Connect with us


No, The Immigration System Wasn’t Broken (But It Is Now)

Jimmy Zulz



I am deeply disturbed, first off, by the outrageous and deliberately unconstitutional use of an Executive Order by this president. He is not only changing law, but worse – he is refusing to enforce the law.

The immigration system is not broken. There is nothing wrong with our laws. The fact is that for far too many years, no one has truly ENFORCED immigration law in this country. That’s the problem. The system isn’t “broken”; it is simply unused.

Let us review a portion of the oath of office that Obama recited – He didn’t mean it in the least, he just recited it – a lie like all the rest of his lies, but his recitation of the oath of office might be his most offensive lie.

During his recital, he said that he would to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Within that Constitution (which Obama supposedly taught as a Constitutional law professor – Ha!), Obama is called to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Obama has failed – time and time again.

But now he is taking it further, and writing laws by Executive Order that OVERRIDE his authority AND at the same time prove that he is flat out refusing to execute the laws of the land.

I’ve told you many times – Obama sucks.

Fortunately, according to articles I’ve been reading, Obama isn’t going so far as to make these people citizens. He is simply making it official; he is not going to deport any of them. Criminal illegal aliens can heave a sigh of relief and get back to raping 13 year old children.

They won’t be citizens, so Michele Bachmann is wrong – they will not be legally able to vote, yet.

Our GOP representatives in Washington are preparing to leave for Thanksgiving break. Their Thanksgiving break is about five times as long as ours is. Obama’s timing is precise. He is going to announce his Executive Order refusing to deport anyone here illegally, and Republicans won’t even have time to do anything about it (as if they were going to do something about it).

Come January of 2015, we have control of both houses of Congress. We need to be on the phone with Republican Congressional leaders NOW. If you haven’t called yet, please do. If you have called, call again. Call your House Reps, your Senators, and the Speaker’s office and the office of the new Senate Majority Leader.

Our GOP nominee in 2016 MUST rescind this Executive Order immediately, the day of his inauguration (along with most of the rest of Obama’s Executive Orders). He or she MUST immediately begin enforcing immigration laws. Illegals MUST be deported, and the border MUST be secured. We must DEMAND it.

No, the immigration system was not broken, but Obama has now broken it.

Jimmy Zulz is a former conservative talk radio personality, and a contributor for Cowger Nation.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Obama

    December 3, 2014 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm

    This is very offensive. I work really hard. Where’s my credit. Screw yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


What do we do with the DREAMERS?

Bryan Fischer



Image © Getty

More disconcerting news out of the Washington, D.C. this morning about a possible deal that President Trump may have struck with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. According to those two luminaries, the president agreed to grant amnesty to DREAMERS with absolutely no concessions regarding a border security wall. If they are correct, then this would simply be another sorry example of Republicans willing to grant unconditional amnesty with nothing in return.

Said Schumer and Pelosi of their meeting with the president, “We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.” In other words, the same thing we’ve been hearing from Republicans since Bush and McCain tried to ram comprehensive immigration reform down our throats: amnesty now, enforcement later – if at all.

This is not what is not what Mr. Trump promised on the campaign trail and not what America voted for last November. Trump was elected in large measure because of his promise to end amnesty provisions and build a wall. Now we are hearing, according to the Associated Press, that he’s turned all that upside down and is prepared apparently to ditch the first promise and wait for who knows how long for the second.

Now the president begs to differ, tweeting out this morning that “no deal was made last night on DACA,” and that any deal would have to include “massive border security.” All right, which is it? The situation begs for clarification.

Rep. Steve King, who is dialed in on the topic of illegal immigration, is alarmed at the possible signal Trump is sending. If the reports are true, said King, Trump’s “base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair,” adding for good measure that “No (Trump) promise is credible.”

Trump certainly seems to be backpedaling at Warp speed on his no-amnesty pledge, tweeting, “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military, really?”

(DREAMERS prove, by the way, that full assimilation of immigrants is possible, and that it’s not mean-spirited at all to insist that legal newcomers know our language and adopt our values and traditions as their own. If DREAMERS can do it, so can everybody else.)

So what should we do with DREAMERS, most of whom, by the way, are no longer children but adults? (Their average age is 20, and many are between 23 and 26.) They always have been and still are legally subject to deportation, and should remain so since their presence here violates American law.

It is true that they are here through no fault of their own. But neither is their presence here the fault of American citizens who are forced to pay for their education, their food stamps, their subsidized housing, their tax credits from the IRS, and watch as they take jobs which would otherwise go to underemployed Americans. If we are to bring compassion into the mix, how about a little for the Americans who are forced, through no fault of their own, to subsidize and reward the presence of almost a million individuals whose presence here is an affront to the rule of law? How about some compassion for them, hmmm?

As Rep. King has pointed out, these DREAMERS have been living “in the shadows” since they got here, and apparently have prospered. No one is taking away their opportunity to continue living in the shadows if they choose, and no one is talking about immigration raids to round them up.

If they do come to the attention of immigration authorities, through the vigorous use of E-Verify to determine their eligibility to work in the U.S., or through the law enforcement system (thousands of DREAMERS have committed crimes since they have been here), then we can offer to keep their families together by returning the entire intact family to their native land. Family members who are here legally can, of course, remain. Or they can make the choice to keep the family intact and return together to their homeland with American assistance.

The president is walking dangerously close to the edge here of taking his base for granted. He once said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and his base would still support him. He apparently thinks he can betray one of the main promises he made to us and his support will likewise remain undiminished. That’s a risky assumption, and he may be about to find out the hard way that he assumed wrong.

Continue Reading


CRUZ’S IMMIGRATION POLICY: Yes, self-repatriation will work.

Bryan Fischer



The question that continues to nag at everyone in the immigration debate is what to do with the 11-12 million illegal aliens who are already in the country. (Some estimates run that number up to as many as 30 million.)

Ted Cruz outlined his approach to this problem on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program on Monday night. It essentially involves voluntary self-repatriation.

Here’s what Cruz said:

Once we secure the border, you stop filling the boat that’s sinking, a number of people start to go home voluntarily every year to be with their families. That population will start shrinking. After that, you deport the criminal illegal aliens. The population continues to shrink. After that, you put in place strong E-verify so those here illegally can’t get jobs. The population continues to shrink. And then once we have finally demonstrated to the American people that we have secured the border, the problem’s solved. It’s not a promise from a politician, it’s not empty words, it’s been done. Then and only then, I think we should have a conversation with the American people about what we should do about whatever smaller population remains. But I don’t think we should start there at the front end. We should start with border security, and that’s what I’ll do as president.

This emphasis on an orderly, gradual voluntary process marks his approach as dramatically different than Donald “Round ‘em all up!” Trump.

I have felt from the beginning of the immigration debate that there are two fundamental steps that must be taken on immigration. The first is to build a double-layer border security fence along our entire southern border. Where such fences have in fact been built, as in the San Diego sector, they reduce illegal immigration by 90%. Fences work, which is why there is one around the White House.

Hungary has proven that border security fences work. Overwhelmed by a tsunami of illegal Muslim aliens, Hungarians hustled to erect a 109-barbed wire fence along their entire border with both Serbia and Croatia. Problem solved. Hungary went from a flood of uninvited foreigners to virtually none, almost overnight. Illegal immigration became someone else’s problem.

And let no one say we can’t build this fence. We built the Empire State building in 17 months in the middle of the Great Depression. If we built that then, we can build a fence now.

The second step is to use E-Verify for everything. E-Verify to get a job, E-Verify to get subsidized housing, E-Verify to get food stamps, E-Verify to get welfare. E-Verify when someone seeks medical help at the local emergency room (they’ll get medical care, and ICE will get a call), E-Verify when a child is registered for school (the child will be enrolled, and ICE will get a call).

Will it work? Of course it will. President Eisenhower launched an aggressive deportation program, “Operation Wetback,” on June 17, 1954, under the direction of retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a veteran of the 101st Airborne. It was designed to deal with what amounted to visa overstays, three million Mexicans who had come north for seasonal jobs in agriculture and decided not to return.

Swing sent 750 of his 1,075 agents northward on a sweep, with a goal of arresting 1,000 illegals a day. And Swing didn’t just release them at the border. He put them on trains and busses and transported them deep into the interior of Mexico. He put tens of thousands on two hired ships and sent them 500 miles south, from Port Isabel, Texas to Vera Cruz, Mexico.

By the end of July, 50,000 illegals had been arrested in two states, and – here’s the point to note – 488,000 fled the country of their own volition. By September, 80,000 had been arrested in Texas, and the flood of migration was completely reversed. Somewhere between half a million and 750,000 illegals left the Lone State State all by themselves. In other words, ten times as many took themselves home as were deported.

Under Eisenhower’s program, illegal immigration plunged by 95%. The problem was solved through a combination of aggressive enforcement and voluntary repatriation.

Bottom line: While Eisenhower’s program would work today just as it did then, it’s unnecessary. A double layer security fence and aggressive enforcement of E-Verify would work just fine to stop the flood and reverse the immigration flow immediately through self-repatriation. But there’s only one way to find out for sure. A President Cruz just might be the one to show us how it’s done.

Continue Reading


An evangelical view of immigration

Bryan Fischer



Many evangelicals, due in part to the unfortunate influence of groups like the George Soros-funded Evangelical Immigration Table, have not had the chance to take a thorough look at what the Bible teaches about immigration. What follows is a contribution to this discussion among friends.

One often ignored principle in the evangelical debate over immigration policy is that the Bible clearly teaches support for the rule of law. Romans 13 makes this abundantly clear. Good laws are to be honored and respected by all. God has given to civil government authority to sanction and punish the transgression of its laws, which are designed to “ensure domestic tranquility,” as the Founders put it, by preserving peace and stability. As Paul put it, God’s desire is that our political leaders act in such a way that “we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2).

This makes any support for illegal immigration highly problematic for right-thinking evangelicals. An illegal alien, is by definition, a law-breaker.

So evangelicals ought to support legal immigration while firmly opposing immigration of the illegal variety. The orderly process of legal immigration allows us to screen those who wish to live here for criminal behavior and for disease, which compromise our national security and our nation’s health respectively.

Ellis Island existed primarily to screen prospective immigrants for communicable diseases. Such a concern is not mean-spirited in the least. It’s what a compassionate government does to protect the health of its citizens. In America, illegal immigration is responsible for the return of exotic tropical diseases and diseases which once had been eradicated on American soil.

Germany, which has now been overwhelmed by a tsunami of illegal immigration, is dealing with a host of newly introduced diseases including cholera, a disease which hadn’t appeared in Germany for 23 years. There is nothing compassionate about that.

Illegal aliens endanger our social stability in numerous other ways. Kate Steinle is dead, cut down in the prime of life by a man who had no legal right to be in this country, and had already been deported no less than five times. He kept returning to San Francisco for one reason: he knew San Francisco would not honor the rule of law. Kate Steinle’s family paid the ultimate price. There is nothing compassionate about that.

Virtually every day we read stories of illegal aliens, often previously convicted of crimes and deported, who murder and rape American citizens. South-of-the border drug cartels are ravaging the peace of one community after another, straining law enforcement resources to the breaking point and endangering American families whose sons and daughters become victims of drugs and the violence associated with them. There is nothing compassionate about that.

We all recognize the difference between someone who breaks and enters through the back door of a home and an invited guest who politely rings the doorbell and waits to be welcomed in. In the one case, we call the police, who will courteously but firmly remove the intruders from a place where they have no legal right to be. In the other case, we invite them in and treat them to food, friendship, and fellowship.

Some evangelicals seem to speak as if borders are a hardhearted invention of callous men. On the contrary, the Bible indicates clearly that borders are God’s idea. Paul writes in Acts 17:26 that God himself is the one who has “determined…the boundaries” of nations. A border is not a border unless it means something and can be defended.

Evangelicals often forget that Moses honored national borders and national sovereignty in his day. When Israel approached the border of Edom in its journey to the land of promise, Moses’ request to sojourn in the land of Edom was rejected. When Israel was denied permission for a second time to enter the land by Edom’s king, Moses did not sneak in the country anyway. Nor did he barge in and demand hospitality and welfare benefits from the king. We are told instead that “Israel turned away from him” (Numbers 20:21) and went another way.

Assimilation, another value that is often dismissively rejected by pro-amnesty evangelicals, was an extremely high priority in God’s economy. In Numbers 15, the Lord himself instructed Moses that sojourners were welcome in Israel as long as they assimilated to the culture, the values, and the faith of their host country. Immigrants were instructed to leave behind their own religious values and their own customs, and adopt those of their newly adopted nation. When it came to worship, there was to be “one law and one rule…for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16).

Ruth is the model immigrant in Scripture. When she accompanied her mother-in-law back to Naomi’s home, she left behind her own gods and her own culture. Eloquently, she said, “Your people shall be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). That’s what assimilation looks like.

Now when someone follows the rule of law, is willing to assimilate (by becoming a non-hyphenated American), and is granted permission to immigrate, of course he should be welcomed. We should do legal immigrants “no wrong” and should embrace them. “You shall love him (the sojourner) as yourself,” God says, “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34).

The plain fact is that America has honored this principle of embracing newcomers more than any other nation in the history of civilization. Our immigration policy is the most open-hearted and open-handed policy in the world. Every year, we grant legal admission to over one million foreigners and student visas to 700,000 more.

According to Julia Hahn, writing at Breitbart, “a review of public data from the World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau shows that there is no other country on Earth that has accepted even a fraction of the immigrants admitted to the United States over the last 40 years.”

We have a higher foreign-born population percentage than any of the world’s largest countries. Although we represent just 5% of the world’s population, we take in 20 percent of all the migrants worldwide. No other country even approaches five percent. We have, relative to population, taken in 24 times as many migrants as the pope’s home country of Argentina, 40 times more than Mexico, and 75 times more than Brazil. We have taken in six times as many as all of Europe, even though the population of Europe exceeds ours by more than 50 percent.

In other words, we have not only done our fair share, we have done far more than our fair share. And why have we done so? For one reason: this is a Christian country whose values have been shaped by the Judeo Christian tradition. We have a record of which we can be proud and which calls for no apology.

Now every nation can only absorb a finite number of immigrants before it begins to sag under the added weight. A sponge cannot absorb any more water once it has reached its saturation point. And America may well have reached that point. Real hourly wages are lower here than they were in 1973, and all the net job creation from 2000-2014 has gone to foreign workers.

Calvin Coolidge reduced immigration rates in his day (1924) so newcomers could fully assimilate into American life and so that the crush of absorbing so many strangers would not overwhelm us and hamper our ability to receive newcomers in the future.

Said Coolidge, “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a Nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weight obligation.” That’s compassion, both for the native-born American, for the foreign-born American, and for those who wish to become Americans in the future.

Bottom line: biblical immigration policy will reflect both justice and compassion, not one at the expense of the other. Biblical immigration policy will honor the rule of law, the sovereignty of our national borders, the importance of assimilation, and the importance of embracing those who have the legal right to be here. A Christian nation can do no less.

Continue Reading

Most Popular