Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Trump announced that he may impose a 20 percent tax on all products from Mexico to quickly pay for the wall, without American taxpayers being directly hit with the expected $10 to $14 billion cost.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

David North, an immigration expert with the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) says he has a solution that would entail illegal immigrants living in the U.S. actually footing the bill. Under Norths proposal, he argues that by shuttering programs which federally fund illegal immigrants, nearly $1 to $3 billion could be shored annually, paying for the wall in potentially less than a decade.

Put a 2 percent fee on all outgoing remittances, North writes. The rate is low enough to discourage alternative ways of sending money to the homelands, and the paper created will give IRS good leads for collecting unpaid income taxes.

North also cites terminating the ruling which allows families with illegal immigrant family members obtain food-stamps, getting rid of the Additional Child Tax Credit for children who do not have Social Security numbers, mostly because their parents are illegal immigrants, and charge individuals a going-rate to enter the U.S. from Mexico.

North writes that a small 25 cents fee imposed on individuals entering the country from Mexico, and an additional $1 for a vehicle and $5 for a bus, could create revenue to pay for the southern border wall.

None of these proposals would depress the Mexican economy, all would help fund the wall, and most would have absolutely no impact on the vast majority of American taxpayers, and all (but the crossing fees) would encourage illegal aliens to return home, North writes.

John Binder is a contributor for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at@JxhnBinder.

Excerpt from:
Immigration Expert: Illegal Immigrants Can Pay for Wall - Breitbart - Breitbart News

BY: Cameron Cawthorne February 1, 2017 10:59 am

Laura Wilkerson, the mother of a young boy who was tortured to death by an illegal immigrant, confronted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) at a CNN town hall on Tuesday night, where shecriticized sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, for choosing to disavow federal immigration laws.

"There are over 300 cities in this country that are sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, and you're not only choosing to disavow a law, but you are adding sanctuary to people who come there and disavow the law," Wilkerson said to Pelosi, who represents San Fransisco in Congress.

"In 2010, one of the illegals slaughtered my son. He tortured him, he beat him, he tied him up like an animal, and he set him on fire," Wilkerson continued. "And I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day. Because there are no laws enforcing the border. We have to start giving American families first."

Wilkerson thenprovided Pelosi with a hypothetical scenario in which she had to choose one of her children or grandchildren and tell them that they are expendable for a foreign person to have a better life.

"If you need to go home tonight and line up your babies, as you say, and your grandbabies, which one of them could you look in their eyes today, and tell them that they're expendable for another foreign person to have an a nicer life?" Wilkerson asked.

Pelosi responded by commending Wilkerson for telling her story and said that she could not imagine what she is going through.

"You can't," Wilkerson responded.

"I pray for you. Again, we all pray that none of us has to experience what you have experienced. So thank you for channelling your energy to help prevent something like that from happening," Pelosi said. "But I do want to say to you, that in our sanctuary cities, our people are not disobeying the law."

Pelosi went on to say that people in sanctuary cities arelaw-abiding citizens and that it enables them to be there without being reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"Will my son's killer get sanctuary from the law in your city when he gets out of jail?" Wilkerson asked.

Pelosi said "of course not" and asked Wilkerson whether or not her son was killed in a sanctuary city. Wilkerson said that it was an unspokenrule in Houston, Texas at the time.

"The point is that you don't turn law enforcement officers into immigration officers. That is really what the point is in a sanctuary city, so it's not a question of getting sanctuary to someone who is guilty of a crime," Pelosi said. "They should be deported or sent to jail for what they do."

Read the rest here:
Mother of Child Murdered by Illegal Immigrant Confronts Pelosi Over Sanctuary Cities - Washington Free Beacon

President Donald Trump's Army secretary nominee is reportedly seeking to swap a stake in his airline, Eastern Air Lines, for a smaller stake in the charter airline Swift, sources familiar with the negotiations told The New York Times. Swift Air reportedly makes up to $18 million a year from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deporting illegal immigrants.

The Army secretary nominee, Vincent Viola, is a billionaire Wall Street trader, and his reason for trying to sell Eastern Air Lines is not clear. The airline industry is heavily regulated by the federal government, though, so the decision might be an attempt to detangle from any potential conflicts of interest.

Nevertheless, Phoenix-based Swift Air has millions of dollars in government subcontracts, people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to the Times said. "As a government official, [Viola] would be in a position to push the policy in a way that benefits him," said Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore. "As an ethical matter, that would be inappropriate. And he should not put himself in a position where he could push a controversial policy in a direction that profits him."

Separately, Viola has placed his interest in the Florida Panthers hockey team into a trust although it isn't apparent if there would somehow be a conflict of interest by owning the team, or if he simply wants to unburden himself.

"Mr. Viola shared all of his business dealings with the transition and is actively pursuing full compliance with all requirements necessary for his confirmation," said David White, President Trump's transition spokesman. Jeva Lange

See the original post:
Trump's Army secretary nominee is reportedly trying to profit off deporting illegal immigrants - The Week Magazine

BY: Jack Heretik January 31, 2017 6:19 pm

JamielShaw Sr., whose son was murdered by an illegal immigrant, said Tuesday that he is not buying Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D., N.Y.) tears over President Trump's executive order on immigration.

Schumer on Sundaychoked up as though he was crying during a press conference where he attacked Trump's executive order temporarily banning immigration from certain countries in the Middle East and Africa over terrorism fears, called the action "mean-spirited" and "un-American."

Many believe that Schumer's tears were fake, including Trump. The New York Democrat tweeted out a picture of the Statue of Liberty and said that it was crying.

Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt asked Shaw what his message to Schumer is. Shaw agreed with Trump that Schumer's tears were fake before dismissing the Senate minority leader.

"It's like what Trump said, that was so fake," Shaw said. "You know, I've been to funerals, candlelight vigils, you want to see real crying and hurt people, why don't you show up there."

"I know a lot of parents who cry every day, including myself," Shaw continued. "That's all we do is think about our loved ones, and to see him crying for terrorists and people we don't even know who they are when he has Americans here, that he gives us no support, you know I could care less about Chuck Schumer."

Original post:
Father Whose Son Was Killed by Illegal Immigrant Isn't Buying Chuck Schumer's Tears - Washington Free Beacon

The president has proposed that the big wall at the southern border should be funded by imposing a 20 percent tariff on all imports from Mexico.

Let's think about that a bit.

I totally agree with the overtone of the president's proposal let's get someone other than American citizens to help fund the wall (and other migration enforcement activities). To some extent a tariff would do that, but it would lead to higher prices to Americans for products made in Mexico.

But the significant by-product of such a policy would be a less prosperous Mexico and when that happens illegal immigration increases.

Is there a way to raise money for the wall in such a way that it does not increase migration pressures from the south? Is there a way to raise money that will not only not depress the Mexican economy, but will encourage illegal aliens now in the United States to return to their homelands, without the bother and expense of deportation?

Yes, there is. Unfortunately the collection of techniques I have in mind does not fit neatly into a headline, but they would erect the wall and encourage voluntary departures.

This series of measures would terminate current (sometimes unwitting) programs that pay federal funds to illegal aliens, moneys that would better be used on migration enforcement. None of these reforms would fund the wall individually, but the collection of them most worth $1-3 billion a year each would do the job nicely.

The trouble with these proposals is that they are scattered through different government departments, many of them are both complex and obscure, and all call for a nuanced approach to the business of governing. The glory of them is that all raise money for enforcement from the people illegal aliens who have been benefitting from our lax migration policies in recent years.

Here's a listing of some of these illegals-pay-for-the-wall ideas, with references to more detailed discussions of these ideas.

In addition, and this would cover all the people involved, including legal residents of this country and legal residents of Mexico, start collecting a small cover charge for those crossing into the United States; 25 cents for a pedestrian, $1 for a car, and $5 for a bus.

None of these proposals would depress the Mexican economy, all would help fund the wall, and most would have absolutely no impact on the vast majority of American taxpayers, and all (but the crossing fees) would encourage illegal aliens to return home.

Go here to see the original:

How Illegal Aliens Can Pay for the Wall - Immigration Blog (blog)