The beginning of the end for the USA

I’m reading Martin van Creveld’s The Rise and Decline of the State and came across this passage regarding government centralizing services:

By that time even the United States, traditionally the stronghold of rugged individualism and low taxes (to make the House of Lords vote money for his plans, Lloyd George had threatened to create the necessary number of new peers), was feeling the need to do something for its working population.  A modest first step had been taken in 1912 when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a law requiring the payment of minimum wages.  However, it only lasted a few years; in 1923 a Supreme Court decision declared a State of Oregon minimum-wage law for women unconstitutional.  Other measures to extend government control and limit private enterprise were equally unsuccessful.  For example, the number of persons who benefited from a government vocational education scheme instituted in 1917 was so small that statistics about it simply ceased to be published.  In 1920 a law calling for the abolition of child labor failed to make it through Congress.  Five years later, a Kansas law for the compulsory arbitration of industrial disputes was similarly thrown out of the High Court.  In 1929, the last year of prosperity, all American federal welfare expenditure combined only amounted to $0.25 per head of population, which constituted perhaps one percent of its British equivalent.

In the event it took the Great Depression and 12 million unemployed to shake the United States out of the world of laissez faire and into the one in which, whatever the names attached to the various schemes, welfare came to be financed out of taxation.  The foundations were laid in 1933 when President Roosevelt, ignoring howls of Republican opposition, set up the Federal Emergency Relief Agency (FERA).  Its first director was a social worker, Harry Hopkins; armed with a war chest of $500,000,000, it provided work for at least some of those who needed it.  Over the next six years this and numerous other programs led to the spending of some $13 billion over and the construction of 122,000 public buildings, 77,000 bridges, and 64,000 miles of roads inter alia – all, however, without making a real dent in the Depression which only ended in September 1939 when, following the outbreak of war in Europe, the stock exchange went through the roof.

Administratively speaking, the annus mirabilis of the New Deal proved to be 1935.  That year saw the introduction of social security including old-age insurance and assistance, unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind.  In 1939 survivors’ and disability insurance, already a standard feature in the most advanced European countries, were added to the list.  By that time every American citizen had been issued with his or her social security card and the Department of Health and Human Services had been created to oversee the system’s operation.  Even the Supreme Court was prepared to cooperate, though not before Roosevelt, having fought a battle royal with Congress, packed it with his own supporters.  In 1937 a Washington State minimum wage law was declared constitutional.  Another ruling did the same for social security itself; the age of big government had truly begun.

If only we could go back to the days where the Supreme Court actually respected the Constitution and “rugged individualism” was the law of the land.  Instead we let the socialists take over and burden us with the albatrosses of welfare and social security, and a bit later open borders.

Self-responsibility is a powerful motivator.  Yes, some people suffered by some of those Supreme Court decisions and yes, some people would have suffered if some of those social service programs weren’t in place (note that these social service programs did not end the Depression).  But you know what?  Having the onus on you and you alone to survive and fulfill your destiny is a powerful motivator.  When there is no guaranteed safety net most people will be motivated to work, or else that’s it.  With that also comes a greater sense of satisfaction.  And it is better for EVERYONE in the long run.  Sometimes we need to let things fail.  Some short-term pain saves a lot worse long-term suffering.  These decisions made decades ago have shackled us and our children and future generations.  They have destroyed far more lives than the few individuals who would have suffered at the time.

Adding these disastrous programs, in combination with the 1965 Immigration Act, which opened the floodgates for people who had no allegiance to the founding of the country and do not have the will (or often the capacity) to possibly live up to the original American ideal, and you have a bonafide disaster on your hands.  The demographic alteration that took place because of that cannot be emphasized enough.  The country, as it was before these social services programs and opening the borders, fundamentally changed forever.  And for the worse.

DACA extension for wall offer

Well, it looks like the Axios report regarding the offer President Trump was going to make at his presser today was correct.  Essentially he offered a three year DACA extension for the $5.7 billion.  Whatever happened to negotiating for $25 billion?  Or building a wall across the entire border, not just certain areas?  Why are we negotiating at all for people who are here illegally anyways?  Are we really so stupid to think that rewarding lawlessness will lead to anything other than encouragement of more lawlessness?

President Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now.  This all could be part of a bigger play.  He may know they won’t take it and he will then have the upper hand over more people in the court of public opinion.  God I hope this is the play.

The more one hears though the more one thinks the country is probably already doomed.  Yes, stopping illegal immigration is a top priority.  But even legal immigration needs a complete makeover.  If we continue to allow any and all people in even legally the demographic complexion of the country will change to something unrecognizable.  We’re already going that way.  I have nothing against Hispanics, or Africans, or anyone else, but I also don’t want to live in a country that’s predominantly Hispanic.  I just don’t.  But that’s the trajectory we are on.  Birth rates and legal and illegal immigration trends point that way.  Do you want to live in a new version of Mexico?  Is it really so racist to bring this up?  To want to live in a country going forward with the same demographic makeup as we had when we were younger?  Would we shame an African for saying he didn’t want to live amongst white people if his country were all of a sudden majority white in his homeland?

It’s probably already too late.  President Trump, for all the good he has done, hasn’t gone far enough and won’t go far enough.  He’s a civic nationalist.  And his ideas, while idealistic, are a bit naive.  Unless legal immigration is brought to a trickle or halted altogether America as we know it will have exactly zero shot of surviving in its current form.  And the result of increased diversity and multiculturalism will inevitably lead to war.  It always does.

A Race to the Bottom

As the Government shutdown continues to drag on one thing seems apparent: those opposing the wall are hoping their constituents aren’t paying attention or just don’t care.  Consider a few of the facts presented by President Trump in a letter President Trump sent to Congress earlier this month:

  • In fiscal year (FY) 2018, 17,000 adults at the border with existing criminal records were arrested by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border agents.
  • In FY2017 and FY2018, ICE officers arrested approximately 235,000 aliens on various criminal charges or convictions within the interior of the United States—including roughly 100,000 for assault, 30,000 for sex crimes, and 4,000 for homicides.
  • We are now averaging 60,000 illegal and inadmissible aliens a month on our Southern Border.
  • Last month alone, more than 20,000 minors were smuggled into the United States.
  • The immigration court backlog is nearly 800,000 cases.
  • There has been a 2,000 percent increase in asylum claims over the last five years, with the largest growth coming from Central America—while around 9 in 10 claims from Central American migrants are ultimately rejected by the immigration courts, the applicant has long since been released into the interior of the United States.
  • In FY2017, roughly 135,000 illegal and inadmissible family units arrived from Central America. Of those, less than 2 percent have been successfully removed from the country due to a shortage of resources and glaring loopholes in our federal laws.
  • So far in FY2019, we have seen a 280 percent increase in family units from FY2018.
  • 300 Americans are killed every week from heroin—90 percent of which floods across our Southern Border.
  • Illegal immigration is a humanitarian crisis: 1 in 3 migrant women is sexually assaulted on the journey northward to the U.S. border; 50 illegal migrants a day are referred for emergency medical care; and CBP rescues 4,300 people a year who are in danger and distress.

That is an airtight case that there is a problem at the border and that a wall is one of many things that needs to be done to help curb the problem.  Then consider that through restructuring NAFTA we are saving billions of dollars (Mexico indirectly paying), or consider the staggering amounts of wasteful government spending that occurs on a daily basis.  Or how about the amount of money we spend on foreign wars that we shouldn’t even be a part of?  Or this; Rand Paul recently tweeted that we give foreign aid to China and borrow money from them to pay them back…

screen shot 2019-01-12 at 8.54.58 am

The point being that we waste so much money on so much crap that even if the wall was a complete waste of money, $5.7 billion dollars is less than a drop in the bucket compared to the amount we spend each year and why not give it a shot to see if it does anything?

It gets even worse.  Chuck and Nancy, the two-headed monster that is the mouthpiece of the opposition party, voted for fencing several times, as did then Senators Obama and Clinton.  We even had the money earmarked for it and the fence was simply never built.  So we’re supposed to take Chuck and Nancy on their word that it’s immoral and just bad for *reasons* while they previously voted for it in the past?  And for the cherry on top, why is it okay that we fund a wall in Jordan but cannot do the same for ourselves?  Why is it okay for Israel to have a wall but not for ourselves?  Did you know Chuck Schumer, as well as many other members of Congress have dual citizenship and are Israeli citizens as well?  Why is it okay for them to defend their borders, Chuck, but we aren’t?

It is clear they do not care about Americans and in fact think so little of us that they think we’re stupid enough to listen to them deride the wall without noticing their past track record or their current stances in general.  It is downright insulting and shows the absolute disdain with which they view the American public.

Which leads to the thrust of the idea.  I really believe these people are hoping that they can dumb down the American public faster than they think we can catch onto their lies.  Watch a news broadcast from even 15 years ago compared to today.  You may once in a while actually find a spirited debate where opposing views are actually debated at the same time and both viewpoints being heard.  Take a look at this video of Jared Taylor talking with Donahue about race in America.  This conversation would NEVER occur today.  They would NEVER want you to hear the facts or hear the viewpoint that Jared brings to the table.  No.  Now segments are one-sided and they are so short nothing of substance is ever said before another commercial break or topic change takes place.  The “opponent” in today’s segments are usually controlled opposition (read: approved).  Sometimes someone like Tucker will get someone on where there is genuine pushback but the segments are so short that neither side can really have the time to get their point across and it often ends in a screaming match that Tucker needs to end because they aren’t getting anywhere.

This isn’t a coincidence.  The mainstream media is dumbing down the American public.  They are removing the critical thinking skills that we all once had in much greater abundance.  Couple that with distracting smart phones, shorter video clips, more commercials, and less people reading, and you get a genuinely dumbed down public.  IQ scores are falling worldwide.  Mainstream media will want you to believe that is due to climate change…but it is more likely due to the reasons stated in the Unz article.  Either way, the fact is they really are falling.  People really are getting dumber.  You are not just imagining it.  And Americans are reading less and less every year which cannot help critical thinking skills or holding attention spans.

All of this adds up to people like Chuck and Nancy thinking they can somehow justify their current position on the wall and not think anyone will notice how patently absurd it is.  Or worse, maybe they do know and just don’t think anyone will care.  Entertainment has been the opiate of the masses.  So long as people are comfortable and distracted many simply will not care about a wall or the hypocrisies of these people.  I fear a majority of the population will be in for a rude awakening when civilization as we know it begins to break down because we never addressed these problems and let them fester and metastasize to the point that they become uncontrollable.  Perhaps we have already passed the point of no return.  The trend certainly seems to be pointing that way.  But maybe it has not.  And I’m thankful we have a President who is standing his ground and genuinely fighting to reverse this trend.

A Glimpse Into Multiculti America

Check out what was spotted in New York City earlier this month:

New York’s Muslim community has a new security group watching over it.

A car from the new Muslim Community Patrol has been spotted around the city, joining the Jewish enclave’s Shomrim and the Brooklyn Asian Safety Patrol among New York’s culture-specific security groups.

The white Ford Taurus bears insignia nearly identical to those of an NYPD patrol car — with blue horizontal stripes down the sides, a shield on the front driver’s side door and the words “Muslim Community Patrol” descending on the rear door, where a department vehicle would say “Courtesy Professionalism Respect.”

The vehicle was recently spotted cruising along Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge, home to a burgeoning Muslim population.

Is this really the country that we want?  Where every group of people has their own patrols for their own neighborhoods?  This is not assimilation.  This is tribalism.  And not surprising at all when you bring in wildly different groups of people and expect them to live together.  Inevitably they will group off into their own enclaves and continue to fracture the communities.

Screen Shot 2018-12-31 at 8.32.08 AM.png

This is one step closer to Sharia law creeping in, too.  Yes, people will explode when you say that.  They will say that you are overreacting.  They also told us loosening immigration laws wouldn’t change the demographic of the country.  It is simply inevitable if you let things continue to go unhindered.  Sharia is an inevitability once there is a critical mass of Muslims to vote the policy into place.  Never forget that these different groups of people are not assimilating into American culture and becoming “Americans”, whatever that even means anymore.  And it will only get worse.  We’re already at a point where Hispanics do not even bother to learn English anymore.  They don’t have to!  There’s enough Hispanics who speak Spanish that one can get by without learning English.  And we’ve only accommodated them further by making all of our signs English and Spanish.

This isn’t very hard to see.  Follow the current trends to their logical conclusions.  We’ve already fundamentally and nearly irreversibly changed the composition of the American demographics.  That is our new reality.  Just how far will this have to go before it is reversed either violently with civil war or somewhat rationally through the political system.  Given the current political climate I’m not holding my breath that this can end civilly.  It would be prudent to prepare and arm yourselves to protect your family and loved ones going forward.  All of the signs are there.  It would be folly to ignore them.

California: A Peek into America’s Future

California is lost.  For all intents and purposes it will never be able to be the California of a generation or two ago that was a booming economic stalwart where one could raise a family and live a successful middle class life.  This is the sad reality we face today.  It may be able to recover some of its past glory if it splinters into two or three separate states, but that would still be entirely different than the past California experience.  While California is gone, it would behoove us to learn the lessons of its demise while there’s still time for the rest of the United States.

Some may argue that California today is great just the way that it is.  That it’s better today than ever.  So it may be useful to mention some facts to support the notion that California is in worse shape today than ever.  The reality is that California is no longer a state one can even afford to raise a family.  They have the highest poverty rate in the country.  The middle class has been completely hollowed out, and the divide between the ultra rich and the ultra poor is only widening.  CNBC called it the second least affordable state to live in 2018:

These days, making ends meet in California is harder than ever. Consider the housing shortage, which has reached the crisis stage. A 2016 report by the McKinsey Global Institute found 50 percent of California households cannot afford the cost of housing in their local market. It is basic supply and demand. The average home price in San Francisco is nearly $1.2 million. A two-bedroom apartment in or near the City by the Bay — if you can find one — will rent for more than $4,000 a month.

2018 Cost of Living score: 2 out of 50 points (Top States Grade: F)

Most expensive area: San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco

Average home price: $1,182,092

Half gallon of milk: $2.72

Ribeye steak: $12.94

Monthly energy bill: $235.44

Doctor visit: $142.61

California has also seen a decline in their educational system.  A few facts via USA Today:

35. California

  • High school graduation rate: 83.0% (21st lowest)
  • Public school spending: $9,417 per pupil (8th lowest)
  • 8th grade NAEP proficiency: 27.1% (math) 28.4% (reading)
  • Adults with at least a bachelor’s degree: 32.9% (14th highest)
  • Adults 25-64 with incomes at or above national median: 51.7% (21st highest)

California has the largest network of public schools in the country — and also one of the worst-performing. Only 29.2% of fourth graders in the state are proficient in math, and only 27.8% are proficient in reading — each the third lowest share of any state. While low, the fourth-grade reading proficiency rate is much improved from only a few years ago. Between 2003 and 2015, fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 7.0 percentage points, far outpacing the 4.9 percentage point improvement across the U.S. as a whole.

Children who are raised speaking English as a second language often face additional academic challenges at American public schools. Only 64.1% of California students have parents who are fluent English speakers, the smallest share of any state in the country.

There is also serious decay in its infrastructure, and massive budget spending with ever increasing taxes.  Objectively speaking California is worse off today than it was a generation or two ago.  And it’s no surprise that people are fleeing California at an alarming rate.  Nearly 140,000 residents moved out of California alone in 2017.

Why?  What has changed?  While some of these facts may be hard to swallow for some people it is imperative we look at the data and try to learn from it.  The rest of the country is already on the same trend as California, but has a much better shot at rectifying the situation before it is past the point of no return.

As painful a pill as this may be to swallow for some, demographic changes are the key driver behind California’s downward trend.  California is a majority-minority state, meaning that no race or ethnicity is the majority of the population of California.  The Latino population is said to have become the majority ethnicity, having surpassed non-Hispanic whites sometime in 2014 or 2015.

California’s population as a whole has sky rocketed in the past few decades, with many of these newcomers coming predominantly from Mexico.

The problems arising from this demographic shift and overall added population growth have been devastating.  An additional element comes in the form of cheap overseas labor.  The added number of people, coupled with cheap labor from Mexico and overseas, has simultaneously wrecked wages for Californians which has contributed to the hollowing out of the middle class.  Additionally, the increase in people has not been supplemented with the much needed increase in new housing, which has resulted in sky-rocketing rents and an inability to afford purchasing a new home.

But these are only a few of the deleterious effects of this influx of people.  The type of people moving to California now are vastly different than a generation ago.  The reality is many of the immigrants now flocking to California come from Central and South America.  Like it or not, it is a fact that Hispanics of the Mexican and Central/South American variety have a lower average IQ than white people.  Again, this is not an attack on them for this, it is just a fact.  I highly recommend reading The Bell Curve for an exhaustive look into this.  There is a strong link between IQ and average income, and links closely to the use of government assistance.  In sum, on average those making less money also have on average lower IQs.  And we know that lower income people tend to rely on government assistance more.  This is reflected in the data.

This is a double whammy for California.  The Center for Immigration Studies recently put out a study that shows that more than 7 in 10 households headed by an immigrant are on taxpayer-funded welfare.  There is a hollowing out of the middle class and an attack on wages, coupled with ever increasing number of welfare recipients.  This is not a recipe for success.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t help these people.  No, they must be shown compassion.  IQ is not something they can control.  But we must also be honest and recognize that they will not be able to be helped if the tax-paying middle class is run out of the state.  As with a humanitarian crisis, levels of help must be tempered to ensure the population doing the helping isn’t overwhelmed by those in need; a case of drowning while trying to rescue others.

But as this shift continues so too will the mentality of the populace within the state change as well.  It’s not hard to picture a scenario, and we’re already seeing this today, where the very policies that are killing the state are the ones now being pushed and voted for by the same populace that has overrun the “native” population there.  And this makes sense.  Politicians are often voted on based on in-group preferences of race and ethnicity.  It only makes sense that as the Latino population grows they will try and vote in more Latinos.  Whereas whites tend to vote more liberally not on the color of the politician’s skin (generally speaking, of course), when having the option minorities will often vote for their own minority.  This is not at all surprising and consistent with human nature on the whole.  This potentially will change for whites as more whites realize they are becoming a minority, but as of right now it is not the case.  The election of President Obama is a good example of this.  Of course politicians will continue to push these awful policies if it’s what will get them re-elected.  And it’s also a driving force behind why it’s so difficult to enact any sort of immigration laws in this state.  As it becomes more majority-minority this will only continue.

What can the rest of the country learn about the decline of California?  One, demographics matter.  A systematic replacement of a population with an average IQ hovering around 100 with those from countries with an average IQ of 80-90 will not bode well in the long run.  Further, an influx of cheap, unskilled, labor will hurt the wages of those already living in the state, and in particular hit the lower and middle classes the hardest as they are the ones who generally will lose out on the jobs that are being taken by the new arrivals.  Two, as these wages begin to decline, you’ll have more people relying on welfare to make ends meet, as well as having additional people on welfare that never contributed in the first place.  The burden on the remaining taxpayers will only be that much more.  Three, this increase in population will also raise housing costs if new housing cannot keep up with the influx.

These are just a few of the devastating effects of unchecked immigration into a state or country.  It doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface on things like added stress to infrastructure, a regression back to tribalism of sorts as more and more diverse populations are forced next to each other, or the breakdown of the community from this as well.  Most people want to help those in need.  But do not be sold or guilted by the lie that unchecked numbers of immigrants coming to a city or state near you is good for you or your family.  It’s too late for California to reverse this trend, but this is not the case in many places in America.  Demographics is destiny.

The Paris Riots: More than just about gas prices

It’s rarely (if ever) talked about on the MSM because it directly contradicts the narrative they want to push, but the Paris riots are about much more than simply higher fuel taxes.  Though it will certainly not help when people are told they need to add x amount of taxes for climate change/carbon tax reasons; that’ll be a harsh reality for the virtue signaling crowd who previously had no skin in the game.  The posting below comes from an American living in Paris.

It’s important to note that the majority of protestors are middle aged, these are not college or university students, who make up the usual French protests. This is a grassroots protest. It’s been reported anywhere from 50-80% of the French support the gilets jaunes. This is NOT just about taxes.

The protests began over the new taxes imposed by Macron’s government on fuel. The taxes are viewed as punishing those who use cars and those who can’t afford to buy newer ones. The French already pay heavy taxes on fuel, along with high tolls on highways. Every car in France is required to have 2 high visibility vests (gilets jaunes). The protestors began wearing those vests while protesting.

Along with this, the cost of living is incredibly high while salaries are painfully low, especially in larger cities like Paris. The myth of government-ordered 35 hour work weeks isn’t the reality for most salaried French people. Taxes eat huge chunks of their money and the French are fed up with making the same amount in their salaries as those who don’t work at all and rely on government assistance.

Parts of France are also filled with unassimilated migrants. These migrants get government assistance as well. A large part of the French are sick of paying for migrants when French people are suffering as well. There are areas that have stopped being culturally French and cities the French avoid for holidays because of the migrant problem.

In addition to this, retired people have been lodging their dissatisfaction with their retirement pensions (one woman in a video circulating around French Facebook confronts Macron about having to live off of 500€ a month) and Macron’s reactions have been condescending across the board. He currently has about a 26% approval rating.

All of this started bubbling up a few weeks ago as the protests began with the gilets jaunes in November. The protests last weekend got violent. Statues at the Arc De Triomphe were broken; the Arc was defaced. In Marseille, an 80 year old woman was killed as she was closing her shutters. The police threw a tear gas canister at her window. While outside of larger cities, many police officers and firefighters are taking off their helmets and/or standing in solidarity with the gilets jaunes. There have been reports that they have also refused to shake Macron’s hand and have turned their backs to government officials while serving in official capacities.

On Monday (December 2), there was a protest by the ambulances in Paris. They stood at Concorde with lights flashing and sirens sounding. Truck drivers have also showed their solidarity. They have also driven through Paris with lights flashing to show their dissatisfaction. Roads have been closed down by gilets jaunes and they are blocking access of oil in both ports and at stations. As of posting, over 650 stations are on a list of facing shortages or out of fuel. During yesterday’s news cycle, many truck drivers were seen disrupting broadcasts by honking in solidarity with the gilets jaunes.

On Tuesday (December 3), the French government spoke about their plans for “appeasement” of the gilets jaunes. Their offer was to postpone the start date of 3 taxes (related to fuel). This offer has been scoffed at by the gilets jaunes, who have called it “crumbs” as the taxes haven’t even been implemented yet and the offer does nothing to address the issues regarding cost of living.

Along with this, the French have begun demanding that Macron refuse to sign the UN Migration Act on December 10. This has begun appearing across the Facebook groups and events but has not been widely reported in the French media as far as I can tell.

This has culminated in everything from demands Macron step down to the creation of the 6th Republic. There are protests planned for Saturday across France. The protestors are calling the Paris protests ACT 4. They are quoting from the French National Anthem (“Aux Armes Citoyens”) and planning to protest at Bastille. The medical community is also participating in the protests on Saturday.

TLDR: This is bigger than taxes. These aren’t your usual French protests.

You’re going to start seeing more and more of this as the pendulum continues to swing back towards nationalism.  It’s still a long fight ahead, one that is not guaranteed to end victoriously, but the gig is up with the globalists in the sense that their actions are now out in the open and that genie cannot be put back in the bottle.  The native population is finally catching on that their futures are being sold out to those who have no loyalty or allegiance to the host country.

o7r74h

This is a hard truth for many to swallow.  On a large scale basis, multiculturalism simply does not work.  The more religions, races, opposing viewpoints you add together into the same space conflict is inevitable.  It’s not to say there can’t be individual exceptions.  But when we’re talking on a macro level with groups of people it does not work.  Vox Day’s blog is a wonderful place to start to learn a lot of this.  His Voxiversity series also address a lot of pertinent subjects.  The excellent Voxiversity video presented below goes into more detail about the connection between immigration and war.

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/E5t9US49dDdw/

CIS Study: 63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs Compared to 35% of native households

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) recently put out a report confirming what most people suspected, mainly that the majority of non-citizen households access some type of welfare program, as compared to 35% of native households.

Of non-citizens in Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally. Non-citizens also include long-term temporary visitors (e.g. guestworkers and foreign students) and permanent residents who have not naturalized (green card holders). Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.

Among the findings:

  • In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
  • Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
  • Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
  • Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
  • While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.

President Trump, rightly, is looking to close some of the loopholes to prevent non-citizens from taking part in these programs.  The United States simply cannot survive when it is having to support so many people who have no right to such programs.  It is yet another of the hundreds of reasons how immigrants, both legal and illegal, are an albatross to the American citizen, not some sort of great benefit.

The welfare system ultimately discourages people from trying to find jobs and get off of the public dole. Worse, it is the ultimate goal for many immigrants, both legal and illegal, to make the trek to the United States.  It’s hard to convince someone that they should stay in their home country when they can make MUCH more money doing literally nothing in the United States than working their tails off in their own countries.  This is a broken system.  We need to end the welfare state and go back to private charity, a subject I will write about later this week.  Ending the welfare state, and just as importantly closing the border almost entirely, are two steps that we MUST do if we want to keep this country somewhat what it is today.  It will only get worse as the demographics continue to change and the burden on the American taxpayer only becomes worse as more and more people pour into our country and take advantage of our welfare programs.  Just keep that number in mind, 63%, when you hear we need to let more and more people in and that they are only a positive thing for Americans.  The majority will be on public assistance and many will take a job that an American could have.

Tijuana has a lot of problems…

Dark days for the border city of Tijuana.  As if the cartel problem wasn’t enough, it is now being exacerbated by the fact that precious funding needed to fight the cartels is being funneled off to handle the migrant crisis.  Via Breitbart:

The migrant crisis in Tijuana continues to intensify as migrants flood into the border city which is in the midst of a deadly cartel war that has now registered 2,220 in 2018.

Tijuana Mayor Juan Manuel Gastélum Buenrostro declared a humanitarian crisis this Thursday slamming his federal government’s response in dealing with the migrant caravan that has engulfed the beleaguered city as Breitbart News reported. Mayor Gastélum Buenrostro voiced his dissatisfaction with the poor response of the federal government in providing aid for the more than 5,000 caravan migrants who have arrived in the city. The mayor vowed not to bankrupt the city in order to care for those arriving in the city. Officials expect more to arrive daily. Migrant shelters are at full capacity and government resources stretched to the limit.

The migrant crisis is occurring as Tijuana is dealing with an ongoing cartel war that has now reached over 2,220 homicides for the year according to statistics compiled by the state attorney general’s office. Officials reported least 141 killings in the month of November as of November 24.

We need a wall.  And I think ultimately this will do us a lot of good in curbing future migrant caravans at Mexico’s southern border as well.  President Trump reached a deal with Mexico to keep the migrants there while processing asylum claims.  This is huge.  Via the article:

President Trump briefly described the arrangement in a pair of tweets Saturday evening. “Migrants at the Southern Border will not be allowed into the United States until their claims are individually approved in court,” Trump wrote. “No ‘Releasing’ into the U.S….All will stay in Mexico.”

The president then issued a threat. “If for any reason it becomes necessary, we will CLOSE our Southern Border. There is no way that the United States will, after decades of abuse, put up with this costly and dangerous situation anymore!” Trump wrote.

This is the main problem.  They seek asylum or are just caught and await their court date.  Given the number of claims the waiting period is very long so they are released and expected to appear in court.  Very few ever appear and then they are lost in American for good.  Keeping them in Mexico cuts this out entirely and should discourage future caravans from trying this stunt.

We need a wall.  This temporary deal will not last forever and soon we will regress back to our old process.  This should wake Mexico up a bit to avoid letting these people in in the first place.  They may now start to realize if they want to fix their own domestic problems at the border and with the cartels they’ll need to cooperate with us more.  In the end this will improve both countries, something President Trump has yearned for for a long time.

Activist judge blocks Trump asylum ban

Sigh.  More legislation from the judicial branch thanks to an activist appointed Obama judge in California.  Who needs to take over the House and Senate when you can just control the laws with judges?  Via Fox News:

A federal judge in San Francisco on Monday barred the Trump administration from refusing asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally, likely prompting a legal challenge from the White House.

Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 that said anyone who crossed the southern border would be ineligible for asylum.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order after hearing arguments in San Francisco.

The request was made by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which quickly sued after President Trump issued the ban this month in response to the caravans of migrants that have started to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border.

And further down:

U.S. border inspectors are processing only about 100 asylum claims a day at Tijuana’s main crossing to San Diego. Asylum seekers register their names in a tattered notebook managed by migrants themselves that had more than 3,000 names even before the caravan arrived.

Homeland Security officials say there are currently 6,000 people in Tijuana waiting to be processed at the San Ysidro border crossing, with more on the way.

During a conference call with reporters Monday afternoon, homeland security officials said “most of the caravan members are not women and children” and that more than 500 criminals are traveling with the group that has amassed on the other side of a San Diego border crossing.

This is a really terrific system we have set up, where the President cannot do anything to protect the border.  Obama has infested the court system with activist judges who will do their ideological bidding at a moment’s notice.  Just have a NGO or Soros type get some group to file some kind of suit in the district of your choosing and there you have it.  So while this is sorted out hundreds of literal criminals will be able to seek asylum.  Keep in mind if these people were truly seeking asylum they would’ve sought it in the first country outside of their affected country, in which case this would’ve been Mexico, which was offered to them and they refused.  Now they are just shopping for better real estate.  Beggars can be choosers, at least here.

The gig is transparent and simple; try to sneak in, if you get caught, claim asylum.  And why not?  When you have a system where the President cannot defend the border, and will be called racist despite the fact that even Mexicans think it’s an invasion too, what do you have to lose?

This is a disgusting misuse of the judicial branch of our government.  These judges were put in place to legislate by a duplicitous president and we are seeing the detrimental effects today.  For all those who say they deserve a chance at a better life, ask yourself why they don’t come through the proper channels then, and why when they don’t even bother respecting our laws should we bend over backwards to accommodate them?  Do you think kowtowing to them this way will transform their thinking and they’ll magically respect us?  Or might that not encourage them to continue their bad behavior when we’re going to allow it anyway?  No, none of that matters.  As always, these people prioritize the lives of non-Americans over those they were tasked to work for.  Expect more tragedies for American children and more of a strain on our economy.

IMG_9009

Debunking a myth: Illegal Alien crime

One argument that a lot of liberals like to throw out is that immigrants, including illegals, commit crime at a much lower rate than Americans.  They use this as if that’s a good reason to let them in…like crime is an average rather than an aggregate.  They’ll cite studies like that done by the CATO Institute as they proudly proclaim this.  You’ll notice they’ll never include the crime of entering the country illegally in the first place when they tally up these statistics.

This article from American Thinker is a bit old, 2015, but offers a lot of useful information.  It’s important to keep in mind that these numbers go off the absolutely absurd notion that there’s only 11 million illegals in the country.  That number has been bandied about for years now, as if all illegal immigration stopped.  The number is likely upwards of 30-40 million…but they don’t want you to know that…being that it would represent about 10% (!!!) of the population.  The rate of illegal immigration has likely only increased since these numbers have come out, and with that have their violent crimes.

Per the GAO, “as of fiscal 2009, the total alien – non-U.S.-citizen – population was about 25.3 million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful immigration status.”

Since the population of the U.S. was about 306.8 million in 2009, non-citizens comprised 8.25% of the population and illegal aliens about 3.52%. (Recall that they represented 25% of the federal prison population then, and almost 39% in 2013.)

How many crimes did they commit? Almost three million. Here they are.

Now here is where the data get dicey: how do we convert these numbers to rates so that we can compare illegal aliens and non-citizens to other groups, such as U.S. citizens or inhabitants? We have to look at how the GAO determined those estimates.

“To determine the type of offenses for which criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal convictions of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2009 and conviction data from five states – Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas – from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.”

So now we have an apples and oranges problem. The federal data cover seven years and all non-citizens. The state and local data cover four years and illegal aliens only (and only those reported via SCAAP).

Let’s take homicide as an example. The GAO estimates “criminal aliens” were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates.

By comparison, the FBI reports the murder rates for the entire U.S. from 2003 through 2009 varied from 5.0 to 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for an average rate of 5.5. To be clear, 5.5 is much lower than either 14.2 or 58.0.

Or look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52% to 8.25% of the population.

Conclusion: criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher.

And I believe these are low-end estimates. For one, murder is almost always handled at the state and local level, not the federal level. So the GAO’s homicide data are skewed toward the state and local data, which cover fewer years (four) and a smaller population (illegals only). The Washington Post states that “Federal prisoners made up 10 percent of the total incarcerated populations in the United States in 2013.”

OK, let’s assume that 90% of the crimes listed by the GAO (other than immigration itself) were committed by SCAAP persons in state and local institutions. That would mean illegal aliens committed 22,558 murders over four years. That is a rate of 5,639 per year, or over 15 per day. (For reference, Rep. Steve King reported a figure of 12 per day. A sheriffs’ association is reported to estimate it at 25 per day. I don’t know how reliable these values are, but they are not totally out of line with the GAO’s data.)

That would give a murder rate for illegal aliens of 52 per 100,000 (5,639 in a population of 10.8 million) – about 10 times that of U.S. citizens.

Here are the numbers of crimes per day committed by illegal aliens in just a few crime categories, based on those GAO numbers and the 90% figure for SCAAP persons over four years.

  • Kidnappings:  9
  • Murders:         15
  • Sex offenses:   43
  • Burglaries:       71
  • Assaults:         131

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest these numbers are under-reported if anything.  And what of catch and release?  Do those statistics count I wonder?  It probably depends on the city and state reporting the crime.  Something tells me the illegal stats tallied in San Francisco are done in such a way to make it appear less worse than it really is.

We need to win the war of ideas and we cannot continue to sit by and listen and not speak up when the NPCs chirp these statements as if they are concrete fact.  This is one of those lines they like to repeat constantly, along with “diversity is our strength” and “we’ve always been a nation of immigrants”.  Do not be afraid to call them out on this.  There’s a good chance a lot of other people in the conversation quietly agree or you may just turn them onto an idea they hadn’t considered or heard before.