Southwest Border Sees Big Drop In Illegal Border Crossings

By William Teach March 1, 2017 – 8:01 am

Article after article from the Credentialed Media discusses the fear created by Trump’s policies for those who are unlawfully present in the United States. Here’s the thing: perhaps the policies are meant to provide fear to those who might still consider coming to the United States illegally in order to reduce the flow into the U.S.

(Fox) There was a significant dip in illegal immigration across the southwest border during President Trump’s first month in office compared to that of the last three months of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.

In January, 31,575 individuals were taken into custody between ports of entry on the southwest border. That contrasts with an average of more than 45,000 for each of the previous three months, according to a CPB report released Monday.

The agency said that while it is experiencing a decrease in illegal attempts at entry, the overall total migration remains at elevated levels due to family units and unaccompanied children from three groups: Central Americans, Haitian nationals migrating from Brazil and Cuban nationals.

If people from other nations know they can cross the border and won’t be immediately deported, that they will be a part of catch and release, allowing them to disappear into the U.S., if they are being almost invited by the previous administration and elected Democrats, if some cities will protect them, and so forth, they will come. If they think things won’t go well if they cross the border illegally, many will not bother trying.

Jim Carafano, a security expert with the Heritage Foundation, said an assortment of factors could account for the change in numbers.

“There are a lot of reasons why numbers go up and down, but some of it could be a reaction to statements from President Trump that we’re going to increase border security and seeing media reports that we’re going to get tougher on illegal immigration in the U.S. People may be more resistant to come,” Carafano told Fox News.

“You can’t make too much of monthly numbers, but if you see the total lawful immigration population drop, that means you’re doing something that’s impacting the system overall.”

We’ll see if the numbers continue to drop, or at least stay lower than previous. If the numbers drop, people might be open to some sort of pathway, whether it be to just legalization or goes to citizenship.

A senior Trump administration official said Tuesday that the president is considering legislation to provide a pathway to legal status, but not yet citizenship, for those currently in the United States illegally — despite reports throughout his campaign for a “mass deportation.”

The senior administration official said that the president thinks it is “time to push for an immigration bill.”

The problem with previous attempts, such as the Gang Of 8 bill, and George W. Bush’s push, is that they were clearly meant to provide levels of legalization while paying lip service to actually doing all they could to stop the flow along with things like taking a harder approach to those who might come illegally along with those who overstayed visas. If border security is increased, if conditions are implemented that dis-incentivize people from coming illegally along with overstaying visas, if the unlawfully present are not handed everything on a platter, an overall policy of being tough on illegals, then, we can look at legalization.

Read: Southwest Border Sees Big Drop In Illegal Border Crossings »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Southwest Border Sees Big Drop In Illegal Border Crossings | Trackback URL

Trump’s Joint Address Played Pretty Darned Well With Viewers

By William Teach March 1, 2017 – 7:36 am

Within the liberal media there is quite a bit of vexation over Trump’s speech, which was pretty darned good. It leads to the typical headlines meant to take shots

It keeps going and going, where news organizations had sqeeeeeeee’d after an Obama speech.

How did the people feel about it?

(CNN) President Donald Trump’s first address to Congress received largely positive reviews from viewers, with 57% who tuned in saying they had a very positive reaction to the speech, according to a new CNN/ORC poll of speech-watchers.

Nearly 7-in-10 who watched said the President’s proposed policies would move the country in the right direction and almost two-thirds said the president has the right priorities for the country. Overall, about 7-in-10 said the speech made them feel more optimistic about the direction of the country.

Obviously, CNN attempts to throw cold water on this good news

The survey, conducted among a group of Americans who said in interviews conducted before the speech that they planned to watch and agreed to be re-contacted, only reflects the views of those who watched the speech, not of all Americans.

Says the company which attempted to tell us that Hillary would win based on surveys of 1,000 Americans. In all fairness, this survey was of 509 Americans.

On specific issues, Trump scored the highest marks for his proposed policies on the economy, with 72% saying those went in the right direction. Almost as many, 70%, said the same about his terrorism proposals. Slightly fewer, but still a majority, felt his policies on taxes (64%), immigration (62%) or health care (61%) were heading in the right direction.

Ideologically, about two-thirds saw Trump’s speech as about right, while roughly on-quarter (26%) pegged it as too conservative. Just 8% said it wasn’t conservative enough.

Mr. Trump made lots of promises and policy prescriptions during the speech. No, he didn’t give much in the way of details on how this will happen. These types of speeches never include much in the way of details, they are about lofty rhetoric. And people’s eyes would glaze over if they attempted to be policy wonks. But, now, the trick is to make them happen.

Thank goodness Democrats are being Adult about this

Pelosi: Why Yes-We’re Looking At Ways To Impeach Trump

https://twitter.com/waddatwit/status/836670083959119872

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump’s Joint Address Played Pretty Darned Well With Viewers »

Posted in Donald Trump | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Could Cause Us To Lose Words

By William Teach February 28, 2017 – 4:56 pm

Everybody panic!

6 Words That Could Go Extinct Because of Climate Change

A warming planet has meant that every year since 2001 was the hottest year on record. Climate change will eventually force many populations to migrate and put a quarter of all species at risk of vanishing. But not all of the doomsday scenarios will unfold before our eyes. The subtleties of climate catastrophe are already affecting language around the world. Wherever you call home, the very words coming out of your mouth are in danger of becoming obsolete. Take these six, for example.

Let’s take a look

Leg Basket

Noun: A compartmental structure on the hind legs of certain bees used to harvest and transport pollen.

This is because bees, who have survived through numerous warm and cool periods, are DOOOOOMED!

Lift Line

Noun: The queue of skiers and snowboarders waiting to board a chairlift for a ride up the mountain at a winter resort.

Because snow at lower levels will be a thing of the past.

Icefoot

Noun: An unmoving ribbon of sea ice that attaches to the coast or edge of a glacier.

This never happened before you drove a fossil fueled, vehicle, you bastard!

Scallop Dredge

Noun: A rake/cage/net thingamabob that’s dragged along the bottom of the ocean to collect scallops for consumption.

Scallops are doomed. I blame you.

Hogshead

Noun: A large cask, a unit of measure for a large volume of liquid, usually beer or wine.

Beer and wine is doomed.

Lanthanides

Noun: The series of rare-earth elements used in the production of myriad green and high-tech devices.

Hooray for hybrid cars and renewable energy, right? Yes, but those car batteries, solar cells, and wind turbines (along with iPhones, MRI scans, and 4K TVs) require the expensive extraction of neodymium, dysprosium, and more than a dozen other elements that can unleash radioactive by-products and contaminate the air and water. Companies are looking at substitutes for the very elements we currently rely on for many of the “green” products that ease our carbon-footprint guilt. With rising demand for renewable and high-tech elements, the vast majority of them coming from China, more companies are putting research and development into abundant-metal substitutes for lanthanides.

Wait, what? Let me see if I’m getting this. Because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle and refuse to buy local (you bastard!), you’ve made it so hot, and will make it hotter, so they had to do all this mining to save us with green energy, which is running out. Right? These people are nuts.

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Could Cause Us To Lose Words »

Posted in Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 28, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled tank involved in carbon pollution created war, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is NoTricksZone, with a post on new papers linking the modern climate with natural variability.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Dems Bright Idea: Bring Illegal Aliens To Trump Address To Congress

By William Teach February 28, 2017 – 10:56 am

This could be a very bad idea (via Twitchy)

Uh huh

When President Donald Trump makes his first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, at least four undocumented immigrants whose temporary legal status could be revoked will be in the House watching him speak.

Aaima Sayed, a Muslim-American whose parents brought her to the U.S. when she was three years old, has been invited as a guest of the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois. (snip)

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, and Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan—all Democrats—also plan to bring DACA recipients to the address.

Many have suggested detaining the illegals right there and then. Nah. Here’s a better idea

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/836376529848451072

More specifically, under (A)(1)(a)(iv):

(Anyone who) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law;

This provides for fines and imprisonment for up to 5 years. And, yes, a process would have to be followed, starting with impeachment of the member. It would set a precedent, which would have Democrats at Moonbat Level 10, but, they should learn that breaking the law is not allowed.

Read: Dems Bright Idea: Bring Illegal Aliens To Trump Address To Congress »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What’s The Real Goal Of Trump’s Immigration Orders?

By William Teach February 28, 2017 – 7:18 am

The Los Angeles Times takes a shot at providing the answer, and you’ll be shocked

The real goal of Trump’s executive orders: Reduce the number of immigrants in the U.S.

Shocking! Reducing the number of immigrants!

Behind President Trump’s efforts to step up deportations and block travel from seven mostly Muslim countries lies a goal that reaches far beyond any immediate terrorism threat: a desire to reshape American demographics for the long term and keep out people who Trump and senior aides believe will not assimilate.

In pursuit of that goal, Trump in his first weeks in office has launched the most dramatic effort in decades to reduce the country’s foreign-born population and set in motion what could become a generational shift in the ethnic makeup of the U.S.

Trump and top aides have become increasingly public about their underlying pursuit, pointing to Europe as an example of what they believe is a dangerous path that Western nations have taken. Trump believes European governments have foolishly allowed Muslims with extreme views to settle in their countries, sowing seeds for unrest and recruitment by terrorist groups.

Even though the LA Times is projecting, well, guessing, it’s a good guess. Why would we want to allow in people who do not assimilate, and, in actuality, bring their 3rd world extremist beliefs and implement them in our nations, as we have seen again and again in Europe? Muslim nations do not want these extremists: why would we?

Two days after Trump imposed the ban, a senior administration official told reporters at the White House that the order was part of a larger strategy to develop an immigration system that selects immigrants the White House believes will make “positive contributions” to the country.

Sounds like a wise idea.

That change has alarmed right-wing nationalists like Miller and Bannon, who see Trump’s administration as an opportunity to change those migration trends for decades to come.

The two men see the country’s long-term security and wage growth entwined with reducing the number of foreign-born people allowed to visit, immigrate and work in the U.S.

Other nations do exactly the same, such as Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. Why shouldn’t the United States be allowed to control those who come in while picking and choosing those who will make our country better?

Read: Say, What’s The Real Goal Of Trump’s Immigration Orders? »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Begins Plan To Do Away With Clean Water Or Something

By William Teach February 28, 2017 – 7:00 am

Is it any wonder that President Trump is at war with the majority of the U.S. media when they run headlines like this one at the NY Times?

Trump Plans to Begin E.P.A. Rollback With Order on Clean Water

The headline and article at the Washington Post, among others, isn’t any better. What’s it all about?

President Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Tuesday aimed at rolling back one of former President Barack Obama’s major environmental regulations to protect American waterways, but it will have almost no immediate legal effect, according to two people familiar with the White House plans.

The order will essentially give Mr. Trump a megaphone to direct his new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, to begin the complicated legal process of rewriting the sweeping 2015 rule known as Waters of the United States. But that effort could take longer than a single presidential term, legal experts said.

An advance copy of the order was viewed by The New York Times on Monday. It is the first of two announcements expected to direct Mr. Pruitt to begin dismantling the major pillars of Mr. Obama’s environmental legacy.

In the coming week, Mr. Trump is also expected to sign a similar order instructing Mr. Pruitt to begin the process of withdrawing and revising Mr. Obama’s signature 2015 climate-change regulation, aimed at curbing emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants.

Because both of those rules were finalized under existing laws long before Mr. Obama left office, they cannot be simply undone with a stroke of the president’s pen, legal experts in both the Obama and Trump White Houses have said.

Neither rule took that long to enact. In fact, both Obama rules are under court orders, as the Obama administration was sued over these rules. Neither of them are in effect

That could take several years. To follow the law, Mr. Pruitt will have to withdraw the current Obama administration water regulation and craft a new version of the rule, along with a justification as to why it would be legally superior to the earlier one. That would be subject to a public comment period before it is finalized, and it could face new lawsuits afterward.

There are several ways that the Waters Of The United States and Clean Power Plan can be deleted. First, Congress can pass a law doing away with all or part of either. In fact, there’s already legislation out there to do just that with the Waters rule.

Second, Pruitt can simply follow the rulemaking process, essentially in reverse. The rationale? That there’s no need for the rules to start with. That the federal government should have no power over tiny streams and ponds and such that do not leave the state. There are lots of reasons.

Trump can also refuse to defend both the Waters and Clean Power Plan in court.

It does say something about federal rules that it is supposedly so difficult to get rid of them, and it’s not something good.

Trump should announce the beginning of another rule: the Clean Credentialed Media Plan. In this, the US media would need to reduce their “carbon footprint” in their operations. I wonder how many media outlets would react to having these rules on themselves?

Regardless, doing away with either rule will not have an effect on clean air, land, or water.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Begins Plan To Do Away With Clean Water Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, Government | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Talking To Your Air Conditioner Can Help Alleviate ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 27, 2017 – 7:00 pm

That is, if the Cult of Climastrology will let you have one, or at least one that works worth a damn

How talking to air conditioners could help prevent blackouts

For South Australia, it was a cruelly ironic one-two punch – a burst of the extreme heat conditions that are so much more likely because of climate change, and a power cut linked to a simultaneous drop in wind that hobbled the renewable energy systems introduced to minimise global warming in the first place. (big snip)

The telecommunications expert envisions an Internet of Things (IoT) integrated energy grid that provides live weather updates, monitors power shortfalls, predicts demand, and reacts accordingly – even utilising smart meters to adjust an entire state’s air conditioners to reduce power consumption.

“What you need in these emergencies is a manageable system, not just a matter of switching power on and off to entire areas, but having all this in place you could manage air cons in people’s homes in such a way that it doesn’t overload the network,” he says.

What they’re discussing is not actually talking to your AC, but allowing the energy companies, which are heavily regulated by the government, to control all aspects of your power consumption. It’s back to the whole “smart grid” idea, which would leave your home vulnerable to all sorts of things, including hacking into your home controllers to the power company remotely shutting off your power. They can also do things like change the temperature of your home via your heating and AC systems.

How much do you want them in your home? Oh, right, we have to solve Hotcoldwetdry. When Liberals start giving up their own control of power in their homes, the rest of us might consider it.

Read: Talking To Your Air Conditioner Can Help Alleviate ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 27, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a roadway being destroyed by carbon pollution, but, hey, people shouldn’t be driving fossil fueled vehicles anyway, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on how to be Offended by anything.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ To Make Vancouver Like San Diego Or Something

By William Teach February 27, 2017 – 10:42 am

From the Department of Everyone Panic at the University Of Climastrology

Climate change predicted to transform Vancouver into San Diego, but at a heavy cost

Goodbye Vancouver, hello San Diego.

A major climate-change study predicts temperatures in Metro Vancouver will exceed those of present-day Southern California in the coming decades.

Frost and ice will become virtually a thing of the past, heating bills will drop, and farm crops will flourish virtually year-round in the Fraser Valley.

That’s the good news.

On the down side — and there is plenty of it — the region can expect: air-conditioning costs to soar; worsening smog and associated health problems; increased forest fires and water shortages; summer droughts followed by severe fall rain events; and an influx of invasive species threatening forests and agriculture.

A new 70-page study, Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver, predicts changes in temperature and precipitation that will affect everything from sewage pipes to ski hills in the 2050s — just 33 years distant — and 2080s. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, based at the University of Victoria, assisted in the report.

The average temperature for San Diego is 63.65F. Vancouver’s is 51.8. That’s a long way to go in just a few decades, but, hey, what’s a bit of scaremongering amongst Warmists?

Even if the temperatures increase by over 12 F, if the rainfall increases as the study suggests, if there are different species coming into Vancouver, if there are more bugs, how do other cities with the same issues survive? Because they aren’t Warmist snowflakes.

Good news, though: they are going to do lots and lots of taxpayer funded studies, culminating in policy prescriptions that cover everything, from building codes, to vehicles, to the economy, to how people are allowed to go about their daily lives. The same old same old.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ To Make Vancouver Like San Diego Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove