TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Why Should States That Protect
Illegal Immigrants Be Rewarded?
by Hans von Spakovsky
.
Pulosi Blames Trump for Wage Stagnation 
Caused by Her Open Borders, Work Visas
{ rickwells.us } ~ A reporter asked Numbskull Nancy Pulosi if the lowest  unemployment in eighteen years of 3.8% was good news... Of course it is and of course Pulosi would never admit it. Instead, she goes into one of her song and dance routines, and inadvertently points the finger of blame for low wages back at herself and her globalist Democrat comrades. Pulosi, in her customary dishonest and borderline incoherent manner, replied, “Well, as I’ve said, unemployment rate is one indication. The pract, [sic] the fact is, and this has happened before, that people say, ‘Oh, my goodness, that people are saying the unemployment rate is down, why isn’t my purchasing power increasing?'” It sounds like Pelosi’s getting ready to talk down to the crumb-munchers again, who she thinks have the intellectual capacity of a two-year-old. She informs them, “So this isn’t just about the unemployment rate, it’s about wages rising in our country.” That’s something she and her fellow swamp creatures have turned into a virtual impossibility with their importation of cheap foreign labor to compete with American workers...   https://rickwells.us/pelosi-trump-wage-open-borders/
.
There's a 'special place in hell' for Trudeau 
after his G7 'stunt,' top WH Trade Adviser Peter Navarro says 
by Gregg Re
{ foxnews.com } ~ There is a "special place in hell" for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau... because of his decision to slam the U.S. in a post-G7 press conference, White House Director of Trade Policy Peter Navarro said on "Fox News Sunday." "There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door," Navarro said. "And that's what bad faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That's what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One." Shortly after Trump left the G7 summit, where the world leaders had reached a tentative agreement on a joint statement, Trudeau held a press conference in which he said that Canada will not be "pushed around" by the U.S...
China's ZTE Pays $1 Billion in 
Penalty Deal to the U.S. to Stay in Business 
by Kerry Lear
{ punchingbagpost.com } ~ China's telecommunications giant ZTE will remain in business thanks to a recent deal between the U.S. and China... After the telecom company was caught violating U.S. sanctions by working with Iran and North Korea, the U.S. Department of Commerce signed an order in April barring U.S. companies from selling software to ZTE for seven years. For the last two months, ZTE was basically shut down and was forced to halt the production of its smartphone products. In mid-May, President Donald Trump said that the Commerce Department was working on an agreement to get ZTE back in business...
.
Democrat Server Vanished After Dem. Caucus Chair Resigned 
by CILLIAN ZEAL
{ westernjournal.com } ~ A missing server. A data breach. An arrested IT guy. Suspicious activity by the former head of the DNC... And Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice doesn’t seem to be particularly interested in it. Oh, but the president is. And on his favorite medium, he’s demanding answers. Astute readers will no doubt remember the saga of Imran Awan, the information technology guy for plenty of House Democrats, including former DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz. If not, a little bit of background: Awan was arrested last year at Washington Dulles Airport attempting to leave the country for his native Pakistan shortly after smashed hard disks were recovered from his house by the FBI and months after an inspector general’s report revealed several potential violations of security protocol. I’m sure he was planning to return with all due rapidity. After he was arrested, media outlets talked about how his case had “attracted unfounded conspiracy theories and intrigue” and how “far-right news organizations seized on it as a potential coverup of an espionage ring that plundered national secrets and might have been responsible for the campaign hacking of the Democratic National Committee, a breach that intelligence agencies have linked to Russia.” At least, that’s how The Washington Post described it in September 2017...   https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/democrat-server-vanished-after-de...
.
Trump Wants Belligerent Palestinian Negotiator Booted 

{ israeltoday.co.il } ~ The Palestinian Authority's long-time chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has made a career of sticking to his movement's hard-line demands... and of publicly rejecting all Israeli claims, be they legal, historical or religious. And US President Donald Trump's had enough of him. An op-ed penned by Trump's Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, and appearing in the Sunday issue of the daily newspaper Ha'aretz called for Erekat's immediate ouster. "We have heard your voice for decades and it has not achieved anything close to Palestinian aspirations or anything close to a comprehensive peace agreement," wrote Greenblatt. "Other Palestinian perspectives might help us finally achieve a comprehensive peace agreement where Palestinian and Israeli lives can be better."...   http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/34180/Default.aspx
.
.
Why Should States That Protect
Illegal Immigrants Be Rewarded?

by Hans von Spakovsky
{ heritage.org } ~ Alabama has filed an unprecedented but little-noticed lawsuit against the U.S. Census Bureau. If the state wins, it could have major political ramifications and restore fundamental fairness in political representation in Congress.

Alabama is arguing that by including illegal immigrants in its count of the population, the Census Bureau deprives the state — and other states with low numbers of illegal immigrants — of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as votes in the Electoral College that determine who is elected president.

Conversely, the lawsuit argues, the practice of counting illegal immigrants in the census gives states that protect them California, for example seats and votes they are not entitled to have.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that representatives in the House “shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers,” with the “Numbers” determined by “counting the whole number of persons in each State.”

After every census, House seats are reapportioned according to the population of each state. Electoral College votes are reapportioned according to the number of each state’s congressional representatives.

Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. It is unjust to allow states to gain a political advantage over other states by flouting federal immigration law.

The number of representatives in the House — 435 — has been fixed by law since 1910. So as Alabama says in its complaint, apportionment is “a zero sum proposition: Each state’s gain is another state’s loss.”

Alabama argues that by including illegal immigrants in apportionment, congressional seats and Electoral College votes are unfairly distributed.

