Please note: this post deals with a sensitive subject.

On Monday, September 18, 2017, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) gave a press conference to discuss the Democrats’ plan to work with President Donald J Trump on amnesty for illegal aliens.

She no doubt thought it would go well, but she did not plan for an angry mob of people without US citizenship to shout her down. She is visibly shaking in the video below. I almost felt sorry for her:

This is Pelosi’s hoped-for voting bloc. Actually, some non-citizens vote already and did so in last year’s general election:

But I digress.

Back to Pelosi’s press conference. The optics are bad.

Here is another view:

Breitbart reported that the group of protesters, the Immigration Liberation Movement, employed classic radical techniques used during the Occupy protests in 2011:

The group shouted down Rep. Pelosi, who struggled to maintain control of the meeting, and unfurled a large banner calling for all illegal aliens to be legalized.

Others held up signs, including: “Fight 4 All 11 Million,” referring to the estimated total of all illegal aliens in the U.S.

Pelosi regained her composure afterwards, but one cannot help but wonder what she was thinking:

Breitbart explains the purpose of the press conference in more detail:

Earlier, Pelosi had spoken at the podium with community leaders and fellow members of Congress from the Bay Area in support of her legislative push for a bill that would legalize the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

President Donald Trump canceled DACA earlier this month, but left Congress a six-month window in which to find a legislative solution for the roughly 800,000 DACA beneficiaries. Pelosi said that she wanted the “DREAM Act,” a long-dormant Democratic Party bill that goes much further than DACA, “to be the basis of how we go forward.”

“We’re not giving up our fight to protect America’s dreamers,” she said.

However, she could not speak over the protests. “It’s clear you don’t want any answers,” she said.

Obama created DACA by executive order. That was wrong. It should have been a bill created in Congress that went through the usual legislative process. This is why Trump got rid of it.

Obama was a genius (in all the wrong ways), because this is a political hot potato. He was great at creating chaos.

The Free Beacon reported on Pelosi’s press conference:

Pelosi and Democrats have held the position that Dreamers should be legalized because only their parents are guilty of illegally immigrating to the United States. The protesters did not agree with such an approach.

“Congresswoman Pelosi, you called this press conference in our name to defend the so-called ‘Dream Act,'” they chanted. “But you’ve already traded in our parents in our name.”

They also attacked Pelosi for reaching out to make deals with Trump.

“Last week you announced that you had agreed with President Trump, and I quote you, ‘to work out a passage of border security,'” they chanted.

The article says that the radicals are even upset with Obama, claiming that, during his time in office, nearly three million illegals were deported.

Trump voters, hoping for better border and immigration security, are more upset than ever. Trending heavily on Twitter are #NoDACA and #NoAmnesty:

However, this could be part of a master plan from the American president. A Breitbart reader offers this candid analysis:

Actually, it is a stroke of genius on Trump’s part. If he does not get the wall, there will be no deal. And all of the illegals will turn on the Dems and blame them. Then, the Dems will finally admit that the DACA are caca and throw them under the bus while they look for a way to get new voters. So Trump has put the Dems in the hot spot, & they will get the blame for conceding the wall in order to let the DACA’s stay on work permits. Except the Dems will never allow the wall to be built. They have “compromised” in the past, but the wall has never been built because they lie through their teeth. So, since the Dems cannot compromise, the DACA’s deport as soon as their permits expire, & we get the wall. Along with a huge host of other goodies. Like less immigration & H series visas. Grab the popcorn, it is going to get good!

Information about DACA

Until a few days ago, I was under the mistaken impression that those enrolled in DACA — Dreamers — are children.

The Daily Caller says this is exactly what the media want people to believe (emphases mine below):

CNN and MSNBC are repeating the false claim that DACA recipients are “children” or “kids,” while actually most are adults.

While DACA recipients were illegally brought to the United States by their parents when they were children, the minimum age to apply for the program is 15 years old. In fact, the majority of the applicants were over the age of 20 based on 2014 data from the US government. Some have estimated that the average age of dreamers is 25 or 26 years old–hardly children.

The Daily Wire tells us more about Obama’s brilliance — calling off any serious screening for DACA applicants:

With all the hype surrounding President Trump’s decision to end DACA, it’s important to remember a 2013 report from Judicial Watch revealing that under Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), background checks were scrapped for those applying to be covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Documents from 2012 obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request show that memos were circulated about circumventing extensive background checks for those applying for DACA protection. For instance, memos from September 14 ordered the National Benefits Center (NBC) to provide “lean and lite” background checks to DACA applicants without a specified end date to stop the practice. Another email thread showed that DACA applicants couldn’t be denied protection if they were unable to produce some form of identification.

But there is more:

DACA also opened the door for family members of illegals protected under DACA to receive amnesty, as a directive allowed for “immediate relatives” of DACA illegals to receive protection for deportation. Therein lies the problem with DACA and efforts to provide legalization and citizenship to so-called Dreamers: it’s the first step toward broader amnesty.

The article concludes:

A country cannot adequately protect its citizens and uphold its sovereignty if it doesn’t know who is entering the country; by conducting only “light and lean” background checks and not requiring identification in applying for DACA, then extending protection to immediate family members of illegals protected by DACA, it’s very easy for people with criminal records to get through. Especially since so many of the DACA Dreamers aren’t actually children.

Trump cancelled DACA on September 5. New applications are no longer accepted.

Dreamers have to renew their paperwork for permits to remain in the United States. A permit is valid for two years. Anyone in the programme whose permit expires between now and March 5, 2018 must apply for a new permit before October 5, 2017.

After March 5, deportation efforts are likely to focus on criminals and not law-abiding Dreamers.

On September 5, The Daily Wire reported:

Trump is already promising not to implement immigration law in six months. That means this whole strategy is designed as a bluff to get Congress to legitimize DACA, and throw in funding for the wall as a sop to Trump’s immigration hawk base. In fact, as Politico is reporting, White House sources are saying Trump might leave DACA in place in six months if Congress doesn’t act.

The article concluded:

The odd thing about Trump’s policy here is that he had a far easier one available, as Byron York of The Washington Examiner points out: he could have simply pulled the Obama strategy on same-sex marriage by waiting for attorney generals to sue over DACA, then refuse to defend DACA. That would have avoided this brinksmanship while ending up with the same policy. Then Trump could bargain in good faith with Congress over DACA if he wanted to, without any bluff at all; even Democrats would see that DACA wasn’t long for the world and be forced to the negotiations table.

Lawsuits are being filed, including this one:

Why people are upset

DACA forces taxpayers to foot the bill for Dreamers and their families:

On the other hand:

Then there is the perspective from this legal immigrant — a Marine — who came to the US from Italy when he was two years old. He says — rightly — that every immigrant should follow the lawful process to enter the United States:

Amnesty has not worked in the past. Ronald Reagan gave amnesty at one point during his tenure in a bargain with the Democrats. The Democrats did not fulfil their part of the deal regarding workplace enforcement and border security. Bush II also gave an amnesty. Now here we are with DACA.

On September 8, Breitbart reported that the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was working out possible deals with Democrats earlier this year, as an Illinois senator explained:

Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democratic Senator, spilled the beans in an interview with Reuters, where he described how he worked with  Jared Kushner and liberal Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham to promote the DACA amnesty in April and July …

Kushner also arranged phone calls between Durbin and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who now serves as Trump’s chief of staff.

On September 6, Trump took questions from the media about his meetings with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

Q Mr. President, what do you say to those who say there are mixed signals coming from the White House over DACA?

THE PRESIDENT: No mixed signal at all. Congress, I really believe, wants to take care of this situation. I really believe it — even very conservative members of Congress. I’ve seen it firsthand. If they don’t, we’re going to see what we’re going to do.

But I will tell you, I really believe Congress wants to take care of it. We discussed that also today, and Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I. And I said if we can get something to happen, we’re going to sign it and we’re going to make a lot of happy people.

Q Do you want a pathway to citizenship for those DACA recipients?

THE PRESIDENT: That’s going to be discussed later, but we want to talk about legal right now. We haven’t discussed that.

Q What did you mean when you said you wanted to revisit the issue in six months?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to see what happens. I want to see what happens in Congress. I have a feeling that’s not going to be necessary. I think they’re going to make a deal. I think Congress really wants to do this.

Q And what would you like to see, Mr. President, in legislation?

THE PRESIDENT: I’d like to see something where we have good border security, and we have a great DACA transaction where everybody is happy and now they don’t have to worry about it anymore because, obviously, as you know, before, it was not a legal deal. It was a deal that wouldn’t have held up and didn’t hold up. And even President Obama when he did it, when he signed it, he said this is obviously not something that’s — he called it short-term.

I’d like to see a permanent deal, and I think it’s going to happen. I think we’re going to have great support from both sides of Congress, and I really believe that Congress is going to work very hard on the DACA agreement and come up with something.

In the early part of the 20th century, immigration was also a hot topic. In fact, immigration slowed to a trickle between 1921 and 1965, when, under Lyndon B Johnson, it resumed in earnest with the amended Immigration and Nationality Act.

All the belligerent immigration demands being made now in the United States would not be tolerated in other countries — especially south of the border.

I wonder what Nancy Pelosi is thinking today.

Advertisements