Mediaboss Marketing

Giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens is nothing new. Typically, Democrat-controlled states, like California and New York, are the ones who dole them out like candy.

A Republican in Idaho is shaking things up. Sen. Jim Guthrie introduced legislation that would allow illegal aliens to "earn" driver's licenses. The illegal alien would still have to undergo the same driving requirements as American citizens. The only difference is that illegal aliens would have to renew their driver's licenses on an annual basis and couldn't be used for voting or purchasing alcohol, the Idaho State Journal reported.

The reason Guthrie decided to make the move? He believes this would help attract agricultural workers throughout the state.

We have undocumented aliens in the country, and thats a given, Guthrie told the State Journal. Until the federal government decides to address the illegal alien situation, (the proposed legislation) gives us the opportunity to maximize that workforce while theyre here, because theyre here anyway and driving anyway.

The state senator has heard issues from his constituents who are farmers and ranchers. Some farmers haven't had enough truck drivers to transport their harvest. Other farmers have been concerned about field workers driving to and from work without a license.

One of the responsibilities of the Legislature is to be responsive to the needs of constituents, and Im hearing a very considerable need for this from my constituents, Guthrie said. I genuinely think it will help agriculture, and Im getting a receptive ear on the issue.

The Idaho Dairymens Association has helped Guthrie on the proposal and is taking the lead to promote it.

I think its way beyond dairy and way beyond agriculture. I think it has impacts on all of society collectively, Idaho Dairymens Association Bob Naerebout said. Quite frankly, if you take the time to look at (the issue) you should be supportive. You should be supportive of the fact that if we have people driving on the roads, they should be properly educated and trained to drive. We want people on the roads who have insurance."

Guthrie plans to introduce the legislation later this month or in February.

This is a disaster.One of the many, many reasons I left California was because of illegal immigration and the detrimental impact it has on the economy. Not only do they drag wages down but they also take away jobs from American citizens.

I've had personal experience with illegal aliens benefiting from these types of laws. An illegal alien hit my mom. Her car was totaled. And guess what? The guy walked away scot-free, even though the accident was 100 percent his fault. He had bogus insurance. Some companies exist where people pay $50 a year to get a piece of paper saying they're insured. And that's exactly what this guy had.

Giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens does nothing but gives them yet another incentive to break the law and come to America.

It's disastrous policies like these that will make the gorgeous state I've called home the last 3.5 years into the nightmare that New York and California have become. Once we give these people driver's licenses then they're going to want more: health care, welfare, child care. You name it and they'll demand it.

Read more here:
A Republican In a Red State Introduced Legislation to Provide Illegal Aliens a New Benefit - Townhall

Anand Kumar

Anand KumarAssociate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses

The recent changes in the Indian citizenship law were meant to give relief to the Assamese people from illegal migration from Bangladesh. Ironically, it has made a section start a new movement. These people are opposing the new Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), fearing that Assam would be swamped by migrants from across the border. They want all illegal migrants who came to Assam after March 24, 1971 evicted from the state. This is an almost impossible task to achieve as the situation in the state has changed dramatically since the Assam Accord was signed in 1985 between the Central government and the protesters.

The signing of the Assam Accord brought peace to the state agitating against the illegal migration from Bangladesh. Unfortunately, not much was done to stop the Bangladeshis from illegally infiltrating into India once the accord was signed. In states like West Bengal, the Left Front government actually actively encouraged people from Bangladesh to come to India. This has changed the demography of a number of districts in West Bengal that border Bangladesh.

To make matters worse, in 1990, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) came to power in that country. This party is quite hostile to the minorities. The period also saw the rise of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh. Jihadis, who had fought in Afghanistan, were returning to Bangladesh after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

This development made the life of the minorities further difficult in Bangladesh and people migrated to India in large numbers.

Things somewhat improved when the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina came to power in 1996. However, even Hasina could not do much for the minorities during her first tenure. Weak Central governments in India could not effectively take up their cause. Rather, it would not be incorrect to say that persecution of minorities and illegal immigration from Bangladesh have never been high on the agenda of the governments in India in the past. This allowed an exodus and because of this, the number of Hindu migrants from Bangladesh has increased even in Assam.

