a border wall even though very expensive is too much for the U.S. to spend. That’s about 2 hours worth of government spending today!
  2. If the amount of money to build “The Wall” is not really unreasonable, do these wall haters have ulterior motives for their hate? If so, what could those motives possibly be?
  3. Why do these detractors want so desperately to apparently keep the southern border open that allows millions of illegals into the U.S. whose presence here is many cases is dangerous but in EVERY case costs American taxpayers billions of dollars and millions of jobs?

I’ll let you answer these three questions for yourself. But a very smart man told me when there is ever a political conundrum that needs its reason to be ferreted out, you can always “follow the money.” And in today’s political world, one does not have to follow the money, just follow the power. Power brings with its accumulation EVERYTHING — including money.

My two cents? Democrats don’t want “The Wall” because they fancy all those Spanish speaking illegals becoming citizens, obtaining the right to vote, and claiming those millions of voters as part of “their” followers, thus getting all those votes.

Before you decide to slap me around for that negative opinion of Democrats, consider this: that mindset has certainly worked for them before. Remember: Democrats could NOT in Congress pass the Civil Rights Act. Republicans passed it! Democrats stood against giving blacks the right to vote in 1964. Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan. Democrats devised today’s Welfare Program to make it financially unfeasible for African American couples to marry and live together, thus creating broken single-parent black homes. All of this was to force African Americans to feel obligated to……DEMOCRATS.

You can bet Dems are counting on the same situation with these illegals. And Donald Trump is probably the first president to recognize it AND BE WILLING TO FIGHT TO KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING!

“Illegal” is NOT a Race

For that matter, “Legal” is NOT a Race Either!

The U.S. Senate in the “darkness” of media coverage of government due to the Florida shootings, spent hours negotiating 4 different immigration plans. To no one’s surprise, they accomplished NOTHING. The DACA “fix” calendar is set to expire at end-of-business March 5, 2018. Is everyone ready? Nope. Congress left D.C. for another “vacation.”

Details of 4 Failed Senate Immigration Proposals

  • The Coons-McCain Bill. Provided a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children.Offered no money for Trump’s border wall, though it did include some border security measures. It failed 52 to 47, with Democrats almost united in favor and Republicans mostly voting against it.
  • The Toomey Amendment. The second vote, on an amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), did not actually address DACA or border security. It would have penalized so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration policy, by withholding federal funding from those municipalities. The issue has been a fixation for Trump and some of the conservative hardliners in Congress.

    It failed 54 to 45. Republicans and a few Democrats supported it, but most Democrats were opposed.

  • The Common Sense Plan. The so-called Common Sense Caucus, a large bipartisan group led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), released its own outline. The plan had gained the endorsement of Democratic leadership and was technically sponsored by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. It would have:

    • Provided a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children
    • Offered $25 billion for border security
    • Prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents for legal status

    It failed 54 to 45. Democrats almost unanimously backed the plan, along with eight Republicans. But the rest of the GOP conference and a handful of Democrats blocked the bill.

  • The Grassley bill would have:

    • Provided a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children
    • Offered $25 billion to fund a southern border wall
    • Substantially curtailed family immigration and eliminated the diversity visa lottery program in such a way that would dramatically impact the legal immigration system

    It failed, 39 to 60. Democrats opposed the bill en masse, joined by a notable number of Republicans, while most of the GOP conference and a couple Democrats supported it.

Legislative Fallout

Let’s discuss the obvious:

  • The Senate got NOTHING accomplished;
  • America has needed a comprehensive immigration overhaul for 30 years — and thanks to a “do nothing” Congress, STILL needs one;
  • Approximately 1 million DACA classified people are virtually on hold with their lives, hoping the U.S. Congress can somehow create a realistic immigration path specifically for them by March 5. Imagine your not knowing if you were going to be thrown out of the U.S. — where you’ve been living for 20 years because your parents brought you when you were very small — in just a few days, IF a majority of the 535 members of Congress fail to agree on an immigration plan. These people are literally being held hostage by these spoiled brats who hold Congressional positions who each took an oath to serve Americans by crafting and passing laws. Not only did the Senate fail to pass one of the above 4 plans, they failed to pass ANY plan! And they’re now on another vacation break;
  • The American media has the public so confused about Immigration that very few know the realities of current Immigration law, what DACA is and how it works, what “chain immigration” is, or what the “VISA lottery system is.” And the Leftist have made this happen purposefully. Theirs is a particular agenda that supports Democrats and other Open Border pundits who want immigrants without number to not only be allowed here, but to be given voting rights immediately. Giving those voters power to determine the holders of EVERY national political office is the sole reason for this crazy Leftist narrative;
  • A key component of this Leftist narrative that has poisoned real Immigration discussion is that everyone who opposes the Open Border concept is racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. But when in recent history has the truth of any proposed legislation (or any other political hot item, for that matter) been of critical importance to the Leftist Media? Pushing their narrative resulted in their trashing the truth of it long ago;
  • The vast population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. — contrary to Mainstream Media reports — is draining the coffers of the Federal Government. Members of the MSM claim that these immigrants perform jobs that are refused by Americans, pay large amounts of taxes, and police themselves. None of this is verifiable. The fact that verification of these “facts” is impossible makes it easy for them to sell their lies. It feeds their narrative which feeds their cause (detailed above) As usual, American voters pay the price for these immigrants, which sadly includes burying legal loved ones who are often victimized by illegal immigrants. That does not take into account the billions of tax dollars that are sucked up by illegals taking advantage of free public education, housing assistance, healthcare resources, and in many cases taking jobs away from low and middle class Americans. Very few actually pay taxes. How can they get away with that? THEY ARE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL — NO ONE KNOWS WHERE OR WHO THEY ARE! Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I challenge you to challenge them with FACTS — not Immigration pundits who push the story that immigrants pay their own way;
  • There has never been an answer given for the failure of the last Administration to pass a comprehensive immigration plan. Dems controlled the House and Senate under Obama, yet could not get a plan passed. Why is that? Simple: Americans do not want illegals given citizenship without paying the price for being here illegally! Americans who feel this way are NOT racist. Think about it: as the title to this story says, “Illegal” is NOT a Race! “Illegal” simply means that person or that act is someone or some thing that is “Illegal!” Immigration race-baitors need to come up with another term to use to denigrate American citizens.

What Is DACA?

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an American immigration policy that allowed some individuals who entered the country as minors, and had either entered or remained in the country illegally, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for a work permit. As of 2017, approximately 800,000 individuals were enrolled in the program created by DACA. The policy was established by the Obama Administration in June 2012 and plans to begin phasing it out were intitiated by the Trump Administration in September 2017.

Do not be confused: DACA does NOT impact the estimated 20 million OTHER illegal aliens in the U.S. The action considered by the Senate did not include action on those other illegals — just DACA. Where did the 1.8 million number come from that President Trump offered to include in his 4-point DACA Immigration plan? Only 800,000 of the 1.8 million illegals who were eligible to enroll in DACA did so. The President graciously offered to include them as well. This is still one more reason why the inaction of the Senate to pass legislation to beat the March deadline proves one thing: Democrats really do not want a real comprehensive Immigration plan. They want open borders and unlimited illegals here in the U.S. But, of course, Dems want them ALL to vote.

My Predictions

  1. Congress will not pass a DACA plan before the deadline. And that’s no big deal. Why? Read on;
  2. Federal courts have intervened in setting that March deadline while changing the DACA policy is underway. Those courts did NOT set a date for their ruling to expire. What will happen is simply that those DACA allowances for those who are in enrolled in the current period will simply be extended;
  3. NO DACA or other Immigration legislation will be passed before November. Why? Democrats who have demonstrated do NOT want any Immigration legislation passed want to paint the failure to do so as a G.O.P. idea and President Trump’s fault. The Democrat Party is falling apart. They are grasping for straws to find any ammunition possible to give them even a hint of credibility with American voters. Otherwise they are toast in November. And DACA immigrants are simply election ploys for the Dems;
  4. After the new Congress is seated after November elections, either the G.O.P. will increase its margins in both House and Senate or Dems will have regained control. That will result in a new Immigration law that will take care of DACA in early 2019. Americans better pray Dems do not drive the D.C. bus next year. If that happens, Spanish will be the official language in the U.S. in just a couple of years. And native born Americans will shortly thereafter be in the minority.


None of this is about those young illegals whose parents brought them here and what is best for them. Leftists as they so often do are simply using these folks as political pawns. We watch this practice happen so often, most have become oblivious to its existence. Why not? All we ever hear, see, and read is that Leftist narrative from almost every news outlet in the U.S.

Sadly, Democrats and their purveyors will one day wake up and say, “Uh-Oh!”

Hopefully it will not be too late when that day arrives.





Are Americans’ Concerns about Immigration Racist?

The short answer: Not necessarily.

Don’t get me wrong — I am pretty certain that some people simply do not want people of different races or religions coming to “their” country. But on the most part, people are pretty concerned about immigrants in such large numbers who are poor, poorly educated, ignorant to U.S. cultural and societal differences, being thrust into American life immediately upon their arrival. Let’s face it: the United States is vastly different from almost every other country on Earth. Reconciling those differences with life circumstances of other countries is pretty much always a cruel task. And that reconciliation in large part never happens or never happens fully.

It is short-sighted for those who demean Americans for having these concerns. After all, living in the U.S. is a privilege for both U.S. born and foreign born immigrants. Remember that word “privilege.” Many open-border pundits make a false claim to justify their no-boundary political thinking that America and Americans owe something to those from other countries. And all those who simply WANT to live in the U.S. should automatically be eligible to do so. That will be argued vehemently by both sides in the coming months as the government is forced to confront some type of resolution of the DACA issue, then later the illegal immigration dilemma.

Karin McQuillan is an American who felt a call to serve the people of a third-world country after college. She joined the Peace Corp and headed on assignment to Senegal, West Africa. What follows is a pretty elaborate explanation of the issues that most if not all immigrants must face when coming to America. It will make you think.

What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right

By Karin McQuillan

            Karen McQuillan (on left)

“Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, ‘a fecalized environment.’ In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Last time I was in Paris, I saw a beautiful African woman in a grand boubou have her child defecate on the sidewalk next to Notre Dame Cathedral. The French police officer, ten steps from her, turned his head not to see. I have seen. I am not turning my head and pretending unpleasant things are not true.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible. As a twenty-one-year-old starting out in the Peace Corps, I loved Senegal. In fact, I was euphoric. I quickly made friends and had an adopted family. I relished the feeling of the brotherhood of man. People were open, willing to share their lives and, after they knew you, their innermost thoughts.

The longer I lived there, the more I understood: it became blindingly obvious that the Senegalese are not the same as us. The truths we hold to be self-evident are not evident to the Senegalese. How could they be? Their reality is totally different. You can’t understand anything in Senegal using American terms. Take something as basic as family. Family was a few hundred people, extending out to second and third cousins. All the men in one generation were called “father.” Senegalese are Muslim, with up to four wives. Girls had their clitorises cut off at puberty. (I witnessed this, at what I thought was going to be a nice coming-of-age ceremony, like a bat mitzvah or confirmation.) Sex, I was told, did not include kissing. Love and friendship in marriage were Western ideas. Fidelity was not a thing. Married women would have sex for a few cents to have cash for the market.

What I did witness every day was that women were worked half to death. Wives raised the food and fed their own children, did the heavy labor of walking miles to gather wood for the fire, drew water from the well or public faucet, pounded grain with heavy hand-held pestles, lived in their own huts, and had conjugal visits from their husbands on a rotating basis with their co-wives. Their husbands lazed in the shade of the trees. Yet family was crucial to people there in a way Americans cannot comprehend.

The Ten Commandments were not disobeyed – they were unknown. The value system was the exact opposite. You were supposed to steal everything you can to give to your own relatives. There are some Westernized Africans who try to rebel against the system. They fail.

We hear a lot about the kleptocratic elites of Africa. The kleptocracy extends through the whole society. My town had a medical clinic donated by international agencies. The medicine was stolen by the medical workers and sold to the local store.  If you were sick and didn’t have money, drop dead.  That was normal. So here in the States, when we discovered that my 98-year-old father’s Muslim health aide from Nigeria had stolen his clothes and wasn’t bathing him, I wasn’t surprised. It was familiar.

In Senegal, corruption ruled, from top to bottom. Go to the post office, and the clerk would name an outrageous price for a stamp. After paying the bribe, you still didn’t know it if it would be mailed or thrown out. That was normal. One of my most vivid memories was from the clinic. One day, as the wait grew hotter in the 110-degree heat, an old woman two feet from the medical aides – who were chatting in the shade of a mango tree instead of working – collapsed to the ground. They turned their heads so as not to see her and kept talking. She lay there in the dirt. Callousness to the sick was normal.

Americans think it is a universal human instinct to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s not. It seems natural to us because we live in a Bible-based Judeo-Christian culture. We think the Protestant work ethic is universal. It’s not. My town was full of young men doing nothing. They were waiting for a government job. There was no private enterprise. Private business was not illegal, just impossible, given the nightmare of a third-world bureaucratic kleptocracy. It is also incompatible with Senegalese insistence on taking care of relatives.

All the little stores in Senegal were owned by Mauritanians. If a Senegalese wanted to run a little store, he’d go to another country. The reason? Your friends and relatives would ask you for stuff for free, and you would have to say yes. End of your business. You are not allowed to be a selfish individual and say no to relatives. The result: Everyone has nothing. The more I worked there and visited government officials doing absolutely nothing, the more I realized that no one in Senegal had the idea that a job means work. A job is something given to you by a relative. It provides the place where you steal everything to give back to your family.

I couldn’t wait to get home. So why would I want to bring Africa here? Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa. For the rest of my life, I will enjoy the greatest gift of the Peace Corps: I love and treasure America more than ever. I take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country and pass on the American heritage to the next generation.

African problems are made worse by our aid efforts. Senegal is full of smart, capable people. They will eventually solve their own country’s problems. They will do it on their terms, not ours. The solution is not to bring Africans here. We are lectured by Democrats that we must privilege third-world immigration by the hundred million with chain migration. They tell us we must end America as a white, Western, Judeo-Christian, capitalist nation – to prove we are not racist. I don’t need to prove a thing. Leftists want open borders because they resent whites, resent Western achievements, and hate America. They want to destroy America as we know it. As President Trump asked, why would we do that?

We have the right to choose what kind of country to live in. I was happy to donate a year of my life as a young woman to help the poor Senegalese. I am not willing to donate my country.”

How do Immigrants Gain Legal Status: Both Legal AND Illegals?

Non-stop we hear stories in national news about Immigration woes: for legals and illegals. In all the hoopla about illegal Immigration, should we not have a clear understanding of the process for immigrants to gain legal status in the U.S.? And what process do immigrants go through for old-fashioned legal admission to the U.S.? Let’s take a look:

Entering the United States without approval is illegal. So is staying in the U.S. without permission after your visa or other authorized stay has expired. Even violating the terms of a legal entry can make your stay illegal. The U.S. immigration law offers very few options to go from being illegal or undocumented immigrant to a U.S. permanent resident (with a green card). Here are the most likely possibilities below.

Option 1 – Marriage to U.S. Citizen

  • Entering into a valid, bona fide (real, not sham) marriage with a U.S. citizen (of the same or opposite sex) makes you an “immediate relative” under the U.S. immigration laws. An immediate relative is theoretically eligible for a U.S. green card just as soon as you can get through the application process. However, your current illegal status could create problems.
  • If you are in the United States illegally because you stayed past the expiration date on a valid visa, rather than having entered illegally (without inspection), consider yourself lucky: Your legal entry qualifies you for an exception, under which you should be able to apply for your green card without leaving the United States, using a procedure called “adjustment of status.”
  • If, however, your most recent entry into the United States was illegal – for example, you crossed the U.S. border in secret, without stopping at an inspection point – you have very little chance of adjusting your status to permanent resident based on your marriage. The exception is if you fall into one of the following categories, created by an old law called Section 245(i):
    * Your employer or a family member filed an immigrant visa petition or (in the case of an employer) a labor certification on your behalf before January 14, 1998.
    * Your employer or family member filed an immigrant visa petition or labor certification on your behalf between January 14, 1998 and April 21, 2001 and you can also prove that you were physically present in the U.S. on the date the applicable law was passed, which was December 21, 2000.
  • Getting married to a lawful permanent U.S. resident (rather than a citizen) will also technically make you eligible for a U.S. green card, but because you face a long wait before a visa becomes available to you, your chances of adjusting status are even less (unless you fit one of the two 245(i): exceptions described above).
  • There is one last hope for people who cannot adjust status based on their marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident: You can attend the interview for your green card (which is the last step in the application process) at an overseas U.S. consulate in your home country (called “consular processing”). However, at that point the consulate will penalize you for your illegal U.S. stay, with a time bar on returning to the United States. The penalty is either to spend three years outside the United States if you stayed in the U.S. illegally for six months (180 days) or more; or to spend ten years outside the United States if you stayed in the U.S. illegally for one year or more.
  • If you haven’t yet been in the United States illegally for six months or more, you might want to leave right away in order to make use of the consular processing possibility.
  • If you have already spent more than six months in the United States illegally, then talk to an immigration lawyer. You may qualify for a “waiver,” (legal forgiveness) allowing you to reenter the United States right away after your consular processing interview, but this waiver is hard to get. You would need to prove that your being denied the immigrant visa (green card) would cause extreme hardship to one or more of your U.S. citizen family members.

Option 2 – Service in the U.S. Military

If you serve honorably and on active duty with the U.S. Armed Forces during one of the wars or conflicts named below, the law allows you to apply for U.S. citizenship. You don’t even have to go through the usual step of applying for a green card first. You must, however, enlist (sign up) while on U.S. territory, such as the Canal Zone, American Samoa, Swains Island, or a noncommercial U.S. ship. The conflicts that qualify you for immediate U.S. citizenship include:

  • World War I (April 6, 1917 to November 11, 1918)
  • World War II (September 1, 1939 to December 31, 1946)
  • the Korean hostilities (June 25, 1950 to July 1, 1955)
  • the Vietnam hostilities (February 28, 1961 to October 15, 1978)
  • the Persian Gulf War (August 2, 1990 to April 11, 1991)
  • “Operation Enduring Freedom” (otherwise known as the “War on Terrorism” or “Iraq Hostilities”), which began September 11, 2001 and will end by order of the U.S. President.

Option 3 – Cancellation of Removal

If you are arrested by the immigration authorities, you might be able to avoid removal, and receive a U.S. green card, if you can prove all of the below:

  • You have already been physically present in the United States for at least ten years.
  • You have been a person of good moral character during those ten years.
  • Your removal from the U.S. would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to your spouse, parent, or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
  • You aren’t disqualified from cancellation for one of a variety of reasons, such as that you have committed one of various types of crimes or immigration violations, have persecuted others, have been a member of a totalitarian or communist party, and so on.
    Don’t attempt to apply for cancellation of removal on your own – it is only available if you are already in immigration court proceedings. You’ll definitely need a lawyer’s help in this situation.

Option 4 – Asylum

You can apply for the right to stay in the U.S. if you qualify for asylum and apply within one year of your entry or the expiration of your authorized stay. You’ll need to show that you have been persecuted, or fear future persecution, in your home country, based on your race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

The process involves submitting an application, together with detailed documentation of your membership in the group that you claim and the persecution that you faced or fear. If you are granted asylum, you can apply for a green card one year after your approval, and for U.S. citizenship four years after that. (If denied, you will be deported).

Option 5 – Temporary Protected Status

If you come from a country that has recently had a civil war, environmental or natural disaster, or other trouble that makes it unsafe for its citizens to return there, the United States may offer what’s known as Temporary Protected Status or “TPS.”
This is not a green card, nor does it lead to a green card. However, TPS would allow you to stay in the United States legally for a set amount of time (maximum 18 months), and to receive a work permit while you’re here.  See the USCIS website ( for details and the list of currently eligible countries.


In tomorrow’s edition we will give in detail the process for Legal Immigration into the United States. We will then conclude with an Analysis of Immigration issues and the fixes that Congress can use (and that Congress MUST use) to quickly correct Immigration issues — and there are many.

Please understand there ARE fixes for this issue that should have been enacted many years ago. Yet for purely political reasons, Congress has ignored the significant hardships placed on immigrants, their families, AND the United States by not doing so.

Immigration CAN be fixed. Immigration MUST be fixed!