RINO Senators At It Again Hope to Sneak Amnesty into Immigration Reforms

Immigration

Business advocates who want to import more foreign consumers and more foreign workers are developing plans to counter President Donald Trump’s popular call for a merit-based immigration reform.

The emerging strategy is to pair offers of minor concessions to Americans and Trump with demands for giveaways to business, including a bigger supply of low-wage workers and welfare-funded consumers. The immigration “pairing” strategy is being pushed by the industry-backed Business Policy Council, in cooperation with GOP Sen. Thom Tillis.

The strategy collides with Trump’s emphasis on raising Americans’ wages via “merit-based immigration,” which is also backed by a new productivity-boosting immigration drafted by two GOP Senators, David Perdue and Tom Cotton. “Real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws,” Trump told Congress February 28.

The business push for “pairing” creates a risk for the many Americans worried about cheap-labor migration, said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. President Trump “has the potential to be taken to the cleaners by [Sen.] Chuck Schumer because [immigraton] is something he doesn’t know anything about… hopefully [Steve] Bannon and [Stephen] Miller will prevent this from happening.”

Tillis and lobbyists at the BPC described their emerging “pairing” strategy at a recent press event.

“We have to have border security,” Tillis said in a conversation with Haley Barbour, the co-chair of the BPC’s immigration advocacy task force, who also runs a lobbying firm, the BGR Group. Tillis continued:

To me, it is absolutely essential [border security] be one of the first measures that we pass. Now the question is what can we pair with it that will start creating some sort of consensus going … around a series of other things that we can talk about, but we are not going to put in the [first] bill because if it gets too convoluted, if it becomes too comprehensive, than it starts falling apart.

In 2013, business groups allied with Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer to push a huge “comprehensive immigration reform” bill that provided amnesty and a huge flow of new migrants and workers. Schumer’s “Gang of Eight” bill was defeated because House Speaker John Boehner stalled business groups until public opposition became undeniable.

“Think about [pairing] DACA [President Barack Obama’s 2012 mini-amnesty for young illegals] with border security…. Think about [pairing more] work visas with E-Verify and other enforcement actions against employers,” Tillis said. E-Verify is a federal website that can help screen out illegal during job interviews. However, business lobbying has persuaded Congress to keep the use of E-Verify system voluntary, not mandatory.

E-Verify is a federal website that helps employers identify illegal aliens seeking jobs. However, business lobbying has persuaded Congress to keep the use of E-Verify system voluntary, not mandatory.

Tillis also dismissed Trump’s election-winning promise of a border wall, by suggesting that Congress deny funds for construction of a wall or fence along stretches of the border in favor of “other capabilities.” Border security, he said, “is one of the first things we need to do… [but] it seems to me we could get to a reasonable compromise on a bill that I think will be less costly and more effective than just the concept of a structure. Walls need to be where wall are, but other capabilities need to be elsewhere.”

Barbour and other BPC officials pushed the “pairing” strategy throughout the press event. “The idea of pairing… makes a lot of sense,” said Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush. Chertoff is the co-chair of the BPC’s Immigration Task Force.

Tillis’ office did not respond to Breitbart’s emails. Barbour declined an interview request.

Tillis’s policy goals are shaped by the needs of North Carolina’s agriculture industry, which continues to rely on cheap labor for harvesting crops, instead of developing high-productivity crop harvesting machines.

But he is also indirectly backed by his political neighbor, South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has repeatedly helped his state’s tourism and golfing resorts bring in wage-cutting foreign workers instead of raising wages to hire Americans. In a March 15 interview with Bloomberg, Graham echoed Barbour’s pairing strategy, saying:

The first one would combine ramped-up enforcement, starting with “the bad dudes,” and the legalization of [DACA] illegal immigrants who came here as minors. Republicans are open to that legalization, he said, and it “would be hard for Democrats to say no to securing the border and helping these 800,000 kids have a better life.”

The second one would legalize adult illegal immigrants working in agriculture and tourism, and at the same time require employers to use the e-verify program to make sure all new hires are legal workers.

Third, Graham would legalize those remaining illegal immigrants who passed a background check and paid a fine. In return he wants to shift legal immigration toward recruiting people with high skills rather than reuniting extended families. “The immigration system of the future would be merit-based,” he says.

In late 2012, Graham played a key role with Schumer in launching the 2013 “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.

The “pairing” deals sketched by Barbour, Tillis and Graham would allow a border wall plus an amnesty and the expanded work-permit program, which would give Democrats the future voters they want and also give business groups the new inflow of taxpayer-supported customers and wage-cutting white-collar workers that they want. That endless inflow of new workers would make it more difficult for white-collar and blue-collar Americans to win higher salaries as the economy expands.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/21/gop-senators-ske...

Views: 326

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

GOP Senator’s ‘Immigration Overhaul’ Would Include Amnesty

A new immigration reform plan by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) would include legalization and amnesty for the over 11 million living in the United States.

Tillis’ “immigration overhaul,” as The Wall Street Journal dubbed it, would serve as a new kind of “Gang of Eight” legislation, promising amnesty to illegal immigrants, which could eventually lead to a pathway to citizenship.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/01/24/gop-senators-immigration-...

Pro-Amnesty Lindsey Graham: Donald Trump Is Going to Kill My Party (VIDEO)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/pro-amnesty-lindsey-graham-...

Soros PAC Funnels $$$ to GOP Pro Amnesty PAC to Run Ads for Lindsey Graham

Amnesty has become the ultimate metaphor for the complete corruption of both parties, their complete contempt for Americans and their insatiable greed for the money and power that insider deals can bring them.

When television ads aired in South Carolina this spring attacking Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham for supporting immigration reform, a GOP group came to his aid. So did the other team.

"We came up with the money," said Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of America's Voice, a Washington-based group with close ties to the Obama White House. "We were just frustrated that nobody was doing anything, and Graham was under attack. We said, 'Fine, we will put money in.'"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/200340/soros-pac-funnels-gop-pro-...

Haley Barbour Joins Democratic Rising Star To Boost Amnesty

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/04/09/haley-barbour-jo...

All sell-outs. How about American's having better lives? With more and better jobs, less crime, the end of certain transmittable diseases, more and better education with classes who speak English? And those are only a few of the benefits of borders that protect WE the People.

Dream Act Amnesty Alert-----U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Miami, spoke last month at a downtown Miami forum touting immigrant entrepreneurs.

Bolstered by the White House’s apparent interest in protecting at least one group of unauthorized immigrants, Miami Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo on Thursday re-filed legislation that would allow people brought illegally as children to remain in the country.

The “Recognizing America’s Children Act” would offer an eventual path to U.S. citizenship to immigrants who entered illegally before Jan. 1, 2012, and were 16 years old or younger.

The legislation is essentially a new version of the DREAM Act, which failed in the Senate in 2010. Curbelo first proposed the bill last June, as he was running for reelection to Florida’s swing 26th congressional district.

He said he’s bringing it back because President Donald Trump, in his executive order on immigration, left in place the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — known as DACA — which shields so-called DREAMers from deportation.

“This White House has sent a very strong message by preserving the executive order that protects these young people,” Curbelo said in an interview with the Miami Herald. “We know that they’ve been very aggressive when it comes to immigration policy, so it certainly stands out that they have left the DACA executive order untouched.”

The bill would grant high school graduates without a serious criminal record — and who don’t rely on public assistance — conditional immigration status. If, over a five-year period, they earn a higher-education degree, serve in the military or stay employed, they could apply for permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship.

Enlisted military personnel would get to seek naturalization right away.

Curbelo and another Miami Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, were among the lawmakers who criticized Trump last month when he signed the order expanding the categories of unauthorized immigrants prioritized for deportation, a reversal from the Obama administration.

Trump’s order, however, notably exempted DACA recipients — something Curbelo and other Republicans who favor immigration reform quickly pointed to as a promising sign.

“There’s actually momentum for immigration reform in the country right now,” said Curbelo, a sophomore congressman and son of Cuban immigrants who has said he didn’t vote for Trump. “As unfortunate as the tone and rhetoric have been during the presidential campaign and even early in this administration, immigration is at the top of the national agenda. People are talking about it every day, and we need to take advantage of that momentum to advance good policy like this one.”

Curbelo planned to file the bill late Thursday, with eight co-sponsors. Curbelo said he met Thursday with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, “and this issue was raised,” the congressman said, though he declined to go into detail.

“We also are encouraged by numerous comments that the president has made in public about his desire to treat these young Americans, as I would call them, with the compassion and the respect they’ve earned,” Curbelo said.

When Curbelo offered the legislation last year, he drew immediate opposition from United We Dream, a youth-led immigrant advocacy organization that called the bill a “symbolic” gesture. Democrats accused Curbelo, who remains a top target heading into 2018, of trying to score political points in an election year. But other groups, including FWD.us, which was co-founded by Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, and the conservative National Immigration Forum, supported it.

During the last Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan had said lawmakers wouldn’t take up any immigration bills, and he stayed true to his word.

This time around, with Republicans in control of the House, Senate and White House, Curbelo said he expects a different reception.

“We’ve had a lot of conversations,” he said, “and there is a general sense that this legislation will have a very good chance at becoming law this year.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article13758940...

H. R. 1468

Sponsor:  Rep. Curbelo, Carlos [R-FL-26] (Introduced 03/09/2017)
Committees: House - Judiciary; Homeland Security; Armed Services
Latest Action: 03/22/2017 Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. (All Actions)

Cosponsor

Date Cosponsored
Rep. Coffman, Mike [R-CO-6]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Denham, Jeff [R-CA-10]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-25]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-27]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-21]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Gonzalez-Colon, Jenniffer [R-PR-At Large]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Upton, Fred [R-MI-6]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Reichert, David G. [R-WA-8]* 03/09/2017
Rep. Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL-16] 03/10/2017
Rep. Donovan, Daniel M., Jr. [R-NY-11] 03/15/2017
Rep. Taylor, Scott [R-VA-2] 03/16/2017

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1468/cospon...

AG Sessions says he’ll punish sanctuaries, cities could lose billions of dollars

- The Washington Times - Monday, March 27, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday he’ll begin punishing sanctuary cities, withholding potentially billions of dollars in federal money — and even clawing back funds that had been doled out in the past.

Speaking at the White House, Mr. Sessions said his department is preparing to dole out more than $4 billion in funds this year, but will try prevent any of it from going to sanctuaries.

“Countless Americans would be alive today … if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended,” Mr. Sessions said.

He said he’s carrying out a policy laid out by the Obama administration last year, which identified three grant programs — the COPS grants, Byrne grants and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program money — that already require sanctuary certification.

The Obama administration didn’t end up enforcing that policy, but Mr. Sessions said he’ll begin.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/jeff-sessions-says-...

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks regarding the U.S. President Donald Trump's federal budget proposal at the City Hall in New York, U.S., March 16, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

De Blasio: Being A Sanctuary City Means Less Terrorism

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Monday that New Yorkers will be at risk of terror if Attorney General Jeff Sessions follows through on cutting federal law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities.

Sessions appeared at the White House to say that jurisdictions that ignore immigration detainers will lose Department of Justice grants, which total $4.1 billion for the upcoming fiscal year.

“President Trump’s latest threat changes nothing. We will remain a city welcoming of immigrants who have helped make our city the safest big city in the nation,” de Blasio said in response. “Any attempt to cut NYPD funding for the nation’s top terror target will be aggressively fought in court. We won’t back down from protecting New Yorkers from terror – or from an overzealous administration fixated on xenophobia and needless division.”

The attorney general, on the other hand, argued that sanctuary cities make America more dangerous. “Countless Americans would be alive today if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended,” Sessions said.

The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration

By Steven A. Camarota February 2017

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-wall-costs.pdf

Steven A. Camarota is the director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as "net present values", which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall.1

Among the findings:

There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.

There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.

A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2

The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.

If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.

Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.

If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall's cost.

Important Caveats and Observations About These Estimates

In addition to crossing the border surreptitiously, aliens join the illegal population primarily by overstaying a temporary visa. A southern border wall would not address this part of the illegal flow.

A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government.

To create its long-term fiscal estimates for immigrants by education level, the NAS uses the concept of "net present value" (NPV). This concept, which is commonly used by economists, has the effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that unskilled immigrants will create in the future. The NAS does this because costs or benefits years from now are valued less in economics relative to more immediate costs. But this means the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes if the NPV concept is not used.4

Methodology

The Importance of Educational Attainment. There is a good deal of agreement among researchers that the education level of immigrants is a key factor in determining their net fiscal impact. As a recent study by the NAS states, the education level of arriving immigrants is one of the "important determinants" of their fiscal impact.5 This finding is similar to a 1997 study by NAS that also examined the fiscal impact of immigrants.6 This conclusion also is mirrored by a 2013 study from the Heritage Foundation. Referring to the education level of household heads, Heritage concluded that "Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors." But at the same time, "Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes."7 My own research has come to the same conclusion.8 The reason for this is straightforward: Those with modest levels of education tend to earn low wages in the modern American economy, and as a result tend to make low tax payments and often qualify for means-tested programs. The less educated are a net fiscal drain, on average, regardless of legal status or if they were born in the United States or a foreign country.

Education Levels of Illegal Immigrants. In terms of the educational attainment of illegal immigrants, there is a good deal of evidence that they have modest levels of education, much lower than native-born Americans or legal immigrants. The Heritage study discussed above estimated that, on average, illegal immigrants have 10 years of schooling. My own analysis for all illegal immigrants (visa overstayers and illegal border-crossers together) is that 54 percent of adults have not completed high school, 25 percent have only a high school degree, and 21 percent have education beyond high school.9 The Pew Research Center has estimated that of all adult illegal immigrants, 47 percent have not completed high school, 27 percent have only a high school education, 10 percent have some college, and 15 percent have a bachelor's degree or more.10 These figures are for all illegal immigrants, including those who overstayed a temporary visa, not just illegal border-crossers.

Education Level of Border-Crossers. Since the border wall would by definition only impact the flow of those who cross the border illegally and not those who overstay a temporary visa or are smuggled into the country, it is necessary to estimate the education level of illegal border-crossers separately. Illegal crossers tend to be the least educated component of illegal immigration because they are mostly from Latin America and because more educated foreign nationals wishing to come to the United States can often qualify for a temporary visa, which they can then overstay.11 For example, a person with few years of schooling, a low paying job, and no property in their home country is not likely to qualify for a tourist visa or other temporary visitor visa. American consulates overseas would typically deny such a person a tourist visa (B2) or business traveler visa (B1) because the assumption is that such persons may be coming to stay permanently. They are "intending immigrants" in the terminology of the consular service. This is especially true for the primary sending countries of illegal immigration, which are all developing countries.12 A more educated person is much more likely to qualify for a tourist visa, or for that matter a guestworker visa or a student visa, which they can then overstay.

Because illegal border-crossers are overwhelmingly from Mexico and the rest of Latin America, we use the education level of illegal immigrants from Latin America to estimate border-crossers' education profile. My analysis of illegal immigrants from Latin America indicates that they have the following education: 57 percent, less than high school; 27 percent, high school only; 10 percent, some college or associate's degree; 4 percent, bachelor's only; and 2 percent, more than a bachelor's.13 These educational levels provide a baseline for estimating the fiscal impact of illegal crossers. However, as we will see, even if we use somewhat different estimates of education, the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers is still large and negative.

Fiscal Impact by Education Level.

Continued here

http://cis.org/The-Cost-of-a-Border-Wall-vs-the-Cost-of-Illegal-Imm...

I prefer ARREST. Someone please use the Constitution, rather than bribery, to enforce....the CONSTITUTION.....  ..

Use it or lose it.

Curbelo is a piece of work I tell you. We need to get his sorry ass out of office ASAP

Yes he is!

Curbelo leadership PAC donates to opponents of immigration reform

The PAC, named What a Country (WACPAC), has given money to at least 47 House Republicans since the start of 2015, Federal Election Commission records show. Over half of them voted against continuing to fund Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that gives certain undocumented immigrants temporary work permits and an exemption from deportation. Curbelo said in 2015 that support for DACA, which most Republicans oppose, would be a litmus test for potential WACPAC beneficiaries.

Curbelo, a moderate Republican running for reelection in Florida’s 26th District, supports immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He said the 47 Republicans who received money from WACPAC indicated to him in off-the-record conversations that they are committed to immigration reform.

What some of them say on the record is a different story.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/articl...

Rep. Carlos Curbelo's Immigration-Reduction Report Card

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/14233/gradescoresheet

....and who would be surprised by that sneaky move?

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

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.

TEA PARTY TARGET

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.

NJ.com 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