9 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-30-18

  1. Ricky may not like the mention of Reagan in this. . .

    “Note that we reached peak illegals (and peak illegal Mexicans) back in 2006 or 2007, right around the time the housing bubble popped and what eventually become the financial crisis started kicking into high (low?) gear. Between 2007 and 2016, the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants declined from about 6.9 million people to 5.5 million people. These days, illegals are most likely to come from Asia (especially China and India) and to enter the country with legal documents, such as a tourist, student, or work visa and then overstay. Deportations peaked in 2013, when Barack Obama was running the show.”



  2. From NPR on the 1986 ‘amnesty’

    Of course, it was supposed to come with better border control and procedures and that seems to be the part where we always drop the ball and we wind up back where we are, over and over again.

    Now, the conversation on the left seems to be moving more toward an open border position which I’m quite sure Reagan did not support.

    I’ve always thought the best course was to make illegal immigration harder and legal immigration as streamlined and user-friendly as possible for those who really do want to come here and stay as American citizens.

    A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants


    “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Ronald Reagan said in 1984.

    As the nation’s attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

    But the bill also made any immigrant who’d entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism. …

    (I remember my mom personally giving a man in her neighborhood the fee that was needed to apply for the 1980s amnesty back then.)

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Mass deportations are impractical and undesirable for other reasons. Not securing the border is unconscionable and negligent. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want to address the problem for different reasons. It would mean an end to the free flowing supply of cheap labor and new infusions of identity politics voters. That’s why Trump is having so much trouble getting the money for a border wall; both Republicans and Democrats are afraid he’s actually going to fix the problem.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Kizzie,

    Here’s the thing. The folks at Reason either fell for a bogus stat, or they’re pushing a well known falsehood because, like many “libertarians”, they support open borders.

    “Deportations peaked in 2013, when Barack Obama was running the show.””


    First off, Obama changed the way they count to achieve his magical numbers.


    “What’s True
    Statistically, more people were deported from the U.S. during the administration of President Barack Obama than during that of any other president.

    What’s False
    That statistic was due in large part to a change in how “deportations” are defined rather than to an increase in the number of persons deported.”


    Secondly, deportations are down because many aren’t trying with Trump in charge. Plus he’s concentrating on illegals from countries ignored under Obama.


    “Year-end figures analyzed by NPR show deportations to all countries — from the Middle East to Africa to Asia — have increased sharply under President Trump compared to Obama’s last year in office.


    You know, we hear a lot about Mexican and Central American immigrants picked up and deported by officers from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. But our colleague John Burnett has been digging into the statistics from 2017, focusing on other countries from the Middle East to Africa to Asia. And it turns out deportations to many of those countries increased sharply in President Trump’s first year compared to the year before. John joins us from Austin, Texas.

    Hey there, John.

    JOHN BURNETT, BYLINE: Morning, David.

    GREENE: So as you’ve been crunching these numbers, what exactly is standing out to you here?

    BURNETT: Well, we know in recent years the same poor countries dominate deportations – Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. They do account for 9 out of 10 deportations. But the interesting news is in the other 186 countries in the list.

    The number of deportees from other nations rose 24 percent in Trump’s first year, really big increases from all sorts of foreign nationals around the globe who were living in the U.S. illegally. Deportations to Brazil and China jumped. Removals of Somalis nearly doubled. Deportations to Ghana and West Africa are up more than two times.

    The biggest increase is Haiti. The number of deported Haitians soared from 300 in 2016 to more than 5,500 last year. And the reason is that thousands of Haitians who’d been living in South America rushed to the U.S.-Mexico border and crossed at California and Arizona. They mistakenly thought they could get humanitarian relief. But that wasn’t the case. They got locked up and then deported.

    GREENE: So you’re really getting beneath the headlines here because there have been headlines about how the overall number of deportations under President Trump actually went down. But you’re focusing on these other countries. And where you dig deeply, you see this increase. So explain that for us, if you can.

    BURNETT: Right. Well, first of all, the overall deportations went down because fewer people, mainly from Latin America, were trying to cross the southwest border. They call it the Trump effect. So we’re talking about the other 10 percent here.”


    Scared off by Trump’s hard rhetoric. Good.


  5. Cooking the books.


    “While deportations are up 9% this year, you might be surprised to hear that’s still below the peak under the Obama Administration. But that’s because President Obama was cooking the books.

    Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies says democrats were fudging the deportation numbers.

    “The President himself at the time admitted that they weren’t really what they looked like.”

    Krikorian says those reported deportations didn’t really happen.

    “They were taking people who’d been arrested at the border, handing them over to ICE and then ICE would hand them back over to the Border Patrol and magically they were counted as deportations.”

    Krikorian says it’s going to take a while to reach those early Obama years numbers, but this time they’ll be real deportations.”



    “Immigration activists have sharply criticized President Obama for a rising volume of deportations, labeling him the “deporter in chief” and staging large protests that have harmed his standing with some Latinos, a key group of voters for Democrats.

    But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

    Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

    On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.”


  6. The Weasel really doesn’t want to testify under oath. So now he’s trying to run the clock out…..

    He’s soooooooo principled….. 🙄

    He continues to call for a public hearing where he won’t have to answer the hard, classified questions, and they won’t even be able to ask them. He seeking to hide the truth. Still.


    “Former FBI Director James Comey is asking a federal judge to block a subpoena for his closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

    The committee subpoenaed Comey on Nov. 21 to appear for a deposition Dec. 3 regarding his handling of the FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

    Comey responded to the subpoena on Twitter, calling for a public hearing instead of a private interview.

    His attorneys argue the subpoena request violates House rules, which they assert operate under the presumption that hearings be open to the public.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Looks like the FBI is trying to hide the truth, and their own malfeasance.

    Nope, no Deep State here….. move along…..


    “FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a government watchdog, according to the whistleblower’s attorney.

    The Justice Department’s inspector general was informed that the documents show that federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation alleges.

    The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

    “The bureau raided my client to seize what he legally gave Congress about the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One,” the whistleblower’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told TheDCNF, noting that he considered the FBI’s raid to be an “outrageous disregard” of whistleblower protections.”

    Sixteen agents arrived at the home of Dennis Nathan Cain, a former FBI contractor, on the morning of Nov. 19 and raided his Union Bridge, Maryland, home, Socarras told TheDCNF.

    The raid was permitted by a court order signed on Nov. 15 by federal magistrate Stephanie A. Gallagher in the U.S. District Court for Baltimore and obtained by TheDCNF.

    A special agent from the FBI’s Baltimore division, who led the raid, charged that Cain possessed stolen federal property and demanded entry to his private residence, Socarras told TheDCNF.

    “On Nov. 19, the FBI conducted court authorized law enforcement activity in the Union Bridge, Maryland area,” bureau spokesman Dave Fitz told TheDCNF. “At this time, we have no further comment.”

    Cain informed the agent while he was still at the door that he was a recognized protected whistleblower under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act and that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz recognized his whistleblower status, according to Socarras.

    Cain further told the FBI agent the potentially damaging classified information had been properly transmitted to the Senate and House Intelligence committees as permitted under the act, Socarras said. The agent immediately directed his agents to begin a sweep of the suburban home, anyway.

    Frightened and intimidated, Cain promptly handed over the documents, Socarras told TheDCNF. Yet even after surrendering the information to the FBI, the agents continued to rummage through the home for six hours.

    “After asking and getting my approval to do so, DOJ IG Michael Horowitz had a member of his staff physically take Mr. Cain’s classified document disclosure to the House and Senate Intelligence committees,” Socarras told TheDCNF.

    “For the bureau to show up at Mr. Cain’s home suggesting that those same documents are stolen federal property, and then proceed to seize copies of the same documents after being told at the house door that he is a legally protected whistleblower who gave them to Congress, is an outrageous disregard of the law,” he continued.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Hmmmmm……..



    “California does have a more liberal policy when it comes to counting ballots. The Golden State allows absentee ballots to be counted if they are mailed by Election Day and arrive at the registrar by the Friday after the election. That’s why results in a handful of close California House races were not called until days, or weeks, after Nov. 6.

    In many cases, the GOP candidates had been leading on election night, but Democrats ultimately prevailed as additional absentee and provisional ballots were tallied in the days after.

    “In Wisconsin, we knew the next day. Scott Walker, my friend, I was sad to see him lose, but we accepted the results on Wednesday,” Ryan said. In California, “their system is bizarre; I still don’t completely understand it. There are a lot of races there we should have won.”

    When pressed about his California comments, Ryan said it seemed “bizarre” and “strange” that Democrats would win all seven competitive House races in California. Democrats ousted GOP Reps. Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher, Jeff Denham and Steve Knight and won seats held by retiring GOP Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa. GOP Rep. David Valadao is trailing Democrat TJ Cox, but the race is too close to call.

    “The way the absentee-ballot program used to work, and the way it works now, it seems pretty loosey goose,” Ryan said. “When you have candidates who win the absentee ballot vote and then lose three weeks later because of provisionals, that’s really bizarre. I just think that’s a very, very strange outcome.”

    Ryan, who is leaving Congress in early January, made clear that he doesn’t believe there was “anything nefarious” about the results. He said he would not ask California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a former Democratic House lawmaker, to investigate.”

    Yeah, because he knows it’s useless to have the fox investigate where all the chickens went.


  9. Is there no end to his evil powers?!

    (shakes fist impotently at the sky)…….


    “Activist Women Claim Trump’s Election is Destroying Their Marriages”

    “Angry that their spouses don’t hate Trump with the same zeal, women are walking away from their husbands”

    “Is there anything Trump can’t do?”


    A marriage based on mutual love can be successful. But one based on mutual hate for a 3rd party?

    You got issues, Honey.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.