NY Times: There Needs To Be A Crackdown On Illegal Alien Employers

By William Teach March 20, 2017 – 6:56 am

It’s hard to be sure what was going through the minds of the Editorial Board of the NY Times in calling for a crackdown of employers of those unlawfully present in the United States. Perhaps it was a typical kneejerk opposition to Donald Trump. Perhaps they’d been drinking too much. Regardless, once you get beyond the Trump Derangement Syndrome within the editorial, the idea is sound, and what I and so many others have been saying since this issue became serious in the post 9/11 world

No Crackdown on Illegal Employers

President Trump began his campaign assailing immigrants as ruthless lawbreakers who steal American jobs with impunity. To halt them, he has vowed to build a wall along the border with Mexico, hire thousands of new immigration agents, ramp up immigrant detention and subject visa applicants to even more rigorous vetting. His administration has been largely silent, however, about the strongest magnet that has drawn millions of immigrants, legal and not, to the United States for generations: jobs.

American employers continue to assume relatively little risk by hiring undocumented immigrants to perform menial, backbreaking work, often for little pay. Meanwhile, as Mr. Trump’s deportation crackdown accelerates, families are being ripped apart, and communities of hard-working immigrants with deep roots in this country are gripped by fear and uncertainty. As long as employers remain off the hook, a border wall and an expanded dragnet can only make temporary dents in the flows of undocumented immigrants.

One has to wonder where this concern was during the Obama era. But, really, employers do get busted here and there. It just doesn’t make the news like an illegal alien murdering someone. That said, the penalties are not as strong as they could be. The civil and criminal penalties for knowingly employing an illegal alien should be so painful that few would dare employ them.

Along these same lines, illegals should not be allowed to attend schools, either. Certainly, our education system attracts illegals. You can bet that the NY Times Editorial Board won’t agree with that. Colleges are supposed to use the E Verify system, as well.

Anyhow, the NYTEB discusses what happened post 1986 amnesty, where they was supposed to be a system in place to make sure businesses didn’t hire illegals as a way to discourage them from coming to Los Estados Unidos.

If all had gone as planned, the nation’s population of unauthorized immigrants would have remained small and manageable. Instead, it ballooned to more than 11 million over the years, even as the government vastly beefed up border security and deportations. The main reason: Employer enforcement has been spotty, giving rise to the institutionalization of a wink-and-nod approach to hiring unauthorized workers. The government has sanctioned and prosecuted relatively few employers, because proving that employers willfully hired undocumented workers is hard and because powerful industries have pushed back on initiatives to hold employers accountable.

Let’s not forget that one of those “powerful industries” is actually the Democratic Party, which has done all it can to protect illegals, and another is a goodly chunk of the Credentialed Media, including the NY Times. The editorial goes on to recommend the use of the E Verify system, and notes that Mr. Trump’s budget only ask for a paltry $15 million for it. They have a point. While increased deportations and more visible detainments make illegals think twice about coming to the U.S., and causes many to leave on their own, making it extremely difficult for them to gain employment will do even more.

Of course, there is an ulterior goal of the NYTEB

The takeaway is clear. While it has become politically expedient to malign and scapegoat immigrants, Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers across the country recognize that finding a way to excise them systematically from payrolls would have a crippling effect on several industries. The only long-term solution to this conundrum is returning to the bipartisan consensus that enabled the 1986 bill. This would require giving millions of undocumented immigrants the ability to earn citizenship, then developing a uniform system to verify employment eligibility, and more rigorously prosecuting employers who evade it.

Barring that form of comprehensive reform, American taxpayers will continue bankrolling an expensive, heartless crackdown on immigrants for years on end. Meanwhile, employers will continue to quietly reap the benefits of immigrant labor while looking the other way.

And that’s where my agreement ends. Especially since the editorial spent paragraphs noting how amnesty happened in 1986 then everything that was supposed to be done to dissuade illegals and crack down on employers didn’t. If we are going to look at any sort of legalization path (my personal preference would be for permanent legal status: they should not be given the right to vote), then the penalties and crackdowns and security should happen first. And Congress should dramatically increase the penalties for knowingly employing an illegal alien.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: There Needs To Be A Crackdown On Illegal Alien Employers »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Asbury Park Press Totally Wants People To Stop Debating Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach March 19, 2017 – 6:05 pm

The science is totally settled, y’all!

EDITORIAL: Stop debating climate change

Climate change deniers have been newly empowered by the presence of one of their own in the White House. But that doesn’t make their paranoid theories about grand conspiracies and scientific hoaxes any less wrong.

What it does do, however, is give them far more power to impose their minority will on the masses — and endanger our environment and our future in the process. Republicans, meanwhile, seem far too willing to go along for the ride, regardless of the consequences.

The GOP needs more representatives like New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo, who isn’t willing to play that game anymore. Earlier this week he introduced a resolution warning that pointless climate-change debates are only distracting from meaningful policy considerations.

“It is far past time we moved beyond the debate from if our climate is changing — it is — to identifying and promoting solutions to mitigate potentially catastrophic effects,” the resolution read in part.

He’s exactly right, even if not enough if his colleagues will listen.

So, stop debating, because no one ever debates science.

But if there’s room for debate on how best to balance all of the economic and environmental interests related to climate change, President Trump doesn’t bother with such nuance. He blames climate change hysteria on Democrats, the Chinese, the media, and whatever other enemies he may feel like targeting at a given moment. Denial in his mind helps open the door to gutting the Environmental Protection Agency, easing pollution restrictions, minimizing renewable energy initiatives and taking countless other steps designed to benefit business at the expense of our air, our water and our wildlife.

First, cutting ‘climate change’ programs has nothing do to with clean air, land, and water, and wildlife couldn’t care less about a few more parts per million of CO2.

Second, if the science is so settled, then why do all these programs still need to be funded?

Read: Asbury Park Press Totally Wants People To Stop Debating Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 19, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world both drying out from carbon pollution, creating sand everywhere, and flooding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post noting that Liberals should be pleased with immigration enforcement.

It’s geek girl week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach March 19, 2017 – 9:27 am

Happy Sunday! Another great day in America. The Sun is shining, the squirrels are squirreling, liberals are melting down. This pinup is by an unknown painter, with a wee bet of an addition.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Last Tradition covers yet another Islamist attack in France
  2. Adrienne’s Corner notes a dead beat dad vacationing on an island for a month
  3. American Power covers the younger folks and their unhinged thoughts on Trump
  4. Chicks On The Right notes the direction of Rachel Maddow’s ratings post “scoop”
  5. Creeping Sharia discusses jihadists going to America’s top schools
  6. Doug Ross @ Journal notes the science being settled in where people flee from
  7. Fire Andrea Mitchell covers a Progressive driving to the White House with a bomb threat
  8. Flopping Aces has the nonsense of cultural ownership
  9. Gay Patriot covers when virtue signaling leads to rape
  10. GeeeZ… discusses a crazy survey sent home from school
  11. Pamela Geller covers how safe people feel in France
  12. Heat Street notes that the whole concept of microagressions isn’t supported by science
  13. Jammie Wearing Fools covers yoga pants destroying the world
  14. Jihad Watch notes Sharia love on the BBC
  15. And last, but not least, Michelle Malkin (Doug Powers) notes a really bad defense of the NEA.

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: Trump Plans To Cancel Illegal Alien Program California Depends On

By William Teach March 19, 2017 – 8:32 am

Perhaps California should rethink it’s policies on being a haven for illegals and they wouldn’t have to be quite concerned with seeing this policy cut

(LA Times) For all of the unprecedented elements of President Trump’s federal budget plans, there’s an item buried in the list of detailed spending cuts that has a familiar, contentious political legacy in California.

Trump has proposed canceling federal government subsidies to states that house prisoners and inmates who are in the U.S. illegally. He’s not the first president to try it, and undoubtedly will get an earful from states like California.

For sheer bravado, the award for defending that subsidy probably goes to former Gov. Pete Wilson. In a letter sent to federal officials in 1995, two days after Christmas, Wilson threatened to drop off one of the state’s undocumented prisoners — in shackles, no less — on the doorstep of a federal jail. (He never actually did it.)

The opening makes it seem as if it is all subsidies. No

Wilson had won a second term the year before, with a blistering campaign attacking illegal immigration. His time in office was also marked by persistent state budget problems, and the money mattered. The state never got as much as it wanted, though, and years of squabbles followed over the fate of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, established as part of the sweeping immigration reforms of 1986.

Just one program. Getting rid of it will save, according to Trump’s budget, $210 million. It may not seem much, in terms of the overall federal budget, but, in practical terms, that money is real, big, and can reduce the load on taxpayers. If California wants to be welcoming to illegal aliens, well, they can expect the really bad ones to come with the so-called good. And that’s what has happened, depending on which report you read, anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 of all state prisoners are illegal

Want to take a guess which state gets the most? OK, that’s an easy one.

