Wednesday, January 31, 2018

As Trump Touts Low Unemployment, Black Lawmakers Withhold Applause

In one of the most striking — and symbolic — moments of the State of the Union speech most black lawmakers refused to applaud when President Trump highlighted a historic low for African-American unemployment.

Viewers approve of Trump's first State of the Union address - CBS News poll


FLASHBACK - In Case you missed it

“As the chair of the Black Caucus, I’ve got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14% [black] unemployment, if we had a white president we’d be marching around the WH." -- Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, 2011

It's now 6.8%. @realDonaldTrump  gets ZERO credit?!

A+ Inspiring: President Donald Trump’s State of The Union Address

JANUARY 30, 2018



President Trump salutes the heroism of America's first responders, calls upon lawmakers to deliver for the American people and touts the strength of the
 U.S. economy. (23:13)


President Trump says his administration is protecting religious liberty, making sure veterans are being taken care of, ending the war on clean coal and working to reduce the price of prescription drugs, rewrite bad trade deals and permanently fix the nation's infrastructure. (19:45)


President Trump calls on Congress to close immigration loopholes, support ICE and Border Patrol agents, secure the border, end the visa lottery and end chain migration. (18:51)

President Trump urges Congress to fully fund the military, modernize and rebuild America's nuclear arsenal, address the fundamental flaws in the Iran nuclear deal and stand against North Korea's pursuit of nuclear missiles. (21:56)

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

JUST IN: SIX BLACK CAUCUS DEMOCRATS Boycotting Trump’s State of the Union Speech CAUGHT On VIDEO Hugging Racist Hate Preacher Louis Farrakhan

Twelve Democrats (so far) have announced they will be boycotting President Trump’s State of the Union speech tonight.

One of the Democrat’s boycotting President Trump’s speech is Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. You might remember her as the wife of Bob Creamer, the felon James O’Keefe caught on video organizing violence against Trump supporters at rallies during his campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Six of the twelve Democrats boycotting President Trump’s SOTU speech are members of the Black Caucus, who were all caught on video embracing one of the most openly hateful racists of our time, Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam in a newly released video.

The new images and videos show Congressional Democrats, some of whom are still serving, warmly embracing Farrakhan in 2006 at a church in New Orleans. The footage was brought to light by columnist Jeryl Bier. Bier has been tweeting the following images and video of the encounter.

Americans were shocked when an Obama image recently emerged that was kept a secret by the photographer who took it because he believed it would hurt the future president’s “political career.”

Wall Street Journal journalist Jeryl Bier was the first to break this story:

2006, in a side room off a church foyer in New Orleans: @LouisFarrakhan: “Tell me how I can be of service.” @RepMaxineWaters: “I think we need to get together and talk about how we’re going to put New Orleans on the national agenda.” …

President George W. Bush’s former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer admonished the six Black Caucus members who are boycotting Trump’s State of the Union, but were “fine” about meeting with Farrakhan, but not sitting through the elected President’s SOTU.

Fleisher tweeted: “These six Congressmen are boycotting Trump’s State of the Union. But they all were Members of the Congressional Black Caucus when Louis Farrakhan came to see them. Farrakhan is fine. The elected President is not. That tells you all you need to know.”

The Daily Caller published screen shots taken of each Black Caucus member who will boycott President Trump’s SOTU speech tonight, but had no problem embracing a man who has made a career out of using his Islamic faith to preach hate against Whites and Jews.

The woman who screams “Impeach Trump” almost every time she opens her mouth, and had made several attempts at trying to label President Trump as a “racist” with absolutely no evidence, Democrat Black Caucus member, Maxine Waters is seen hugging one of the most notorious racists in America, Louis Farrakhan.
Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters

Here are a few more Democrat Black Caucus members seen hugging race baiter and hate mongerer Louis Farrakhan.

Democrat Rep. William Jefferson

Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee

Hillary’s ‘Sure’ Victory Explains Most Everything

Stretching or breaking the law on her behalf would have been rewarded by a President Clinton.

By Victor Davis Hanson

What exactly were top officials in the FBI and DOJ doing during the election of 2016?

The Page-Strzok text exchanges might offer a few answers. Or, as Lisa Page warned her paramour as early as February 2016, at the beginning of the campaign and well before the respective party nominees were even selected:

One more thing: she [Hillary Clinton] might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?

The traditional way of looking at the developing scandals at the FBI and among holdover Obama appointees in the DOJ is that the bizarre atmospherics from candidate and President Trump have simply polarized everyone in Washington, and no one quite knows what is going on.

Another, more helpful, exegesis, however, is to understand that if we’d seen a Hillary Clinton victory in November 2016, which was supposed to be a sure thing, there would now be no scandals at all.

That is, the current players probably broke laws and committed ethical violations not just because they were assured there would be no consequences but also because they thought they’d be rewarded for their laxity.

On the eve of the election, the New York Times tracked various pollsters’ models that had assured readers that Trump’s odds of winning were respectively 15 percent, 8 percent, 2 percent, and less than 1 percent. Liberals howled heresy at fellow progressive poll guru Nate Silver shortly before the vote for daring to suggest that Trump had a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.

Hillary Clinton herself was not worried about even the appearance of scandal caused by transmitting classified documents over a private home-brewed server, or enabling her husband to shake down foreign donations to their shared foundation, or destroying some 30,000 emails. 

Evidently, she instead reasoned that she was within months of becoming President Hillary Clinton and therefore, in her Clintonesque view of the presidency, exempt from all further criminal exposure. Would a President Clinton have allowed the FBI to reopen their strangely aborted Uranium One investigation; would the FBI have asked her whether she communicated over an unsecure server with the former president of the United States?

Former attorney general Loretta Lynch, in unethical fashion, met on an out-of-the-way Phoenix tarmac with Bill Clinton, in a likely effort to find the most efficacious ways to communicate that the ongoing email scandal and investigation would not harm Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. 

When caught, thanks to local-news reporters who happened to be at the airport, Lynch sort of, kind of recused herself. But, in fact, at some point she had ordered James Comey not to use the word “investigation” in his periodic press announcements about the FBI investigation.

How could Lynch in the middle of an election have been so silly as to allow even the appearance of impropriety? Answer: There would have been no impropriety had Hillary won — an assumption reflected in the Page-Strzok text trove when Page texted, about Lynch, “She knows no charges will be brought.” 

In fact, after a Clinton victory, Lynch’s obsequiousness in devising such a clandestine meeting with Bill Clinton may well have been rewarded: Clinton allies leaked to the New York Times that Clinton was considering keeping Lynch on as the attorney general.

How could former deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe assume an oversight role in the FBI probe of the Clinton email scandal when just months earlier his spouse had run for state office in Virginia and had received a huge $450,000 cash donation from Common Good VA, the political-action committee of long-time Clinton-intimate Terry McAuliffe?

Again, the answer was clear. McCabe assumed that Clinton would easily win the election. Far from being a scandal, McCabe’s not “loaded for bear” oversight of the investigation, in the world of beltway maneuvering, would have been a good argument for a promotion in the new Clinton administration. Most elite bureaucrats understood the Clinton way of doing business, in which loyalty, not legality, is what earned career advancement.

Some have wondered why the recently demoted deputy DOJ official Bruce Ohr (who met with the architects of the Fusion GPS file after the election) would have been so stupid as to allow his spouse to work for Fusion — a de facto Clinton-funded purveyor of what turned out to be Russian fantasies, fibs, and obscenities?

Again, those are absolutely the wrong questions. Rather, why wouldn’t a successful member of the Obama administrative aparat make the necessary ethical adjustments to further his career in another two-term progressive regnum? 

In other words, Ohr rightly assumed that empowering the Clinton-funded dossier would pay career dividends for such a power couple once Hillary was elected. Or, in desperation, the dossier would at least derail Trump after her defeat. Like other members of his byzantine caste, Ohr did everything right except bet on the wrong horse.

What about the recently reassigned FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI top investigator Peter Strzok? Their reported 50,000-plus text messages (do the math per hour at work, and it is hard to believe that either had to time to do much of anything else) are providing a Procopian court history of the entire Fusion-Mueller investigation miasma.

So why did Strzok and Page believe that they could conduct without disclosure a romantic affair on FBI-government-owned cellphones? Why would they have been emboldened enough to cite a meeting with Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, in which they apparently discussed the dire consequences of an improbable Trump victory?

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s [probably Andrew McCabe, then deputy director of the FBI] office that there’s no way Trump gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

And why would the two believe that they could so candidly express their contempt for a presidential candidate supposedly then under a secret FBI investigation?

Once more, those are the wrong interrogatories. If we consider the mentality of government elite careerists, we see that the election-cycle machinations and later indiscretions of Strzok and Page were not liabilities at all. They were good investments. They signaled their loyalty to the incoming administration and that they were worthy of commendation and reward.

Hillary Clinton’s sure victory certainly also explains the likely warping of the FISA courts by FBI careerists seeking to use a suspect dossier to surveille Trump associates — and the apparent requests by Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and others to read surveilled transcripts of Trump associates, unmask names, and leak them to pet reporters. 

Again, all these insiders were playing the careerist odds. What we view as reprehensible behavior, they at the time considered wise investments that would earn rewards with an ascendant President Hillary Clinton.

Did Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, or Debbie Wasserman Shultz worry about their fabrications, unethical behavior, and various conspiratorial efforts to ensure that Hillary Clinton would be exempt from criminal liability in her email shenanigans, and that she would win the Democratic nomination and general election? 

Not when their equally unethical and conspiratorial boss would appreciate her subordinate soul mates. For a deep-state careerist without ethical bearings, one of the advantages of a Clinton sure-thing presidency would be that the Clintons are known to reward loyalty more highly than morality.

Then we arrive at the tragic farce of former FBI director James Comey. 

It is now easy to deplore Comey’s unethical and unprofessional behavior: In all likelihood, he wrote an exoneration of Hillary Clinton before he even interviewed her and her top aides; then he lied about just that sequence while he was under oath and virtue-signaling before Congress; he feigned concern about Clinton’s felonious behavior but used linguistic gymnastics in his report to ensure his condemnation would be merely rhetorical and without legal consequences.

Had Hillary won, as she was supposed to, Comey would probably have been mildly chastised for his herky-jerky press conferences, but ultimately praised for making sure the email scandal didn’t derail her. 

Comey’s later implosion, recall, occurred only after the improbable election of Donald Trump, as he desperately reversed course a fourth time and tried to ingratiate himself with Trump while hedging his bets by winking and nodding at the ongoing, unraveling fantasy of the Steele dossier.

And Barack Obama? We now know that he himself used an alias to communicate at least 20 times with Hillary on her private, non-secure gmail account. 

But Obama lied on national TV, saying he learned of Hillary’s illegal server only when the rest of the nation did, by reading the news. Would he have dared to lie so publicly if he’d assumed that Trump’s presidency was imminent? 

Would he ever have allowed his subordinates to use the dossier to obtain FISA warrants and pass around and unmask the resulting surveillance transcripts if he’d seen Trump as the likely winner and a potentially angered president with powers to reinvestigate all these illegal acts?

We sometimes forget that Barack Obama, not candidate Hillary Clinton, was president when the FBI conducted the lax investigation of the email scandal, when Loretta Lynch outsourced her prosecutorial prerogatives to James Comey, when the FBI trafficked with the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS dossier, when various DOJ and FBI lawyers requested FISA-approved surveillance largely on the basis of a fraudulent document, and when administration officials unmasked and leaked the names of American citizens.

Had Hillary Clinton polled ten points behind Donald Trump in early 2016, we’d have none of these scandals — not because those involved were moral actors (none were), but because Hillary would have been considered yesterday’s damaged goods and not worth any extra-legal exposure taken on her behalf.

Similarly, if the clear front-runner Hillary Clinton had won the election, we’d now have no scandals. Again, the reason is not that she and her careerist enablers did not engage in scandalous behavior, but that such foul play would have been recalibrated as rewardable fealty and absorbed into the folds of the progressive deep state.

The only mystery in these sordid scandals is how a president Hillary Clinton would have rewarded her various appendages. In short, how would a President Clinton have calibrated the many rewards for any-means-necessary help? 

Would Lynch’s tarmac idea have trumped Comey’s phony investigation? Would Glen Simpson now be White House press secretary, James Comey Clinton’s CIA director; would Andrew McCabe be Comey’s replacement at the FBI?

In reductionist terms, every single scandal that has so far surfaced at the FBI and DOJ share a common catalyst. What now appears clearly unethical and probably illegal would have passed as normal in a likely 16-year Obama-Clinton progressive continuum.

A final paradox: Why did so many federal officials and officeholders act so unethically and likely illegally when they were convinced of a Clinton landslide? Why the overkill?

The answer to that paradox lies in human nature and can be explored through the hubris and nemesis of Greek tragedy — or the 1972 petty burgling of a Watergate complex apartment when Richard Nixon really was on his way to a landslide victory.

Needlessly weaponizing the Obama FBI and the DOJ was akin to Hillary Clinton’s insanely campaigning in the last days of the 2016 campaign in red-state Arizona, the supposed “cherry atop a pleasing electoral map.”

In short, such hubris was not just what Peter Strzok in August 2016 termed an “insurance policy” against an unlikely Trump victory. 

Instead, the Clinton and Obama officials believed that it was within the administrative state’s grasp and their perceived political interest not just to beat but to destroy and humiliate Donald Trump — and by extension all the distasteful deplorables and irredeemables he supposedly had galvanized.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, released in October from Basic Books.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Dems Throw Blacks, Hispanics Under Political Expediency Bus

By Clarence McKee

If the words racism or racist were not in the Democrats’ vocabulary they would not be able to talk.

A good example is a recent comment by U.S. House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calling the White House immigration proposal a "campaign to make America white again."

And then there is Mayor Bill De Blasio, D-N.Y., who called the Justice Department’s plans to crack down on sanctuary cities a "racist assault" on immigrant communities.

What is truly disgusting in these Democratic race baiting rants is the complicity of black Democratic members of Congress including the two black U.S. Senators Corey Booker, D-N.J., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

In bowing down to the Democratic strategy of calling people who want to protect our borders and restrict illegal immigration racists, these black politicians are showing the world that they care more about pleasing white liberal Democratic bosses and following the party line than about the impact of illegal immigration on their black constituents.

Some would even call them sellouts!

Do they really expect Americans to believe that Raj Shah, principal deputy White House press secretary, whose parents came to America from India, to be a racist because he is promoting the immigration proposal?

Photo: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (left) and U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (right) spoke to reporters just before House and Senate tax bill conferees meet to work on the sweeping overhaul of the nation's tax laws, on Capitol Hill in Washington, back on Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2017. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

The Democrats take their black constituents for granted and are not held accountable by them and much of the black press. Like Pelosi and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., they are totally out of touch with much of their constituencies on immigration.

I assume none of them have read the recent Harvard-Harris poll that shows an overwhelming percentage — 65 percent — of voters, representing a wide cross section of the political and demographic spectrum, support the kind of immigration plan being proposed by the Trump administration: ending Chain Migration, the Visa Lottery, securing the border and giving eventual citizenship to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Pelosi, Schumer, black Democrats as well as many in the media are probably shocked —and disappointed — that the poll found that such a program is supported by 64 percent of black voters and 68 percent of Hispanic voters.

While Democrats and their allies in the media accuse Trump of being heartless, the poll revealed that 60 percent of voters are against giving preference to parents who brought DACA children to the U.S.

Pelosi and her fellow leftists who call controlling immigration racist and "making America white again" will be disappointed to hear that the poll found that 81 percent of voters want legal immigration reduced and 63 percent want it reduced at least by half!

They will really be shocked to learn that the poll found, as Breitbart reported, that black Americans are more likely than any other demographic group to support lower yearly legal immigration levels — between only one and 250,000 per year.

Blacks in Congress should read a February 2017 article in The Daily Signal, "How Illegal Immigration Harms Black Americans."

It quotes U.S civil rights commissioner and former member of the National Labor Relations Board, Peter Kirsanow, who is black, as saying that black males, " . . . are more likely to experience competition from illegal immigrants."

He went on to say, "It is not just the competition and the unemployment of blacks. It also depresses the wage levels."

The article makes reference to a 2010 Civil Rights Commission study finding that immigration in general harmed the black community more than others.

But don’t let these facts get in the way of black and white Democrats wanting to play the race card and exploit the immigration issue. It's gotten so bad that one black member of Congress, Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., compared U.S Immigration Custom Enforcement (ICE) to Nazi Germany’s secret police, the "Gestapo."

What is so repulsive is that she made her comments on International Holocaust Remembrance Day 2018 — an annual day of commemoration to honor six million Jews and millions of other victims of Nazism.

So where was the outrage from the national and New York Jewish community on Clarke cheapening that day with partisan politics?

I could not leave this subject without commenting on the uproar over President Trump’s alleged comments regarding "s******e countries many of which I am sure few members of the press and Congress — blacks included — would choose as family vacation spots.

But after all of the outrage from black and white liberals in the U.S., it was African leaders who came to Trump’s defense. 

President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, who is also head of the 55 country African Union, called him a friend and thanked him "for the support we have received from you, personal, and your administration . . . I thank you very much."

He was joined by Uganda President Yoweri Museveni who said, "I love Trump because he tells Africans frankly . . . Africans need to solve their problems."

By playing the race card, Democrats show, as polls reflect, how much they are out of touch, disrespecting the common sense and intelligence of black, Hispanic, and white Americans on immigration issues.

The sad fact is that Democratic leaders have thrown black and legal Hispanic immigrants under a political expediency bus.

Clarence V. McKee is president of McKee Communications, Inc., a government, political, and media relations consulting firm in Florida. He held several positions in the Reagan administration as well as in the Reagan presidential campaigns. He is a former co-owner of WTVT-TV in Tampa and former president of the Florida Association of Broadcasters. Read more of his reports — Go Here Now.

BREAKING: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe 'removed' from the bureau

By Judson Berger, Jake Gibson | Fox News

McCabe was former FBI Director James Comey's right-hand man
  (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

Top FBI official Andrew McCabe has been "removed" from his post as deputy director, Fox News is told, leaving the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans including President Trump.

A source confirmed to Fox News that McCabe is taking “terminal leave” – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore.

The move was first reported by NBC News.

McCabe has long been a controversial figure at the bureau.

Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe.


McCabe's name has surfaced in connection with several other controversies.

The Daily Beast reported that a GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse named McCabe, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and ex-FBI boss James Comey.

Incidentally, the McCabe removal comes after Wray viewed the memo Sunday on Capitol Hill, as reported by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge. The removal also comes ahead of a DOJ inspector general report regarding the handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.

Several Republicans also want to know what McCabe knew about anti-Trump text messages between two bureau officials, including one that seemed to reference an “insurance policy” against Trump winning the 2016 election.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Peter Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” 

Some lawmakers think "Andy" was a reference to McCabe. 

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Democrats Dis New DACA Deal: Dems Demand No Wall And Amnesty Only-Or Another Gov Shutdown


White House Proposal Extends Amnesty for 1.8 Million Illegals in Exchange for 25 Billion for Wall, End of Chain Migration, Visa Lottery

The White House revealed a proposal to extend legal status and a path for citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the country as children in exchange for $25 billion in funding for the wall, an end to chain migration across the board, and an end to the visa lottery program.


I have offered DACA a wonderful deal, including a doubling in the number of recipients & a twelve year pathway to citizenship, for two reasons: (1) Because the Republicans want to fix a long time terrible problem. (2) To show that Democrats do not want to solve DACA, only use it!

Democrats are not interested in Border Safety & Security or in the funding and rebuilding of our Military. They are only interested in Obstruction!


The bill’s framework would apply to the roughly 690,000 illegal immigrants who registered for the DACA program started by former President Barack Obama as well as illegal immigrants who did not apply. A senior administration official told reporters that the 1.8 million number would be restricted by minor adjustments to timeframes and dates of entry issues.

“The argument is by some people in Congress is that there is another 690,000 roughly that never got around to registering but fall into the general category, age, and all the rest of it,” the official said. “Those combined come to 1.8 million.”

The path to citizenship would require a 10-12 year period where recipients would be required to demonstrate good behavior, work and education requirements, and good moral character.

A senior White House official described the plan as an “extraordinarily generous concession” with Democrats but made several demands considered non-starters by members of Congress supporting amnesty.

The White House said that it intended to send the framework to Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, who promised Democrats a vote on the Senate floor by February 8.

The framework includes a $25 billion lump sum “trust fund” for a border security “wall system” for not only the Southern border but major security investments on the Northern border as well.

It also includes sweeping limitations for chain migration — limiting family immigration sponsorships to only spouses and minor children — not for parents or extended family members.

The new migration limitations would apply to all immigrants in the United States, not just the newly legalized 1.8 million.

“It will never, ever, ever, ever, work unless it’s universal,” the official noted. “It’s a global change to the U.S. immigration system.”

The bill framework was described as an effort to show exactly what the president wanted in a bill after open borders advocates complained that they had no idea where the president stood in their negotiations.

The proposal would also end the visa lottery program and reallocate them towards fulfilling the skills-based visa backlog.

The official noted that the current legislation was “galaxies apart” from what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer discussed with Trump over lunch before the government shutdown, but felt that it was a plan that could get 60 votes in the Senate.


To understand the scale of the challenge that Chain Migration poses to those in charge of our nation’s checks and screening processes, it is worth providing some numerical context.

President Trump has repeatedly stated that Congress must end Chain Migration as part of any legislative deal on DACA. 

Under our current Chain Migration system, newcomers are admitted to the United States based on family ties and distant relations, as opposed to a merit-based system that selects newcomers based on economic and national security criteria.

The large influx of predominantly low-skilled migrants has had substantial fiscal and national security consequences. 

To understand the scale of the challenge that Chain Migration poses to those in charge of our nation’s checks and screening processes, it is worth providing some numerical context.



BORDER SECURITY: Securing the Southern and Northern border of the United States takes a combination of physical infrastructure, technology, personnel, resources, authorities, and the ability to close legal loopholes that are exploited by smugglers, traffickers, cartels, criminals and terrorists.

  • The Department of Homeland Security must have the tools to deter illegal immigration; the ability to remove individuals who illegally enter the United States; and the vital authorities necessary to protect national security. 
  • These measures below are the minimum tools necessary to mitigate the rapidly growing surge of illegal immigration.
  • $25 billion trust fund for the border wall system, ports of entry/exit, and northern border improvements and enhancements.
  • Close crippling personnel deficiencies by appropriating additional funds to hire new DHS personnel, ICE attorneys, immigration judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals.
  • Hiring and pay reforms to ensure the recruitment and retention of critically-needed personnel.
  • Deter illegal entry by ending dangerous statutorily-imposed catch-and-release and by closing legal loopholes that have eroded our ability to secure the immigration system and protect public safety.
  • Ensure the detention and removal of criminal aliens, gang members, violent offenders, and aggravated felons.
  • Ensure the prompt removal of illegal border-crossers regardless of country of origin.
  • Deter visa overstays with efficient removal.
  • Ensure synthetic drugs (fentanyl) are prevented from entering the country.
  • Institute immigration court reforms to improve efficiency and prevent fraud and abuse.

DACA LEGALIZATION: Provide legal status for DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, adjusting the time-frame to encompass a total population of approximately 1.8 million individuals.

  • 10-12 year path to citizenship, with requirements for work, education and good moral character.
  • Clear eligibility requirements to mitigate fraud.
  • Status is subject to revocation for criminal conduct or public safety and national security concerns, public charge, fraud, etc.

PROTECT THE NUCLEAR FAMILY: Protect the nuclear family by emphasizing close familial relationships.

  • Promote nuclear family migration by limiting family sponsorships to spouses and minor children only (for both Citizens and LPRs), ending extended-family chain migration.
  • Apply these changes prospectively, not retroactively, by processing the “backlog.”

ELIMINATE LOTTERY AND REPURPOSE VISAS: The Visa Lottery selects individuals at random to come to the United States without consideration of skills, merit or public safety.

  • This program is riddled with fraud and abuse and does not serve the national interest.
  • Eliminate lottery and reallocate the visas to reduce the family-based “backlog” and high-skilled employment “backlog.”