Recent News

Libya, Isis, Rioting In Kiev: Hagel Didn’t Start the Fire

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran and the […]

The Myth Of The 11 Million: Wall Street Analyst Estimates 21-25 Million Illegals Now In U.S.

obama-to-grant-amnesty-for-11-million-illegal-aliens[1]

Or you know, whatever.

Obama just gave legal status to an estimated five million illegal aliens and the Treason Lobby and its foreign allies are already shrieking for more. But how many more? Just how many illegal aliens have invaded America? There’s reason to believe the government’s estimates are wrong—and that the real number is shocking larger.

For a suspiciously long time, the Main Stream Media has been using the figure of 11 million illegals, presumably because the current official estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau is 11 million-12 million. And Steven Camarota, of the Center for Immigration Studies, tells me that, using various Census Bureau tools such as the Current Population Study, he concurs that the number is around 11-12 million.

But my VDARE.com colleague, economist Edwin S. Rubenstein, while considering Camarota’s estimate to be credible, distinguishes between “net” and “gross” levels of illegals. The “net” level is the number on American soil at any given time. The “gross” number is the number that many have been on American soil at any time in the course of a year, which may contains a great deal of duplication. In an extreme case, a Mexican illegally crossing the border to work in a Texas border town 365 times in a year, and being counted as 365 illegal aliens.

To put it another way, the transient “flow” of illegal may greatly exceed the quasi-permanent “stock”—which means that the “stock” might increase sharply if the President’s action encourages the transient “flow” to stay.

And in January 2005, Robert Justich and Betty Ng, analysts at the major Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns, caused a stir with an exhaustive report, The Underground Labor Force is Rising to the Surface. [PDF]This report particularly delighted VDARE.com because it supported the daring 2004 estimate made by D.A. King in VDARE.com in 2004: 20 million illegals.

The Justich-Ng report actually cited VDARE.com’s Rubenstein, on the divergence that illegal aliens are causing between the Household and Payroll employment surveys, although the citation was mutilated in the footnotes, no doubt for reasons of Political Correctness.

Justich and Ng found the claims and the processes of the Census Bureau lacking in credibility. Seeking to get more accurate numbers, they developed a brilliantly inventive methodology. As variables, they measured cash remittances (wire transfers) to the nations that are the chief sources of what they call “undocumented immigrants”; housing starts; the building of new schools; and border-crossings. Based on these, Justich and Ng estimated that there were 20 million illegal aliens residing in America.

I recently spoke to Justich, now a consultant. He told me he now thinks that there are 21 million to 25 million illegal aliens present on American soil.

Justich says the Census Bureau simply has no reliable methodology for determining the numbers of illegal aliens. His experience is that illegals avoid census workers—even though there are not asked about their immigration status—and refuses to otherwise participate in the census.

Therefore, the current numbers (as of 6:15 p.m., Friday, November 21, 2014), of 319,303,696 “residents” in the U.S.—including citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants—and 12 million illegal aliens, bear no relation to one another. In other words, we cannot say that there are 319.3 million people residing in the U.S., including 12 million illegals; or that there are 331.3 million people residing in the U.S., including 12 million illegals.

Not only are the Census Bureau numbers worthless regarding illegals, but they are worthless

Memo From Middle America | Obamnesty Not Approved By Congress? No Problem, It’s Been Approved by Mexico And Central America!

The hapless Republican Congress may not know what to do about Barack Obama’s unilateral Amnesty, but the governments of Mexico and Central America are already moving to take advantage.

Only a few minutes after Obama’s speech, the Mexican Foreign Ministry had already released a statement on its website entitled: México Da La Bienvenida A Medidas Administrativas Que Beneficiarán A Mexicanos En Estados Unidos [Mexico Welcomes the Administrative Measures That Will Benefit Mexicans in the United States, SRE Comunicado 532, November 20, 2014]

The Mexican government explicitly welcomed Obama’s action because of the perceived benefit to its own citizens:

The government of Mexico, through the Secretariat of Foreign Relations (SRE) welcomes the administrative measures in migration announced….by the government of the United States that has the potential to benefit a significant number of Mexicans in that county and improve their opportunities, as well as their dignity and certainty. This decision will permit the increase of the substantial contributions of Mexicans to the economy and society of the United States.

And Mexico’s statement also contained a warning to the United States

In respect to the announcement made in reference to border control, the government of Mexico will be attentive that its implementation respect the security and human rights of the migrants.

Emphasis added.

The Mexican government statement invited “the Mexican community in the United States” to get more information from Mexico’s 50 consulates in the U.S.A. It provides an 800 phone number and promises to “continue offering assistance and consular protection to all Mexicans, regardless of their migratory condition.”

So whatever Barack Obama’s claims, the government of Mexico certainly understands that these “migrants” aren’t becoming Americans by any definition.

You would think Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto would have his plate full with the Iguala Massacre (in which Mexican police and gang hitmen attacked and killed students, then disappeared 43 others) and a domestic political scandal. Violence is rampant in Mexico and well over two-thirds of Mexicans report they feel unsafe.

Nonetheless, Pena Nieto has found the time to call the Amnesty “an act of justice” and gave orders to Mexico’s consular network to help illegals. [ 'Un acto de justicia', medidas migratorias en EU: EPN, El Universal, November 21, 2014]

Central America also responded quickly to the Obamnesty, dependent as those countries are on remittances from the U.S.

The Honduran presidential office released a statement declaring:

The government of Honduras salutes the announcement of the President of the United States, Barack Obama… which will benefit hundreds of thousands of Hondurans…. The decision will benefit Honduras and tens of thousands of families, as it will permit that Hondurans residing in the United States and with children born on U.S. soil can benefit from the relief and have permission of temporary residence and that they will not be subject to deportation for three years.

Latin America applauds Obama’s immigration plan, Associated Press November 22, 2014

Emphasis added.

Note this reference to the Anchor Baby loophole, gleefully exploited by Latin Americans seeking to flee their own countries, and by corrupt governments exporting their problem populations.

Needless to say, while Latin Americans know full well about abusing birthright citizenship, American politicians (including Republicans) are pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

Indeed, nowadays, even Latin Americans repeat the Obama-certified “nation of immigrants” nonsense for their own benefit:

We share the words of President Obama that the United States is a “nation of immigrants”…..the migrants drive the economy of the great Nation of the North.

Yet while the Honduran government is undoubtedly happy with Obama’s Amnesty, it isn’t completely satisfied. It thinks Amnesty doesn’t go far enough:

This temporary relief is a great step in the right direction of the United States to resolve the migratory problem ...

The Answer To Obamnesty: Impeachment—Or Insurrection

xdrudge-obama-king-575x443.jpg.pagespeed.ic.QERnLcO-Vg[1]

The question is--will the GOP Leadership even try?

The fearless leader of the American Right, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, knows exactly what he’s going to do in response to Barack Obama’s unilateral grant of Amnesty to five million illegals. Priebus is going to raise money.

Only hours after Barack Obama’s speech, the RNC sent out a fundraising email signed by Priebus telling donors to “take a stand” by donating to the Republican Party. Of course, what the Republican Party intends to do with the money—or for that matter, with its new Congressional majority—is unclear.

But we do know one thing the Republican leadership intends to do: keep its own rank and file from acting to stop the President.

As Jonathan Strong of Breitbart noted:

As they departed the House floor, many en route to the airport for a Thanksgiving recess, many GOP lawmakers seemed as interested in explaining why options floated by colleagues from their own party wouldn't work as denouncing what they describe as an unprecedented power grab by a president they just decimated at the ballot box.

[Republicans Leave Town Without a Plan to Fight Obama, November 20, 2014]

Virtually all Congressional Republicans have already ruled out impeachment, of course. According to Breitbart’s Strong, even a motion of censure seems to be a bridge too far for Republicans. And he quotes Congressman Pat Tiberi’s detached musings that the whole issue might end up before the Supreme Court.

The awful truth: Barack Obama just handed a gift to the Republican leadership. Speaker John Boehner, the RNC, and the professional political class of consultants and party hacks have long favored Amnesty to reward their donors, but they feared retribution from the conservative grassroots c.f. Eric Cantor. Nevertheless, as Steve Sailer has noted, the clueless Republican leadership probably would eventually have passed Amnesty on its own, and in so doing would committed political suicide. Now, Barack Obama has made the issue a fait accompli and taken full responsibility for the action. All Republican leaders think they have to do is sputter convincingly for their base, and then they can get on with plunging their snouts into the trough provided by the party’s midterm victory.

Some GOP presidential contenders in 2016, including Scott Walker, Mike Pence, and Rick “All Hat, No Cattle” Perry are proposing to rely on that bastion of right-wing populism, the American legal system [What Can the GOP Do to Stop Obama’s immigration order?By Pema Levy, Newsweek, November 20, 2014].

This option appears especially attractive to conservatives who are uncomfortable talking about just what President Obama did, but prefer to focus how he did it. Thus Rand Paul, who has consistently flirted with Amnesty, is again trying to be clever by comparing Obama to a king, grounding his complaint in process rather than policy.

But this legalistic kind of stand is hopelessly reactionary in the worst sense of the world. As Joe Sobran said long ago, “The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” Conservatives may fantasize about a court or judge acting as a deus ex machina to save Republicans...

It’s Treason (Again). The Answer Is Impeachment. It Would Work.

Obama-La-Raza-FOXNEWSLATINO[1]

"Your country needs you.Our American family will only be as strong as our growing Latino community." Obama To The NCLR, 2011

Back in the summer, when the Obama Regime was conspiring with the drug cartels to dump tens of thousands of illegal alien minors into the U.S., I wrote Obama’s Border Dissolution Is Treason. The Answer Is Impeachment. It Would Work. Tonight, after reading the President’s speech announcing his attempt to impose Amnesty through executive branch coup—easier on the blood pressure than actually watching him—I stand by every word of my argument. And I believe that, had the GOP precipitated an impeachment fight and nationalized the midterm elections on the issue of immigration, it would now have a veto-proof majority.

Still, the result of the midterms means that the GOP can control the Senate’s agenda and now needs to persuade fewer red-state Democrats to change sides to reach the necessary two-thirds approval. In the volatile atmosphere of Senate trial, pressure on these Democrats will be intense. Obama really could be convicted.

But the real objective will be to get him to back off Executive Amnesty. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose crime had been irrevocably committed, Obama can always undo the cause of his indictment. Many queasy white liberals—remember, even the Washington Post editorialized against this reckless step—will press him to do so.

There are, of course, other steps the GOP could take. At VDARE.com, we particularly like the immediate abolition of birthright citizenship, which would deprive the Democrats of their incentive to encourage illegal immigration. But none sends the same simple, devastating message as the disgrace of impeachment.

I occasionally argue that no-one—least of all professional politicians—really knows what is politically possible. Miracles happen—the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill was stopped.

But this means that someone has to think the unthinkable and say the unsayable, because no-one knows when what might suddenly become thinkable, sayable—and doable. I believe that this is VDARE.com’s role—to take risks and push the envelope of public debate. I want to thank our readers for their loyal support at this dark and dangerous moment for the historic American nation.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.

 

Obama’s Amnesty Is The Act Of A Rogue President

obamaproclaimingamnesty

Asserting a legal and constitutional authority he himself said he did not have, President Obama is going rogue, issuing an executive amnesty to 4 to 5 million illegal aliens.

He will order the U.S. government not to enforce the law against these 5 million, and declare that they are to be exempt from deportation and granted green cards.

Where did Obama get his 4-5 million figure, not 2-4 million, or 5-7 million? Nowhere in law, but plucked out of his own mind, as to what he can get away with. Barack Obama just felt it was about right.

Thus does our constitutional law professor-president "faithfully execute" the laws of the United States he has twice sworn to uphold?

Our rogue president has crossed an historic line, and so has the republic. Future presidents will cite the "Obama precedent" when they declare they will henceforth not enforce this or that law, because of a prior commitment to some noisy constituency.

We have just taken a monumental step away from republicanism toward Caesarism. For this is rule by diktat, the rejection of which sparked the American Revolution.

The political, psychological and moral effects of Obama's action will be dramatic. Sheriffs, border patrol, and immigration authorities, who have put their lives on the line to secure our broken borders, have been made to look like fools. Resentment and cynicism over Obama's action will be deeply corrosive to all law enforcement.

Businessmen who obeyed the law and refused to hire illegals, hiring Americans and legal immigrants instead, and following U.S. and state law on taxes, wages and withholding, also look like fools today.

Obama's action makes winners of the scofflaws and hustlers.

Bosses who hired illegals off the books will also receive de facto amnesty. La Raza is celebrating. But, make no mistake, a corrupt corporate crowd is also publicly relieved and privately elated.

Immigrants who waited in line for years to come to America, and those waiting still, have egg on their faces. Why, they are saying to themselves, were we so stupid as to obey U.S. laws, when it is the border-jumpers who are now on the way to residency and citizenship?

When the world hears of the Obama amnesty,

The Truth About Obama’s “Temporary” Ebola Amnesty

texasman

Liberian Stanley Gaye of the Liberian Community Association of Dallas-Fort Worth—Liberians are receiving Temporary Protected Status

When it rains, it pours. Just before unveiling his colossal administrative amnesty for millions of "undocumented" aliens and foreign tech workers on Thursday, President Obama separately ordered up to 8,000 more executive pardons and special work passes for Liberians, Sierra Leoneans and Guineans illegally in this country.

Strange, isn't it? The same administration that refused to enact travel bans from Ebola-plagued West African nations to protect Americans is now granting "temporary protected status" (TPS) to West Africans on American soil so they don't have to go back.

It's not really about public health, of course. It's about political pandering and electoral engineering.

Here's the dirty open secret: There's nothing "temporary" about TPS benefits. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the program has become an endless, interminable residency plan for unlawful border-crossers, visa overstayers and deportation evaders from around the world.

TPS golden ticket holders live here, work here...

Immigration: Did The American People Just Clear Their Throat?

A hundred years and some ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote a poem titled “The Secret People.” The poem is a very brief (60 lines) history of England from a Chestertonianromantic, traditionalist—point of view.

“The Secret People” is hyperbolic and not very logical, but it contains some memorable phrases.

It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest

God’s scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.

But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.

Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

Whether God does indeed nurse “scorn for all men governing,” I couldn’t say. But plainly Chesterton thought the common people of England did:

We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;

And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.

The poet had hold of an important point. Politics doesn’t occupy much space in people’s minds. Sport, celebrities, entertainment, gadgetry, gossip, and, yes, ale, are all much more popular topics of conversation among ordinary citizens.

George Will remarked some years ago that he had published a shelf of books about politics and one about baseball, and his royalty statements told him where America’s heart was. (My own statements suggest that even analytic number theory is more interesting than politics to the book-buying public.)

In Anglosphere nations it’s hard to get great masses of people concentrating on political topics. This is even the case with a topic like immigration, vital to the futures of their children and grandchildren.

From time to time, however, the Chestertonian paradigm breaks down. Some event comes up to concentrate people’s minds on a key issue, and they do speak. Twenty-one thousand of them spoke in the parliamentary constituency of Clacton, in Chesterton’s England, last month, electing the first ever Member of Parliament from the anti-globalist, immigration-patriot United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

The voters of a different constituency...

Ann Coulter: Jonathan Gruber Obamacare Revelations 10X Worse Than The “Downing Street Memo”

Above, the sixth Jonathan Gruber video--details here, comments about "mislabeling" at 30:38--just to give you an idea of the scale of the revelations.

Isn't Jonathan Gruber worse than the Downing Street memo?

51k8BZvl+zL[1]Gruber, who was paid half a million dollars to design Obamacare, is on tape bragging about how the Democrats relied on "the stupidity of the American voter" to pass that law. Which, ironically, was sort of a stupid thing to say on camera.

By now there are so many tapes of Gruber explaining how Obamacare fooled stupid Americans that they're being released as a boxed set in time for Christmas.

Gruber, who will hereafter be known as "the architect of Obamacare," said:

"If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in--if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. ... Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

The Downing Street memo consisted of minutes from a July 2002 meeting of British labor, defense and intelligence officials during the run-up to the Iraq War, in which the MI6 head, Richard Dearlove, reportedly said that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

These notes from a British cabinet meeting were called the smoking gun of Bush's lying his way into war. The Downing Street memo was written about in dozens of New York Times articles--including six hysterical Frank Rich op-eds. It has been mentioned more than a hundred times in The Washington Post. It was covered on ABC's "Nightline," by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week," on NBC's "Meet the Press"--even on the "Today" show. It was discussed nightly on MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann covered it like it was Kim Kardashian and he was the E! Network.

By contrast, this week, NBC's Chuck Todd dismissed the Gruber tapes as "a political story" and The New York Times said of Gruber: "In truth, his role was limited." (NYT, March 28, 2012: "Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, (then) the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.")

But when the Downing Street memo came out, conservatives weren't allowed to say, Yeah, well, the British memo writer didn't have anything to do with the president's decision...

The Fulford File | Before Any “Immigration Reform”, GOP Should Insist On Ending Birthright Citizenship—Now!

The GOP Congressional leadership (Sheldon Adelson, proprietor) is reportedly “mulling several options that would give Capitol Hill Republicans the opportunity to vent their frustration with what they view as an unconstitutional power grab by the White House — without jeopardizing the government financing bill.” [GOP seeks creative ways to avert a shutdown|Republican leaders are trying to redirect their members’ immigration rage, by Jake Sherman and Manu Raju, POLITICO.com, November 17, 2014]. At VDARE.com, we have a helpful suggestion: the House should pass legislation in the lameduck session ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegals. That should vent some frustration—and put the Democrats (birthright citizenship is massively unpopular) in a fix.

The great Laura Ingraham, who is a lawyer, just raised the birthright citizenship issue, which she said leads to “all sorts of fraud and gaming the system.” Here’s a clip of her saying that that, courtesy of the George Soros-funded Cultural Marxists at Media Matters:

The Media Matters people titled that clip Ingraham Urges GOP To Enforce Immigration Laws By Partially Repealing 14th Amendment, and they linkedto The Fourteenth Amendment's Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship, By Elizabeth Wydra, American Constitutional Society, May 14, 2009.

Salon.com, in the usual Leftist echo-chamber style, piled on with Laura Ingraham wants to change Constitution to strip immigrants’ children of citizenship, By Luke Brinker, November 17, 2014.

But this is just wrong—automatic citizenship for the children of foreigners resident in the US is not in the Fourteenth Amendment, but is only a controversial judicial interpretation, which Congress can overrule. The text of the relevant clause says that

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

That part about “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes a number of categories, including foreign diplomats, American Indians (whose citizenship stems from the later Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) and the children of a hypothetical invading army.

Laura Ingraham was quoted by Salon:

Responding to former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough...