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: 17

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 Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

 Will  Tea Party Hand The Liberals Their Ass On Election Day? 

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said.

One Democratic pollster said the data he’s seen makes plain that the party is favored to win a majority — but that it’s still not a sure thing. He said even now it’s unclear if the political environment will create an electoral tsunami, or merely a good year where Democrats might still fall short of a House majority.

“We’ve all learned a lesson from 2016 that there are multiple possibilities and outcomes,” said the pollster, granted anonymity to discuss polling data one month before the election. “And if you haven’t learned that lesson, shame on you. That 20 percent outcome can happen. That 30 percent outcome can happen.”

This year, Democrats have history on their side: The incumbent president’s party historically struggles during midterm elections. That wasn’t the case in 2016, when Democrats were trying to win the presidency for three consecutive terms for the first time in their history since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The GOP accomplished the feat only once in the same period, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

Some Democratic leaders say the reality of Trump’s presidency — unlike its hypothetical state in 2016 — changes the dynamic entirely.

“Democratic energy is at nuclear levels,” said Steve Israel, a former DCCC chairman. “Democrats would crawl over broken glass to vote in this election.”

Israel said he still has concerns about November (political operatives always have concerns about the upcoming election). But he waves away the notion that the party might fall short of a House majority.

“Most Democrats and a heck of a lot of Republicans I speak to believe that Democrats will have the majority,” he said. “The real question is, by how much?”

Ferguson is, of course, of two minds: He thinks the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the day-to-day reality of Trump’s presidency fundamentally changes how voters will see this election.

But he’s also gun-shy about what could change in the next month, after the multitude of surprises that occurred during the last month of the 2016 race, whether the “Access Hollywood” recording or then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the investigation into Clinton’s emails was re-opened.

Many Republicans argue the 2018 election has already seen its October surprise, with the confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh finally motivating conservative voters to vote.

“I don’t know what the October surprises will be,” Ferguson said. “But we make a mistake if we assume that what we’re seeing today is what we’ll see for the entire month. We lived through it two years ago.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service