However, under political pressure, for the first time, the National Population Register (NPR) was created in 2010 and updated in 2015. The NRC exercise was undertaken in Assam only when the Supreme Court intervened in the matter. The updating of the NRC on August 31, 2019, has thrown up its own challenges. As no serious step was taken to check the illegal migration even after the signing of the accord in 1985, people kept coming to Assam unhindered.

The NRC exercise left nearly 1.9 million out of the citizenship register of which more than a million were Hindus. These are the people who had left Bangladesh under difficult circumstances after facing religious persecution in that country. If the Central government tries to send them back or leaves them stateless in India, it would create a new problem. The CAA has been created to deal with this challenge. Besides, it will also help the non-Muslim minorities who have fled from Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The argument that the CAA goes against the spirit of the Indian Constitution and secularism is bogus. People who say this have to look at the history of South Asia and how states were created here. Pakistan was created as a homeland for the Muslims as Jinnah and his party, the Muslim League, argued that Muslims and Hindus were two nations. He further argued that Muslims were not safe in Hindu-majority India. If this is so, then how can a Muslim be persecuted in his homeland of Pakistan or Bangladesh? Some critics of the CAA say that the Ahmadis are persecuted in Pakistan. Interestingly, Ahmadis, on the other hand, take pride in supporting Jinnah and helping him create Pakistan.

The issue of illegal migration from Bangladesh has become complicated because of the inaction of the Central governments in the past. This has led to a massive increase in their numbers and infiltrators have now moved to almost all parts of India.

The states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal have borne the brunt for being the bordering states of Bangladesh. Its hardly surprising that the people of Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura are concerned about the changing demography of these states. However, they should also realise that at present, the judiciary in India, including the Supreme Court, and the Central government, seem serious and are working in tandem to deal with this vexed issue of illegal migration.

People who dont want a solution to the problem of illegal immigration are spreading the lie that the CAA would lead to a large-scale migration from Bangladesh and the Assamese people would be overrun. Nothing could be far from the facts. Political parties which did nothing to check illegal immigration since Independence are now talking of protecting the Assamese language and culture. Clearly, they dont mean what they are saying. They just want to put the whole process in limbo to gain political and electoral advantage. They also argue that they dont want Assam to be run by Nagpur. But if the illegal immigration from Bangladesh continues, it would be a recipe for Islamist rule in Assam.

The issue of illegal immigration has always been a political football. Its high time political parties in India stop acting on the basis of their short-term political and electoral interests.

The Central government has already declared the cut-off date of December 31, 2014, even for the Hindu migrants. At this point, the interests of the affected states in the North-East are better served by cooperating with the authorities.

If the exercise of NRC and NPR is halted for whatever reason at this time, then there will be no solution to the issue of illegal migration in the foreseeable future.

View original post here:
Take holistic view to check illegal immigration - The Tribune

In a Dec. 17 article, the Washington Post pointed out that President Donald Trump reneged on his border-wall promises ("What is Donald Trump's border wall really for?"). His plan now cuts the wall by more than half, and much of what has been done has only been the maintenance of barriers that stop or slow the entries of cars and trucks, not people.

The piece pointed out an important item Trump neglects: that huge numbers, "two-thirds," arrive by legal visas and choose to stay as illegals.

The piece, however, did not mention that walls work. Israel built a 440-mile wall that stopped all uninvited guests. It worked so well another 100 or more miles of wall is being added. Remember the Great Wall of China? For centuries, it stopped or slowed invaders intending on changing Chinas society and religion. There are lots of examples that walls work.

In addition to a wall, the U.S. should limit total immigration to no more than 200,000 per year, take the steps necessary to prevent illegal border crossings, prevent visa overstaying, set up a comprehensive monitoring system, make E-Verify mandatory for all U.S. employers, fine employers who hire illegal immigrants, eliminate federal money for colleges that admit illegal immigrants, enforce laws against state and city sanctuary practices, end chain migration, end birthright citizenship, end the catch and release of illegal immigrants, deny visas to nations that refuse to repatriate citizens, and require asylum-seekers to apply in their own country with the agreement that it's only a temporary status of no more than a few months.

Looking at the list above, we can better understand why there are so many illegal immigrants in the U.S. with more coming. Law enforcement is broken. Desperately needed policies are ignored.

Dell Erickson

Brooklyn Center, Minn.

Originally posted here:
Reader's View: Story ignored that border walls work - Duluth News Tribune

To the editor: Clyde W. Ford wrongly lumps my grandmother, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, with far-right immigration opponents.

Her version of eugenics was far different from that described by Ford. It sought to address the manner in which heredity and other biological factors, as well as environmental and cultural ones, affect human health, intelligence and opportunity. My grandmother hoped to locate birth control in a larger program of preventive social medicine to improve the condition of all people.

She spoke out against immigration acts and other measures that promoted racial or ethnic stereotypes. She worked for more than 50 years to provide reproductive autonomy to poor women, including women of color, because she saw it as an essential tool of individual liberation and social justice, not of social control.

Alexander Sanger, New York

The writer chairs the International Planned Parenthood Council.

..

To the editor: Thanks to Ford for demonstrating the enduring toxicity and virulence of the racial animus informing Madison Grants 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Vicious frauds like him and the Nation of Islam publishers of The Secret Relationship Of Blacks and Jews inspire scapegoating and paranoid dehumanization.

For too long, these lies have been accepted and their infectiousness downplayed, especially when they appear on the side of the political spectrum with which a journalist or pundit identifies as when an L.A. Times columnist effectively argued that the Womens March leaders who defended a virulently homophobic and anti-Semitic demagogue were something merely to be waved away.

Jo Perry, Studio City

..

To the editor: A piece that talks about our immigration problem without using the word illegal is disingenuous. We admit more than 1 million legal immigrants every year, and if the majority of Americans think we should allow more, we can change the law.

Our problem isnt with immigration, it is with illegal immigration, no matter where the people are from.

P.J. Gendell, Beverly Hills

Read more:
The lie that Planned Parenthood's founder was a virulent racist - Los Angeles Times

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said Friday that Texas will no longer consent to resettling refugees, making it the only state so far to opt out of the federal program that for years has sent the most refugees in the country here.

The decision puts Abbott in the minority, even within his own party: 42 states, including 17 led by Republican governors, have agreed to continue resettling refugees as part of a new Trump administration requirement that state and local authorities opt into the federal program.

The new veto power is unprecedented in decades of U.S. resettlement and comes as the White House has slashed the number of refugees allowed into the country to a record low of 18,000 for 2020 down from 30,000 in 2019 and an average of 102,000 annually during the programs peak in the 1980s.

In his letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Abbott wrote that since 2010, more refugees have been sent to Texas than any other state and about 1 in 10 are resettled here. At the same time, the governor wrote, the state has been the focus of immigrants crossing the southern border.

At its peak last May, more than 144,000 people mostly Central American families and children were apprehended or turned themselves into Customs and Border Protection agents to ask for asylum across the southern border. But that number has since dropped every month to just 40,600 in December after the Trump administration implemented a new policy requiring migrants to wait in Mexican border cities for their U.S. court proceedings.

In addition to accepting refugees all these years, Texas has been left by Congress to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system, Abbott wrote. At this time, the state and non-profit organizations have a responsibility to dedicate available resources to those who are already here, including refugees, migrants, and the homeless indeed, all Texans.

Resettlement organizations said they were devastated by the Friday afternoon announcement.

Its gut wrenching, said Jen Smyers, director of policy for Church World Service, one of nine national resettlement agencies in the country. Its an abdication of everything Texans claim to stand for: freedom of opportunity, freedom of religion, pulling yourself up by your boot straps.

They said Abbotts suggestion that the state had been exhausted by a refugee influx makes no sense when the number of those allowed to come here has plummeted to the lowest in history.

About 2,500 refugees were resettled in Texas in fiscal year 2019, a 70 percent decrease from the 7,800 admitted during 2016, the last year of President Barack Obamas administration. Fewer still were expected this year even before Abbott pulled out of the program.

Since the beginning of the fiscal year in October, 259 refugees have come to Texas, more than half from Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Its a political gesture that is going to backfire, said Mark Hetfield, chief executive of the HIAS, a Jewish nonprofit refugee assistance organization. Now Abbott is going to be known as the governor who has slammed the door in the face of refugees when there are governors clamoring to admit more.

Among them is Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican who supports President Donald Trump on most issues. But Herbert said Utah, founded by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fleeing persecution, is seeking to resettle more refugees.

We empathize deeply with individuals and groups who have been forced from their homes, and we love giving them a new home and a new life, he said. They become productive employees and responsible citizens.

Other Republican governors of conservative states including Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, Arkansas and Idaho have also consented to continue admitting refugees. Even Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, whose state has litigation pending against the federal government over forcing it to resettle refugees, overrode disapproval from his state legislative leaders to permit more this year.

In a statement, Lee, a Republican, said Tennessee and the U.S. have always been a shining beacon of freedom and opportunity for the persecuted and oppressed, particularly those suffering religious persecution. He said his commitment is based on his Christian faith.

Pastor Tim Moore, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Leander who is on the Evangelical Immigration Table, a national Christian group, said he was disappointed that Abbott is wrongly conflating the issues of border security, illegal immigration and refugee resettlement.

When you tie the recent history of immigration and illegal or undocumented people coming into the country primarily from our southern border and refugee resettlement as one issue they are not at all related, he said.

He noted that refugees are the most stringently vetted entrants to the United States, going through extensive security screenings and multiple interviews in a process that can take up to three years.

It is possible to articulate a generous position towards the worlds most vulnerable people while at the very same time remaining committed to our national security and our upholding of laws, Moore said.

Abbott did not comment Friday on his decision. But in 2015 when he led opposition to allowing Syrians into Texas, the governor, a devout Roman Catholic, explained his stand.

If you want to just be pure biblical about this, it is the role and I respect the role of individuals to treat their fellow men with the charity that the Bible speaks of, Abbott told the San Antonio Express-News. Similarly, the Bible speaks of the role of government, which is among other things focused on protecting the safety and security of its people. My hope is that people understand that I am thinking solely about doing everything I can to keep them as safe and secure as I can by making the decisions that I do.

In 2016, Abbott said Texas would accept only refugees who security agencies could certify to Congress do not pose threats, but the Obama administration argued it is impossible to guarantee none could ever be a problem.

Only a handful of the 31 states, including Texas and Kansas, ultimately pulled out of the resettlement program that year. Practically, it made no difference because the federal government instead contracted with local resettlement groups to disburse funding for refugees, rather than going through the state government as a middle man. The state has no direct expenditures on refugees; the program relies entirely on federal money.

Abbotts decision does not prevent refugees from moving here on their own. Now, however, they would do so without the services resettlement agencies provide to help them integrate.

Krish Vignarajah, president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a national resettlement agency, said some refugees will now be forced to choose between receiving the aid they qualify for and moving where their families already live.

Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, said Abbott may be calculating that not accepting refugees will curry favor with voters who want resources spent on Texans and fear immigrants from different cultures and religions. But Jones thinks it will backfire.

It is far more likely the main impact will be to further erode support for Republican candidates within immigrant communities and among Latinos and Asian Americans, he said.

Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said the move could fuel a perception of intolerance within the Republican Party, which could turn off independent voters in the 2020 election.

But immigration and border security remain top issues for GOP voters. Firing up the base ahead of the next election could draw them as Republicans face competitive races in Texas.

Democrats are seeking to flip at least nine seats in the Texas House to seize control of the chamber for the first time in two decades, and there are several competitive state and congressional races in San Antonio and Houston, especially in Fort Bend County, one of the most ethnically diverse in the nation.

If the governor can connect this issue to concerns about legal and illegal immigration, then he may keep the issue juiced up for conservatives, Rottinghaus said. No Republican has ever lost political support from Republicans by being too tough on border security issues.

Abbotts decision will have tremendous consequences not only on the national resettlement program, but on organizations working with refugees in the state many of which could be dismantled after losing funding.

Several have sued the federal government over the Trump administrations requirement for state and local consent, arguing that it violates a federal statute giving the executive branch near unilateral power over immigration. If the judge halts the consent requirement, it could make Abbotts decision moot for now.

Mayors and county leaders of all Texas biggest cities including Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Austin sent letters opting in to resettling refugees, but Abbotts decision supersedes their wishes.

In a statement, Mayor Sylvester Turner cited Exodus 22:21: Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner.

I deeply regret Gov. Abbotts opposite decision and would respectfully ask him to reconsider, he said.

Ali Al Sudani, who came here as a refugee from Iraq a decade ago and is now senior vice president for programs at Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston, remained stunned late Friday.

I honestly need to process this, he said. This is about who we are as Texans, and this is not the Texas that I know which welcomed me as a refugee.

Allie Morris contributed reporting from Austin.

lomi.kriel@chron.com

Original post:
Gov. Abbott says Texas wont admit refugees, making it 1st state in nation to opt out of federal program - Houston Chronicle