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: 11

Comment

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service