Apparently the Trump Administration has been discussing sending sanctuary seeking oppressed persons of foreign citizenship who cross our borders irregularly to those cities in the United States which have declared they will defy Federal Law in order to provide succor to such unfortunates.
My question is, why didn’t the Sanctuary Cities demand this long ago?
Instead, they are complaining such action by the Feds would be “spreading pestilence,” and “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants…”
Wouldn’t it be most humane to send “The wretched refuse,” (quoting Emma Lazarus, as Democrats have lately done) to the place they would receive the warmest welcome?
Before a September 9th, 2009 joint session of Congress, President Obama declared, “Now, there are also those who claim that our [Obamacare] reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false,” Obama said. “The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
In response, Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “You lie!” at the president. Joe Wilson was right, so today is “Joe Wilson Day” at TOC:
Wall Street Journal, Mar 2016, Illegal Immigrants Get Public Health Care, Despite Federal Policy.
Since that article is paywalled, I’ll direct those of you without a WSJ subscription to Forbes’ account of it:
Because Of Obamacare, Illegal Immigrants Get Taxpayer-Financed Care
[N]o honest person can deny that because of Obamacare, more taxpayer resources at the state and local level are being spent on health care of illegal immigrants than would have been spent otherwise…
And they’re moving to formalize it:
California Moves Toward Extending Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants
From Reason Magazine:
The ‘Isolationist’ Smear Against Ted Cruz
I didn’t realize Jennifer Rubin, one of the WaPo‘s pet conservatives, had trashed Senator Ted Cruz as a throwback isolationist from the 1930’s. But then I seldom read the WaPo.
After the latest Republican presidential debate, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin argued that Sen. Ted Cruz had undone himself “courting” the “Trumpkin base,” sinking “further into the far-right brew of isolationism and xenophobia.”
Characterizing Cruz as a far-right xenophobe, though, certainly destroys Senator Marco Rubio’s case that Cruz secretly, in his heart of hearts, favors a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Then again, Rubin may have misremembered how much she did like the Rubio/Schumer Gang of 8 plan, “…the proposal is greatly encouraging on two fronts.”
Count me as un-encouraged then, as was Senator Cruz. And count me even less encouraged now. I’m neither xenophilic nor oikophobic. Senator Rubio’s defenders seem to have a touch of each.
This is unfortunate, since I would happily vote for Rubio in the general election, but I think he’s picked a fight that emphasizes his greatest weakness while attempting to damage the candidate most likely to prevent a Trump nomination. Trump is the primary beneficiary of Rubio’s attack.
In recent days, Ted Cruz has attacked Marco Rubio on Rubio’s well known, and since abandoned, proposal favoring a path to citizenship/illegal immigrant amnesty.
Then, Marco Rubio attacked Ted Cruz on Cruz’ (and Rand Paul’s) resistance to NSA’s warrantless accumulation of email and phone records from American citizens, going so far as to link Cruz to Edward Snowden and the atrocity at Bataclan.
That settles the Cruz/Rubio question for me. Rubio is suspect on illegal immigration and squishy on the 4th Amendment. And, trying to tie Snowden and the Paris atrocities to Cruz is despicable.
The border with Mexico is 1,900 miles long. About 650 miles of it are fenced against illegal immigrants. Our President calls the fence “basically complete.”
It follows, then, that our President defines “basically complete” as 34% complete. Or perhaps less. I’m sure 32% would qualify. Maybe even 25%.
In fact, it doesn’t matter to the President whether we have control of our southern border. The GAO says we only have effective control of 50% of it. At what point does sovereignty becomes suspect? According to the President, effective control would be somewhere in the low 30% range.
Perhaps our President meant “complete” in the sense of “over, done with, terminated, stick a tenedor in it.” Or maybe it’s just affirmative action for fencing material.