Amnesty Has Consequences: Conservatives Warn Against Making DACA Law

As is often overlooked in the biased, mainstream political discussion about the president’s DACA decision, the problem with Obama’s executive order on childhood arrivals is twofold. One, it was an unconstitutional power grab by a president who enjoyed using his “pen and phone” to sidestep Congress and essentially make law from the confines of the Oval Office. Two, it sent the wrong message to would-be illegal immigrants: As long as you behave in a certain way after arriving in the U.S., you too could be eligible for amnesty as long as you have a sympathetic liberal in the White House. There can be no doubt that Obama’s DACA decree contributed to the overwhelming surge of illegal immigration we saw in the years after.

By eliminating the DACA program last week, President Trump remedied the first problem. He was advised by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the order was indefensible in court, and he was facing a legal challenge by the same states that managed to put DAPA – Obama’s later immigration order – on ice. Faced with the unenviable position of defending an executive order that went against everything his campaign was about, Trump had little choice but to scrap the program and restore the constitutional boundaries of the executive branch.

But now there’s that second problem. Yes, Congress and Trump are talking up the eager possibility of passing some kind of DACA-like legislation into law, but while that would at least put us back on solid constitutional ground, it doesn’t do anything to address the specific, underlying problem of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. And that’s what many conservatives are sounding the alarm about this week.

In an interview with CBS, Sen. Tom Cotton said it would be a mistake to implement the kind of “immigration reform” the president and many Republican leaders have been talking about.

“It is going to open up a whole new category of people who could get legal status, namely their parents who violated the law by bringing them here, and it’s going to encourage other people to bring their children across the border in the future, which is a very dangerous thing to do,” Cotton said.

But even if we take the “dangling carrot” argument off the table, the potential for a DACE-esque piece of legislation to cost American taxpayers enormously cannot be ignored. Because while Obama’s order only covered 800,000 illegal immigrants, there’s no telling how many more would be shoved into the situation by overeager Democrats (and, frankly, plenty of rank-and-file Republicans). We could be looking at a scenario where amnesty is extended to nearly 3 million young arrivals, a watershed moment that would undoubtedly encourage immigration activists to pursue a broader amnesty law.

By any reckoning, this is NOT what Trump’s voters want, and it is NOT what this country needs in terms of expense, legality, or future immigration law.

We’re glad to see Obama’s unconstitutional order off the books, but that’s not the end of the debate. At least, we hope it isn’t.

Image result for just say no

Views: 37

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

First, TRUMP DID NOT ELIMINATE THE DACA PROGRAM... he announced no new applicants would be accepted and that those currently on DACA had 6 Months to register for a 2 Yr. Extension enabling ... Congress or 'HE' to take further action, to solve the DACA Problem...telling them in his own words " they have nothing to fear".  

How the HELL is that solving the problem... The President just kicked the can, on DACA and effectively illegal alien trafficking, down the road two more years; at the end of which time, one can 'wagger' based on previous historic actions, that He and Congress wil provide another extension, from deportation, to all those here under DACA... THIS IS A FORM OF AMNESTY.

Pres. Trump is playing with fire.... and he is about to get seriously burnt. In fact, his entire Presidency is about to take a very dangerous turn.  The people are waking up a major BETRAYAL by TRUMP.  Make no mistake the President is giving DACA recipeints, the majority who are well over 18yrs old, Amnesty.  No other discription defines what he has just done.  Pres. Trump just gave DACA recipients 2 more years of Amnesty, at the end of which time, he assured  DACA recipients that they have nothing to worry about.  Thus, signalling that should Congress not act, he would look favorably on more extensions... to deportation.

Make no mistake Pres. Trump just signaled it is ok to violate our Immigration law... that he favors and would sign a Bill giving DACA illegals 'Amnesty.' TRUMP IS FOR AMNESTY, no if, ands or buts, about it.  


What best describes what just happened is:

1) Obama's DACA Executive Order has been replaced or supplamented by Trump's Executive Order... The Constitution has been further damaged by this Administrations extension to the Obama doctrine of legislating from the Oval Office.

2) Illegal Aliens have been signaled to keep coming... as America is an open Borders Nation... incapable of regulating those entering the country ... a nation that is unable or unwilling to enforce its own laws.

3) The Trump Administration now owns the DACA problem...  Trump has officially joined with the policy of refusing to enforce the current laws... by extending and assuming the mandate of DACA... an unconstitutional act.  Trump is now officially part of the swamp.

I'd like to know what happened between the campaign trail and now.  He was so adamantly opposed to DACA and has now done a u-turn.  Ivanka/Jared?  Swapped favors?  

First, Ivanka and Jared.

2nd, the Generals fired all the MAGA people, K.T. McFarland and others less known.

The rope was noosed. Then thrown around his neck. Then slowly then faster, pulled in.

Now he works for them. The globalists. That's why McConnell and Lyin Ryan had nothing to worry and showed no worry. They knew what would happen.

Without someone next to him, like Bannon, Gorka, Sekulow, K.T. McFarland, to get him out of the noose, until he understood the depth of depravity that d.c., is, he floundered. It looks like a solution to him, the deal maker. IMHO, when you don't know the foundation, that is the result, the winds pull and you go with it. There is no doubt that he is brilliant in his skill set, but, again, without the foundation, it becomes a "just get a win" situation.



Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.


Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors. adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service