Tucker ON FIRE Over Trump Wiretap: ‘We Live In A Country With Deeply Corrupt Institutions’
|| Daily Caller
“Tucker Carlson unloaded on U.S. intelligence and the mainstream media Tuesday on Fox News, alleging that American institutions are “deeply corrupt.”
Carlson mocked critics in a sarcastic voice saying, “Wiretapping? Come on. That’s tin foil hat stuff, it’s nuts!”
The Daily Caller co-founder continued, “Now, in another time with more trustworthy institutions that would have been the end of the story. But we live in a country with deeply corrupt institutions…”
Carlson recapped recent reports, stating, “According to a now report from CNN, Paul Manafort who for a time last year was Trump’s campaign chairman was wiretapped by the federal government both before and after the election.”
“Manafort, it ought to be noted, had an apartment inside Trump Tower during that time so it’s virtually certain that surveillance of him would have included other members of the Trump campaign staff, maybe Trump himself,” he said.
Carlson is referring to a recent report from CNN that shows that Manafort was wiretapped before the election by the federal government.”
Pelosi Battles Pro-Amnesty Demonstrators At DREAM Act Event
|| Daily Caller
This is What Democracy Looks Like?
“A group of undocumented protesters shouted down House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at a community event on Monday for working with President Trump to pass the DREAM Act.
Pelosi responded to the outburst in impolitic fashion, yelling for the protesters to “Stop it!”
Pelosi was attending an event in San Jose with California Reps. Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman when a group of around 40 protesters interrupted with shouts of “Let us speak,” and “No lip service.”
San Francisco’s CBS affiliate reported that some of the demonstrators carried signs reading “Democrats are Deporters.”
They appeared upset that Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been negotiating with Trump in order to pass a law that will grant amnesty to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
“We undocumented youth demand a clean bill…We undocumented youth demand that you do not sell out our community and our values…We undocumented youth will not be a bargaining chip for Trump,” the agitators shouted, according to CBS San Francisco.
After the initial outburst from protesters, Pelosi tried to regain control of the event.
“Let me say this, because you’ve had your say, and it’s beautiful to our ears to hear you protecting your self dignity,” Pelosi began.
“No lip service!” the demonstrators chanted.
“Stop it. Just stop it now,” Pelosi repeated over and over.
“Yes or no!” the protesters screamed.
“To what?” Pelosi asked in response.
“We do not owe you nothing,” the protesters shouted, adding: “This is what democracy looks like!”
These Are The 9 Countries That Send The Most ‘Dreamers’
|| Daily Caller
“President Donald Trump’s order to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive amnesty has created uncertainty about the fate of the program’s beneficiaries.
Advocates for the DACA recipients, who are commonly known as Dreamers, say they could be forced to return to countries where they have no social ties. But where exactly would Dreamers go in the unlikely event that Congress doesn’t work out a deal to give them some kind of legal status?
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data on the DACA population shows that the vast majority are from Latin America, especially America’s southern neighbor. Mexico has contributed more Dreamers than any other country by a wide margin. That’s not particularly surprising, given the country’s deep economic and social ties to the U.S., especially along a 2,000 mile shared border.
Still, when compared to other countries, the number of Mexican nationals in the DACA program stands out. Of the nearly 790,000 Dreamers, about 618,000 — 78 percent — are originally from Mexico. In other words, about four out of every five illegal immigrants who received deferred status under DACA are Mexican nationals.
By comparison, the immigrants from the other countries on the list represent tiny fractions of the Dreamer population. Second place El Salvador has sent about 28,000 DACA recipients, or 3.5 percent of the total. Guatemala and Honduras, which along with El Salvador compose the violent “Northern Triangle” countries of Central America, each contribute 20,000 and 18,000 Dreamers, respectively.
South American countries round out the rest of the top nine, with the notable exception of South Korea, which is the only East Asian country that has sent more than 1,000 Dreamers. About 7,200 South Korean nationals are DACA recipients — just shy of 1 percent of the total.
Here are the top nine nationalities in the Dreamer population:
WashPo: DACA Illegals Needed Because Blacks, Latinos Can’t Do the Jobs
“There is no evidence that unemployed Africa-American and Hispanic-Americans youths can do the jobs done by “DACA” illegal immigrants, the liberal Washington Post told its readers September 6.
Reporter Tracy Jan headlined her article “The Truth” as she argued that lower-skilled Americans cannot do the jobs filled by DACA illegals.
Here’s the problem: immigrant and native-born workers are imperfect substitutes. There is no evidence that the unemployed Americans, be they black, white or Hispanic, have the skills necessary to hold the same jobs occupied by the young beneficiaries of the five-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
To decorate her claim, she quoted Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He is the president of the American Action Forum advocacy group, an advisor to the Chamber of Commerce, and the former top policy aide to the GOP’s losing candidate in 2008, immigration-booster Sen. John McCain. She wrote:
“It is one thing to say that there are hundreds of thousands of minorities the same age that are unemployed, and a very different thing for them to have the same education, skills and experience as the employed DACA workers,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin … “And if they do,” he added, “it begs the question as to why they don’t have those jobs in the first place.”
The dismissive comments by Jan and Holtz-Eakin comment also evoke one of the more damaging dismissals in the 2013 push to pass the doomed “Gang of Eight” amnesty-and-cheap-labor bill:
“There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it,” a [Sen. Marco] Rubio aide told [Ryan Lizza, a New Yorker reporter]. “There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”
A few details about Holtz-Eakin. His American Action Forum was created by GOP donor Fred Malek. In turn, Malek gets his wealth from extensive investments in hotels, which gain greatly from a large scale supply of immigrant workers and immigrant customers. Since 2014, those investments are managed by Malek’s Thayer Investment Group as a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management. Malek is also a former president of Marriott Hotels. The Washington Post’s Tracey Jan does not mention this cheap-labor conflict of interest, which could color public deference to Holtz-Eakin’s status as an expert.
The American Action Forum did not return emails from Breitbart News.
The WashPo’s article was written by Jan to debunk the pro-American September 5 statements by President Donald Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, amid the announcement of plans to end President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty. Huckabee Sanders said:
It’s a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed Americans in the same age group as those that are DACA recipients; that over 950,000 of those are African Americans in the same age group; over 870,000 unemployed Hispanics in the same age group. Those are large groups of people that are unemployed that could possibly have those jobs.
Holtz-Eakin’s response to that statement was his suggestion that African-Americans and Latin-Americans may not have “the same education, skills and experience as the employed DACA workers.” Jan boosted that claim with a similar claim by another AAF employee, Jackie Varas, who said:
“Many DACA recipients are also more skilled than other immigrants because they possess a college education, so they don’t compete with low-skilled Americans,” Varas said.
An August 2017 study by the pro-immigration Migration Policy Institute showed only 5 percent of 832,000 DACA illegals had four-year college qualifications, and that 396,000 DACA beneficiaries claimed to have only a high school credential and were not in higher education. The same report showed that 8 percent of DACA beneficiaries were working as computer experts, managers, media people or healthcare practitioners, while 46 percent were working in normal blue-collar jobs, such as food, industry, construction, transportation, landscaping or farming and fisheries.
So at a minimum, 396,000 High School graduate DACA-approved workers are competing directly for the jobs sought by the 950,000 young African Americans and the 870,000 young Hispanics cited by Huckabee Sanders.
The 2017 MPI survey also showed another 398,000 young illegals could qualify for DACA but avoided the amnesty. Even without high-school credentials, they could have joined the DACA amnesty and gotten work permits just by claiming to be enrolled in education classes. Nationwide, companies are employing roughly 8 million illegals, mostly for blue-collar jobs, and often via fly-by-night sub-contracting firms.