Based on the 2010 Census, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio each lost a seat in the House and a vote in the Electoral College, while Montana failed to gain a seat and an electoral vote. By contrast, California gained two House seats and two Electoral College votes. And Florida and Texas each gained one seat and one vote.

As a result, says Alabama in its lawsuit: “Four House seats and four Electoral College votes were redistributed by the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base in the 2000 Census.”

Alabama claims that including illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census will likely cause it to lose a congressional seat and an Electoral College vote. It says this “will rob the State of Alabama and its legal residents of their rightful share of representation.”

This also violates the “one person, one vote” equal representation standard of the 14th Amendment. According to Alabama, “The gains from including illegal aliens in the apportionment base flow to citizens who live in state with large numbers of illegal aliens.”

Why? Because it means that “in a state in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than those who live in states where a larger share of the population is made up of American citizens.”

This results in “representational inequality” by devaluing the vote of Alabama’s legal residents. This redistribution of political power “disincentivizes states with large illegal alien populations from cooperating with federal immigration authorities lest they lose political power that comes with additional representatives and votes in the Electoral College,” Alabama argues.

Moreover, including illegal immigrants in the census “punishes states who [sic] do cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the identification and removal” of illegal aliens, Alabama’s lawsuit states.

Alabama’s final complaint is monetary. Including illegal immigrants in the census, it says, will likely cause it to lose its fair share of the almost $700 billion distributed annually by the federal government in grants and other funds.

The key to Alabama’s case is the definition of “persons” who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. Alabama argues that the term “persons” was understood at the “time of the founding and when the 14th Amendment was ratified” to mean the “inhabitants” of a state.

Furthermore, “In the public law of the founding era, the term ‘inhabitant’ did not encompass unlawful residents because inhabitance was a legal status that depended upon permission to settle granted by the sovereign nation in which an alien wished to reside,” Alabama argues.

In other words, “persons” does not include individuals who are in the U.S. illegally, without the permission of the federal government.

The “Residence” rule adopted by the Census Bureau for the 2020 census stipulates that foreign nationals will be counted and allocated to the state where their “usual residence” is located, regardless of whether they are legally present.

Alabama argues that the rule is unconstitutional. Moreover, it claims, the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeds the Census Bureau’s statutory authority.

The last time the Supreme Court had a significant case involving the census was in 1999 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives. The justices concluded that the Census Bureau had to do an actual count of the population — it could not use statistical sampling.

In 2015 the Supreme Court held that states could use total population numbers — which includes illegal immigrants — in drawing the boundaries of legislative districts. But that case was about redistricting, not apportionment.

Does Alabama have a case? That will largely depend on whether it can convince the Supreme Court that its understanding of the historical definition of “persons” in the apportionment clause of the Constitution is correct. This is not an issue the Court has addressed before.

But regardless of the ultimate resolution of this novel legal argument, Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. It is unjust to allow states to gain a political advantage over other states by flouting federal immigration law, as California has done with its sanctuary policies and obstruction of federal enforcement.

Views: 16

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

 Kavanaugh Accuser Donated   To Hillary Clinton  10 Times,  60+ Liberal Groups 

Reportedly attempted to conceal political activity by scrubbing social media accounts

Over the weekend, a name and face were added to the previously anonymous sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which is now threatening to derail his nomination. Those looking to obstruct Kavanaugh’s confirmation certainly saved their best for last, as the prior attempts included pathetic stunts such as:

– Claiming to file perjury charges against Kavanaugh, which only Jeff Sessions would have the ability to file.

– Packing the hearings with hysterical protesters, resulting in hundreds of arrests.

– Threatening female Republicans with extortion.

– Cory Booker comparing himself to Spartacus, the escaped slave who led a revolt against the Romans.

The identity of the accuser was revealed as Christine Blasey Ford, who has agreed testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ford reportedly made the allegations back in July in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Feinstein waited until it was close to the vote to confirm Kavanaugh before making the accusations public.

There’s a record of Ford making the accusation in a 2012 therapy session, though Kavanaugh isn’t named in the session notes that Ford gave to the press. Ford alleges that in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh entered a room drunk, pinned her to a bed, and groped her over her clothing. Kavanaugh “categorically denied” the allegations.View image on Twitter

Fin Gomez @finnygo   NEW: Statement from Judge Brett Kavanaugh:

There is a slight discrepancy in the account Ford provided in her letter to Feinstein and in her therapist’s notes, but that could simply be due to an error on her therapists part.

There are however some other questions that need to be answered which call into question Ford’s motives.

As Grabien reported, they include:

1. Why Ford deleted her public social media accounts before revealing herself.

Ford deleted all of her public social media before she came forward, making it difficult to see the advocacy and partisanship she was engaged in the time leading up to her making her allegation public. Of course, Ford may simply value her privacy, but the act of deleting her public postings will inevitably make some wonder what she didn’t want seen.

2. That Ford may have an unrelated grudge against Kavanaugh, as his mother, once a circuit court judge, ruled against Ford’s parents.

In August 1996, Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, Paula and Ralph Blasey, were foreclosed upon. Kavanaugh’s mom, Martha, was then serving as a judge on the Montgomery Country Circuit Court, and she ruled against Christine Ford’s parents.

3. That Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy.

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone. Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillary Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “pussy hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development.

There’s no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Maryland, where she claims that the assault happened. Rather than go to the police, Ford went to Dianne Feinstein. If her accusations are true, she should immediately file a police report against Kavanaugh and take him to trial. If she doesn’t, perhaps that’s because she knows the consequences of filing a false police report.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service