California’s state government received $44.1 million in the 2015 federal budget year, according to Justice Department data. Add to that another $12.8 million that was paid directly to California counties, with the largest local subsidy being the $3 million paid to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

More than one-third of the entire program went to California. No other state’s share was even close. A win on this issue for the president would be particularly bitter for the state, where political animosity toward Trump is widespread.

In other words, California hates Trump, so, why should he care about California? The state made its bed by being soft on illegals, now it can deal with the fall out.

Realistically, the program will most likely survive, as it has every other time someone wants to cut it. But, it’s good to see California whine.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: Trump Plans To Cancel Illegal Alien Program California Depends On »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 18, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle causing the grass to die, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post noting the name of Chelsea Clinton’s new book.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Some Dems Aren’t Taking Trump’s Budget To Well Regarding Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach March 18, 2017 – 10:30 am

The Editorial Board of the NJ Star Ledger was either drinking too much on St Patty’s Day, or they’re a bit unhinged

Deranged man attacks climate change funding with budget ax

Donald Trump’s effort to kill nearly one-third of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, including climate research, and all climate funds to the United Nations leaves no doubt about where we, as a nation, stand.

In the shadow of a madman. How else to describe a President who in one moment says he loves clean water and air, and the next vows “get rid of” the very agency charged with protecting them, “in almost every form”?

Madman!!!!! Elections have consequences, Snowflakes. I wonder what the carbon footprint is of the Star Ledger, as well as the individual EB members.

It guts the agency, ending programs to lower domestic greenhouse gas emissions, slashing diplomatic efforts to slow climate change and funding for climate research.

If Trump is sending liberals into this much apoplexy, he must be doing something right.

Of course, it doesn’t really gut the agency, mostly just climate change idiocy, but, giving us the facts would damage The Narrative.

Read: Some Dems Aren’t Taking Trump’s Budget To Well Regarding Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Sore Losers Pass Bill Requiring Presidential Candidates To Release Their Taxes

By William Teach March 18, 2017 – 7:41 am

The Sore Loser Symphony travels to New Jersey

(The Hill) New Jersey lawmakers this week passed legislation that would force any presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose their federal tax returns in order to appear on the state’s ballots starting in 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

The bill was approved in the Democratic-controlled state legislature along party lines and awaits a signature from Gov. Chris Christie, an ally of President Trump. Christie’s office has not yet made an official statement on the legislation.

The bill was inspired by Trump, who refused to release his tax returns on the campaign trail and since entering office, breaking with years of election tradition.

If the bill is enacted, Electoral College voters wouldn’t be able to cast a vote for any candidate who didn’t disclose their tax returns.

First, it is doubtful that Christie will sign this, unless there is some bad blood between Trump and himself. So, we’ll see.

Second, is this Constitutional? NJ is not the only state looking to pass legislation like this, Democrats are also giving it a whirl in New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon and California. Certainly, States can specify the terms of their electors, up to a point. However, the Constitution does state specifically who can be president

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, a natural born citizen and at least 35. Nothing about having to release taxes. As Kyle Sammin wrote a little over a week ago on the subject, states might ignore the Constitution, but, the courts won’t (though, I wouldn’t be too sure of that, since leftists on the courts care little for the Constitution).

Arkansas was one of those states, and the law they passed quickly found its way into court. The case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, was appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the term limits were unconstitutional. The opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens cut right to the logical inconsistency of states altering the qualifications for federal offices.

[A]s the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution. Instead, any state power to set the qualifications for membership in Congress must derive not from the reserved powers of state sovereignty, but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a power does not exist.

As Stevens found in a later case on the same topic, states may be charged with administering federal elections, but they may not use that power to impose policy choices that the Constitution does not contain. Even beyond the historical precedent, the reason for this is obvious. If each state determines on its own who may be elected to federal office, the Congress would no longer be a truly federal legislature. It would revert instead to the confederal legislature created by the Articles of Confederation.

This is in terms of states attempting to impose term limits on Congress, but, it applies here as well. Notice this part: “The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution.”

Anyhow, you go with your Sore Loser Symphony, Liberals.

Read: Sore Losers Pass Bill Requiring Presidential Candidates To Release Their Taxes »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Is Trump Backing Off Of Promise To Leave Paris Climate Agreement?