The available population of illegal workers — including the roughly 400,000 young DACA-approved illegals — ensures that American employers can reduce or stop their efforts to recruit, train, educate, hire and pay the 4 million lower-skilled unemployed Americans described by Huckabee Sanders. That logic is especially true for companies — such as the Thayer Lodging Group and its subcontractors — which rely on blue-collar labor.”
Equifax finally responds to swirling concerns over consumers’ legal rights
|| Washington Post
Sharp-eyed social media users have combed through the Equifax data breach site’s fine print — and found what they argue is a red flag.
Buried in the terms of service is language that appears to bar those who enroll in an Equifax credit monitoring program from participating in any class-action lawsuits that may arise from the incident. Here’s the relevant passage of the terms of service:
AGREEMENT TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES BY BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE SECTION CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS BY REQUIRING ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES (EXCEPT AS SET FORTH BELOW) AND A WAIVER OF THE ABILITY TO BRING OR PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION, CLASS ARBITRATION, OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE ACTION. ARBITRATION PROVIDES A QUICK AND COST EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES, BUT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IT ALSO LIMITS YOUR RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL.
This language is commonly known in the industry as an “arbitration clause.” In theory, arbitration clauses are meant to streamline the amount of work that’s dumped onto the court system. But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concluded in the summer arbitration that clauses do more harm to consumers than good — and the agency put in place a rule to ban them.
“In practice, companies use these clauses to bar groups of consumers from joining to seek justice by vindicating their legal right,” Richard Cordray, the CFPB’s director, told reporters in July, according to my colleague Jonnelle Marte.
Here’s a further look into why the language raised concerns.
Why is arbitration a big deal?
There is already at least one class-action suit brewing against Equifax. Arbitration clauses make it hard if not impossible for consumers to join such suits. Arbitration is weaker than class-action suits, critics say, because it limits consumers’ ability to find facts to support their case, to appeal decisions or to present their case before a jury.
Friday afternoon, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman took aim at Equifax’s arbitration clause, tweeting his staff has contacted the company urging it to remove that part of the fine print.
“This language is unacceptable and unenforceable,” the state’s top lawyer said in his tweet. Minutes later, Schneiderman’s office announced a formal probe into the Equifax breach. In a release, the state attorney general’s office said Schneiderman had sent a letter to Equifax asking for more information. Among the questions were whether any consumer information has found its way to the “black market,” according to a person familiar with the investigation.
A spokesperson for Schneiderman declined to comment on whether officials were investigating the sale of company stock by Equifax executives before the discovery of the hack.
So should I register with the Equifax site, or not?
It’s up to you, but you should know going into the process what you’re signing up for. Equifax issued a statement Friday evening apologizing for consumers’ inconvenience and said the arbitration clause and class-action waiver “does not apply to this cybersecurity incident.”
“The three credit reporting agencies collect a vast array of personal data from consumers to calculate credit scores, which can determine an individual’s loan-worthiness or the terms of a loan. At a minimum, the accrued information includes Social Security numbers and credit card information that would be nerve-wracking to have stolen.
Yesterday, this information from as many as 143 million people in the U.S. — about 44% of the population — was leaked after a cybersecurity breach of Equifax’s database.
“The information accessed primarily includes names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in some instances, driver’s license numbers. In addition, credit card numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers, and certain dispute documents with personal identifying information for approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers, were accessed,” the firm said in a statement. “As part of its investigation of this application vulnerability, Equifax also identified unauthorized access to limited personal information for certain U.K. and Canadian residents.”
Equifax says the breach occurred from mid-May through July 2017, and they urge consumers to “check potential impact” at a dedicated website, which you can do here. They’ve also opened a call center line (which will be open on weekends), and recommend that people with questions advises people who are worried about their information being exposed to consider placing a temporary fraud alert on their credit report for now.”
Executive Authority: How Presidential Statements Could Undermine Both Sides In The Litigation Over DACA
“Below is my column in USA Today on the role that statements from both President Barack Obama and Donald Trump could feature greatly in the unfolding litigation over the rescinding of the DACA order. Ironically, it will be the opposing sides relying on the respective statements from these presidents.
Here is the column.
For Justice Department lawyers, this week must have a maddening familiarity.
The lawyers are in court defending President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. They are also looking at a challenge by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and others to President Trump’s rescission of DACA.
Key to both cases is the doctrine of the separation of powers. Tuesday, the administration staked out the position that DACA was constitutionally flawed as a circumvention of the legislative branch. However, that position was less than 10 hours old when Trump posted a tweet that directly contradicted the legal position of his own administration. Trump suggested that he might reissue DACA or a similar program if Congress does not act — effectively same position as Obama.
It was an all-too-familiar position for the Justice Department. Earlier this year, presidential tweets and comments directly contradicted arguments being used to defend Trump’s immigration ban in court. Those tweets were then used by various courts in rulings against the administration.
However, there is a twist this time. The expected litigation over DACA’s rescission could feature not one but two presidents as witnesses against their own positions: Trump and Obama.
After Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoted from my prior work on the separation of powers in his announcement rescinding DACA, I have certainly heard from many angry people who were aghast that my work would support such a result. It does. As a Madisonian scholar, I believe strongly in clear lines of separation of powers and the need to restore legislative authority after years of unilateral presidential actions. I also happen to support protections for “dreamers,” whose parents brought them here illegally when they were young children. In the end, it was not the merits but the means behind Obama’s program that ran afoul of the Constitution. Regardless of how one feels about amnesty programs, Trump returned DACA to the place it should have remained: in Congress.
Sessions laid out that principled position in favor of the legislative process mandated by the Framers. Yet no sooner had the attorney general explained that position when the president tweeted, “Congress now has six months to legalize DACA (something the Obama administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”
The tweet was widely interpreted to mean that Trump is prepared to do exactly what Sessions said was unconstitutionally done by the Obama administration: Issue an executive action to protect DACA immigrants.
It is hard to see how “revisit” does not mean “reissue.” If so, the tweet undermines the position of the administration in court over DACA and takes away constitutional high ground claimed by Sessions. In the pending litigation, plaintiffs can now argue that DACA is not really dead, and that the president was not serious about leaving it entirely to Congress.
Likewise, any challenge by Schneiderman and others can now cite the tweet as evidence that the separation of powers concerns were not the motivation for the president. Rather, they will argue that Trump, like Obama, has suggested that he could order the same relief if Congress does not yield to his demands.
The tweet also undermined the legislative strategy of the administration. The pressure to get Congress to act seemed to be working after Sessions’ announcement. Many Republicans saw the political costs of the termination of DACA as worse than the costs for passing some protection for these individuals. As soon as that pressure seemed to be motivating members toward action, the tweet reduced that pressure by suggesting that Trump would not allow the program to truly die.
Conversely, Schneiderman and the challengers have their own inconvenient presidential statements to contend with. Some expect challengers to bring a case under the Administrative Procedure Act as a “substantive” (or “legislative”) rule requiring a notice-and-comment period. Putting aside that the rule does not require such a process for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,” Schneiderman and his other challengers never went to court to challenge DACA itself on the same grounds. DACA notably did not go through notice or comment.
Finally, not only can the Justice Department argue that the procedural rule does not apply to a president as a non-agency, the memo creating DACA stated, “This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”
Likewise, where Trump’s tweets and comments are likely, again, to feature prominently in litigation, Obama’s statements are likely to be equally problematic for challengers. Some challengers are suggesting that DACA may be permanent because of the “estoppel doctrine” — arguing that dreamers relied on the government promise that they could remain.
However, in his issuing of the DACA order, Obama expressly stated that it is “not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.” Obama also said he could not change federal immigration law through his executive orders.
Thus, Obama and his administration are on record undermining claims under both the procedural rule and estoppel. Ultimately, the challengers will be in the unenviable position of arguing that Trump’s rescinding DACA requires notice and comment when Obama’s implementation of DACA did not.
Moreover, challengers are suggesting that Obama had inherent presidential authority to bar the enforcement of federal law, but that Trump cannot use the same authority to enforce it. Finally, they will have to argue that people already in this country unlawfully have an enforceable promise despite Obama saying that he could not change the law or make any permanent promises.
The deepening uncertainty over presidential statements and the status of DACA only reinforces the wisdom of the Framers in forcing such major decisions into the legislative process. What we need is additional legislation, not proclamations. Otherwise, the upcoming litigation is going to get awfully confusing.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.”
University Of California President Sues Over DACA Rollback
|| Daily Caller
“The University of California became the first college Friday to sue the Trump administration over its decision to rollback the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
UC president Janet Napolitano, who helped form the DACA program in 2012, filed the lawsuit in a federal court, alleging that the Trump administration’s decision violated the rights of the students who participate in the program, reports KTVU.
“Neither I, nor the University of California, take the step of suing the federal government lightly, especially not the very agency that I led,” Napolitano said. “It is imperative, however, that we stand up for these vital members of the UC community. To arbitrarily and capriciously end the DACA program, which benefits our country as a whole, is not only unlawful, it is contrary to our national values and bad policy.”
Napolitano was serving as the secretary of the Department of Homeland during the Obama administration when she helped form DACA, which gives children brought to the United States illegally two year work permits to stay in the country. The Trump administration announced Tuesday that they would be rescinding the program with a six month delay in order to allow Congress time to act if they want.
Napolitano’s lawsuit argues that rolling back DACA will harm the University of California by taking away productive students and that the Trump administration did not take the proper steps when deciding to cancel the program.
“The University has constitutionally-protected interests in the multiple educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. If these students leave the University before completing their education, UC will lose the benefits it derives from their contributions, as well as the value of the time and money it invested in these students,” the lawsuit says.
There are currently 800,000 illegal immigrants who receive DACA in the United States. Approximately 4,000 illegal immigrant students attend the UC campus, a good portion of which are students who are on DACA.”
“The point I’m trying to illustrate here is that fairness in immigration policy has to be understood in the context of scarcity. The demand for U.S. residency, given how wealthy the country is, vastly outstrips the supply of immigration spots that America offers or can realistically offer. Moreover, no country on earth has a fully open-borders policy as a matter of law.
The question of justice that arises, then, is this: Is it fair to all those people who want to come to the U.S. but cannot (owing to oceans and immigration laws) that people in violation of U.S. immigration law are allowed to stay? You might say that the fact that DACA-eligible individuals were brought as children defeats these considerations of fairness. But what of the millions of Bangladeshi children, many of whom have nothing but a sweatshop to look forward to? They would have loved to grow up in the U.S.
And what of the children who were brought into the U.S. legally? DACA offers no protections to such individuals. Many of the visas the U.S. offers, including the F-1 student visa and the H1-B, are temporary, and many children are brought to the U.S. as dependents by parents who have such visas. Such a child can be in the same situation as a DACA recipient: She grew up mostly in the U.S., but would have to leave once her parents’ visa runs out.”
DACA’s end may hurt OC GOP Congress members’ reelection bids
|| OC Register
“President Donald Trump’s termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival policy is expected to spur Latino — and possibly Asian — voter turnout next year, which would make reelection more difficult for Southern California’s six Republican Congress members already targeted by Democrats.
Two of the targeted members — Fullerton’s Ed Royce and Laguna Beach’s Mimi Walters — have spoken favorably of proposed legislation that would allow many of those brought to the country illegally as children to remain after DACA’s scheduled end next March. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, indicated he might also support such legislation.
But even that might not protect those House members from the election repercussions of Trump’s decision.
“It will boost turnout for sure,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a UC Riverside political scientist specializing in immigration policy. Latinos, who traditionally lag well behind other ethnicities in mid-term election participation, overwhelmingly favor Democrats when they do vote.
“The question is not how they’ll vote, but whether they’ll vote,” Ramakrishnan said. “I think we’ll see a lot of marches in the year ahead. I think we’ll see higher than usual mid-term turnout not just from Latinos but from all young voters, many of whom have grown up with the Dreamers who will be subject to deportation.”
He noted that one in eight Asian immigrants in this California is here without proper documentation, which has contributed to Asian American voters also being particularly sensitive to the issue.
Trump has called on Congress to address immigration during the six months before DACA expires. Already, there are proposals being discussed that would continue to provide legal protections for DACA recipients. Passage of such a measure could dilute the ballot-box damage to vulnerable Republicans, but Ramakrishnan and other experts doubt such a bill will win approval.
In 2013, a measure that would have provided a path to citizenship for many of those in the country illegally passed the Senate with bipartisan support. But House Republicans balked. While there were enough House Republicans to join with Democrats to pass the measure, Republican House Speaker John Boehner declined to bring the matter to a vote because a majority of Republicans opposed it.
Current House Speaker Paul Ryan, also a Republican, has spoken in favor of passing a measure to protect DACA recipients. But Ramakrishnan and UC Irvine political scientist Louis DeSipio are among those who don’t see Ryan allowing a vote on the measure without the support of a majority of Republicans.
“In the past, (Ryan) indicated he would not do this with immigration legislation,” said DeSipio, who specializes in ethnic politics. “I would say that it would be wise to do so, to put this issue behind Republicans for a while and to protect Republicans in 2018 swing districts. But he would certainly pay a price with his caucus.”
That price, according to Ramakrishnan, could likely be his leadership post.
“A lot of Congress members live in very Republican districts and they are most worried about being challenged in the primary by conservatives who are very strong on the immigration issue, including being opposed to DACA,” Ramakrishnan said.
Where they stand
The six targeted Republican districts are key to Democrats’ drive to capture the 24 seats needed to gain control of the House in next year’s election. In terms of ethnic voters, Royce’s district — which straddles the Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino county lines — is particularly vulnerable. Republicans have less than a 2-percentage point advantage in voter registration while 25 percent of registered voters are Latino and 21 percent are Asian.
But Royce was relatively quick to indicate his support for allowing DACA recipients to remain in the country legally.
“We should not deny residence to children who have only known America as their home, positively contributed to this great country and passed a background check,” Royce said in a Monday statement.
Walters, whose Orange County district’s voters are 12-percent Latino and 14-percent Asian, expressed a similar sentiment Tuesday.
“Congress should work to ensure their residency so that they can continue to contribute to our community and strengthen our nation,” she said.
A statement from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, indicated he may support such a measure as well, calling for “a sense of compassion for those who were brought here in their childhood years ago and wish to stay as productive members of our communities.”
But another targeted Republican, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa, endorsed Trump’s decision to end DACA, created by then-President Barack Obama via executive order. He also sounded less supportive than Royce and Walters when it comes to passing legislation to legalize DACA recipients.
“Legalizing their status sent a message throughout the world that our doors were open to share all the benefits accorded American citizens,” he said in a statement. “As the president suggested, it is now up to Congress, and we must face the issue squarely and fearlessly.”
The other two targeted Republicans — Rep. Steve Knight of Palmdale and Rep. Duncan Hunter of Lakeside — also supported Trump’s decision and agreed that Congress is the proper place to address the issue. However, statements from their offices did not clearly indicate whether they would support legislation allowing DACA recipients to remain in the country legally.
Hillary Clinton won five of the six targeted Southern California GOP districts last year, with Hunter’s being the exception.
Democrats — including most in Congress and most if not all of the more than three dozen Democratic challengers to the six Republicans — largely oppose Trump’s action and support legislation legalizing DACA recipients.
“Ending DACA is cruel, immoral and incredibly short-sighted,” said UC Irvine law professor Dave Min, the son of Korean immigrants and one of seven Democrats challenging Walters.
Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, noted that there are other factors particular to each district likely to play key roles in next year’s races. While Royce’s district is more competitive on paper than Issa’s, Royce has repeatedly cruised to reelection by more than 10-percentage points. Issa is more controversial because of his reputation as an Obama attack dog and last year won reelection by just 0.6 percentage points.
Hunter is considered vulnerable in large measure because of reports that he is under federal investigation for the misuse of campaign funds. And Rohrabacher has drawn scrutiny because of his meetings with Russians and with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
“It is unlikely that any California Republican will lose because of DACA alone,” said Pitney.
But Pitney agreed the issue could cost Republicans votes. And in terms of issues with the potential to affect all competitive races, DACA is likely to be in the mix, according to Ramakrishnan.
“Health care and immigration — those will be the two big issues in the election,” Pitney said. “Unless there’s a war.”
DACA Illegals Reject Compromise: Demand Amnesty and More Immigration
“Young illegal immigrants interviewed by Breitbart News outside the White House said they did not want Congress to curb future immigration — even in a compromise to win congressional amnesty and citizenship for themselves and their parents.
“Building a wall can’t stop people coming into different countries … it is a better opportunity for their families,” said Jessica A. who was part of a group from Trinity Washington University in Washington D.C. “I can’t say that needs to stop.”
When asked how many legal immigrants should be annually accepted, she responded: “I can’t give you an answer because it is my people.”
Each year, four million young Americans enter the labor market. But the federal government annually provides green cards to 1 million new legal immigrants and provides temporary work-permit and visas to roughly 2 million foreign workers. Democrats and business groups want to further increase the inflow, but in 2014, GOP voters defeated the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill that would have doubled the immigration numbers and also provided Green Cards to an unlimited number of foreign technology graduates who pay tuition to American universities.
In 2012, former President Barack Obama created a new category of illegal immigrants by granting work permits to illegals who arrived as children. This “DACA” group now include 800,000 beneficiaries, but may grow to 2 million as additional young illegals turn 16.
Multiple youths interviewed by Breitbart News at the White House rejected any suggestion of a political compromise to help create an amnesty for the 800,000. “Why should we make a deal?” asked Nayeli L, from the City University of New York.“We need to be on a path to citizenship … [because] we do the dirty work,” said the university student about the majority of younger illegal immigrants who are not enrolled in college.
The students were part of several groups that arrived at the White House Tuesday afternoon, in an effort coordinated by older organizers from groups such as the union-managed United We Dream organization.
The youths’ sense of entitlement “is being taught [to them] by the media, by the Democratic political establishment. and by some of the Republican establishment,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Some DACA illegals are willing to support compromise deals, Krikorian said, but they are shoved out of the limelight by progressives who use the youths to win their unpopular push for wide-open borders. He continued:
If the goal was to just fix that status of this unique subgroup of illegal immigrants, a special case, then [Democrats] would be willing to deal — say, trade a ‘Dreamer’ amnesty for mandatory use of E-Verify [by employers]. But they’re not considering it because … the advocacy groups pushing it see the [youths] as a stepping stone to a broad amnesty.
While Breitbart News interviewed young illegals outside the White House, others youths chanted “No KKK, no racist USA, no Trump“ and “Help the kids: Deport the racists.”
Some of the students also mobbed a nearby pro-Trump protestor, calling him a racist. Their target, Eugene Delgaudio, who served 16 years on the school board in Loudoun County, Va., was at the White House to protest the Department of Education’s promotion of pro-transgender policies.
“I’m a Trump defender and I had a sign, ‘Defend Trump,’ but they assumed I was there for them,” Delgaudio told Breitbart News, adding:
I asked them if they believed in the First Amendment [but] they wanted to make it so that I can’t speak, so that I don’t have a voice. It is kind of ironic that they are claiming rights … but they have no respect for our constitution. They have no respect for the First Amendment, they have no respect for our way of life, which is to have free speech for everyone.
Ironically, an older Asian immigrant intervened in the fracas, spoke up for free speech, and kept the DACA protestors away from Delgaudio while he completed his videotaped speech.
When Breitbart News asked the illegals if new immigration limits were a fair trade for amnesty, Yoseline R. said: “I think no.” She added that she declined to set limits on immigration because she is concerned for members of her family outside the United States. Yoseline is a student studying for a communications degree.
An amnesty for the younger migrants is “just justice,” said Natalie H., who said she is a Mexican who was brought into the United States at age 3. Americans’ annual immigration limits should grow because foreign people want to “come here for a better life,” she said.
‘The goal here is… a better Dream Act,” not a balanced immigration policy, said Ellie S., whose illegal-immigrant Indian parents brought her into the United States. “We want more than just DACA,” said Brenda M. “We want citizenship, inclusion of our parents.”
Sam M. said legal immigration rates should double to 2 million per year, and all illegals should be eligible for amnesty and citizenship. “Everybody eligible,” she said, adding that she has a “Dreamer” scholarship from her university. Four-year “full ride,” she added.
The demonstrators were young college students, marking them as slightly younger than the average 25-year-old age of people covered by Obama’s DACA amnesty. As college students, they are a small minority of the illegals who were brought into the United States as children, because most of the younger illegals are either HS dropouts and graduates.
Obama’s amnesty provided work-permit and Social Security cards to roughly 800,000 illegals, out of a total population of 2 million people who were smuggled into the United States as children by their illegal-alien parents.
Legislators in Congress are debating whether the 800,000 or more illegals should be given a formal legal amnesty and whether any amnesty should be paired with immigration reforms which help Americans raise their living standards amid the inflow of foreign labor.
Each year, the government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals.
The current annual flood of foreign labor into the United States spikes profits and Wall Street values by boosting government spending and by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families.”
Irma wipes out TWO Caribbean islands destroying 95 per cent of Barbuda and St Maartin, killing at least ten
|| Daily Mail UK
“St Maarten’s famous international airport, Princess Juliana, has been destroyed by Hurricane Irma.
The storm ripped through the airport on Wednesday, with 185mph winds blowing over safety fences and battering nearby Maho beach.
Huge rocks smashed into planes, and boarding walkways were slammed to the ground by the downpour of rain and gusts of wind, which also brought mounds of sand on to the runway.
Hurricane Irma howled past Puerto Rico with 185mph winds after reducing the tiny tropical islands of Barbuda and St Martin to rubble and claiming at least ten lives.
The category 5 storm – the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic – left a trail of deadly devastation through the Caribbean when it struck on Wednesday on a potential collision course with south Florida.
Barbuda and St Martin suffered the storm’s full fury with roughly 95 per cent of properties destroyed on both islands. Officials said at least eight people died on the French part of St Martin – a pristine resort known for its vibrant nightlife.
‘It’s an enormous catastrophe. Ninety-five percent of the island is destroyed,’ top local official Daniel Gibbs said. ‘I’m in shock. It’s frightening.’
The island, which is divided between the Netherlands and France, was left without drinking water or electricity and the death toll is expected to rise.
Barbuda, part of the twin island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, also suffered ‘absolute devastation’ and is ‘barely habitable’ with more than 90 per cent of dwellings completely destroyed, a child killed and 60 per cent of the population left homeless.
Meanwhile, residents on the British Overseas Territory of Anguilla said the island was ‘utterly devastated’ and looked as though it had ‘suffered nuclear bomb devastation’.
The core was expected to scrape the northern coast of the Dominican Republic and Haiti on Thursday and track near Turks and Caicos and southeastern Bahamas later. It is likely to be downgraded to a Category 4 storm by the time it makes landfall in Florida, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said on Thursday.”