By William Teach March 18, 2017 – 7:17 am

Throughout the campaign, Trump and his advisors promised to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement time and time again. Were were told he would “cancel it” and “rip it up”, among others. At the end of January, his advisors were promising that he was going to do this “within days.” That hasn’t happened yet. We’re told that his advisors are split on the issue. But, we also saw, within days, that Trump had an “open mind” towards it, then was seeking quickest way out. Now we read

Trump advisers want concessions for coal if U.S. stays in climate pact

Trump administration officials have told lobbyists and European diplomats that the U.S. won’t stay in the nearly 200-nation Paris climate change agreement unless it can secure wins for the fossil fuel industry, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In a series of recent conversations with industry groups and European officials, Trump advisers have said the White House decision on the Paris deal could hinge on international willingness to come up with a strategy to commercialize and deploy technologies that will reduce emissions from fossil fuels.

OK, so this is one of those “some people said something but we’re not going to say who they are nor will we tell you who they told it to, because trust us we’re the media we’ve never lied to you or distorted the truth and why are you asking so many questions?” type articles.

That said, Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner seem to both be Warmists, and have apparently been pushing Trump on this, according to reports over the months. And the article does mention Rep Kevin Cramer (R-ND), who has been advising Trump for a while on energy, who also wants to stay in the deal.

That may not sit well with Democrats and environmental groups, who have long argued against spending billions of dollars to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants when the same money could help speed the transition to wind and solar power. But such a deal could avoid the enormous disruption that would result if the United States, the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, walked away from the most comprehensive international agreement ever crafted on global warming.

Yes, because nothing says awesome policy like watching all the “green” energy companies go out of business once the direct subsidies and loans dry up. Heck, this happens even with the subsidies and loans. As for being the “most conprehensive international agreement evah!!!!, well, if fully implemented it would reduce the temperature by a mere 0.05C by 2100. While costing the world a mere $100 trillion. And, heck, Warmists said immediately after it was passed that it was not enough. So, Democrats are never happy. Besides, why would Trump care if they’re happy?

Administration officials who want to stay in the 2015 Paris agreement believe that creating a future pathway for fuels like coal is the only way to win support from conservative and industry groups that want the U.S. to withdraw from the accord. And some fossil fuel supporters are beginning to come around, despite their overall skepticism toward the climate pact.

“If the world can’t go on without us in the Paris accord — that’s a bit of an overstatement, but to illustrate my point — then perhaps we ought to be in it,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a pro-oil lawmaker who advised the Trump campaign on energy issues. “And if we have that much influence, perhaps we have enough influence to moderate it.”

Even with concessions, there will be no support from Conservatives, only support from squishes like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. A promise was made. It’s time to complete it, not stay in a pact that will obligate the United States to pony up lots of taxpayer money in a leftist redistribution scheme, nor harm our economy, nor raise costs for our citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is Trump Backing Off Of Promise To Leave Paris Climate Agreement? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

What Say to Your Doctor Badgering You On Hotcoldwetdry?

By William Teach March 17, 2017 – 3:30 pm

This sounds like a great idea….for doctors to lose paying customers

Doctor groups take up global warming advocacy

Patients should be prepared for future meetings with their doctors to include discussions of global warming.

Under a political advocacy campaign launched Wednesday, a coalition of physician groups will tell the public that their health is threatened by catastrophic man-made global warming, also called climate change.

Participating doctors will also urge government action to reduce the damage believed to be caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health is led by Dr. Mona Sarfaty, Director of the Program on Climate and Health in the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

The consortium said in a press release that it represents more than half of American physicians. Its members include the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, Immunology; American Academy of Family Physicians); American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP); American College of Physicians (ACP); ecoAmerica, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

On Wednesday, the consortium issued a report titled, “Medical Alert! Climate Change Is Harming Our Health.”

Nothing like a fancy pants physician driving a fancy pants gas guzzling vehicle to and from their big carbon footprint house telling you to cut back on your carbon footprint to ruin your day. Gaia help any doctor that asks me questions or lectures me, because they will be getting an earful asking them what they’ve done in their own lives, what they drive, what kind of house they have where they go on vacation, if they have a second vacation home, if they use air conditioning, what temp they keep it at, if they have an ice maker, if he/she plays golf, and so forth. Right before walking out and telling him/her to stick their bill in their you know where.

Read: What Say to Your Doctor Badgering You On Hotcoldwetdry? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 25 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove