(Natural News) When you think of a pandemic, global disease outbreaks like the Spanish flu that killed 50 million in the early 1900s or the more recent HIV/AIDS pandemic are what usually come to mind. However, some experts are warning that the next pandemic will come from an unexpected source – and it’s something that could largely be prevented if countries take the right precautions now.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is an advisor to the World Health Organization on initiatives for public health, has warned that public healthcare and spending face “disastrous consequences” if basic hospital hygiene is not improved and antibiotic use isn’t curbed.
The group said that superbugs could kill 2.4 million people by the year 2050; drug-resistant bacteria are already responsible for thousands of deaths, killing more than 33,000 Europeans in 2015 alone. The OECD said that the cost of treating these infections could climb to roughly $3.5 billion, on average, per year in each of the countries analyzed. The group said the countries are already spending around ten percent of their healthcare budget on antimicrobial-resistant bug treatment.
OECD public Health Leader Michele Cecchini said: “AMR costs more than the flu, more than HIV, more than tuberculosis. And it will cost even more if countries don’t put into place actions to tackle this problem.”
At the heart of this problem is the overuse of antibiotics, and we’re being hit from all angles. Doctors are prescribing antibiotics for viruses, which don’t respond to such medications, and they are also making their way into our bodies through agriculture and livestock products that are given such medications. As a result, many bacteria strains are developing that are able to resist the effects of antibiotics.
Resistance is already incredibly high in lower- and middle-income countries, with as much as 60 percent of the bacterial infections seen in places like Brazil, Russia and Indonesia already resistant to one or more antibiotics. The growth of these infections is expected to be 47 times faster in 2030.
Expert warn that even small kitchen cuts, minor surgeries and infections like pneumonia could turn deadly. The group also expressed concern about resistance to second-line and third-line antibiotics, which they say will swell by 70 percent by the year 2030. These types of antibiotics are supposed to be reserved for worst-case scenarios, but doctors are already using more of them when they should be using less, and that is seeing some of the best emergency options available right now taking a big hit.
How can this superbug pandemic be avoided?
The OECD says that the only way this superbug disaster could be prevented is by implementing widespread changes in healthcare immediately. For example, they stress that healthcare professionals need to make a better effort when it comes to hygiene in hospitals, washing hands regularly and instituting stricter safety rules.
Quicker testing to determine whether infections are viral or bacterial could also make a big difference as antibiotics are completely useless in the former case. Another approach that may be helpful is delayed prescriptions, which entails requiring patients to wait three days before they pick up antibiotic prescriptions. This is approximately the amount of time that a viral infection would take to run its course. In trials of this approach, two thirds of the patients who were given delayed antibiotic prescriptions never ended up collecting their medicine, which means that they did not take any needless antibiotics and exacerbate the problem.
According to Cecchini, such changes could cost as little as two dollars per person each year, paying for itself within a few months in addition to saving billions of dollars and millions of lives by mid-century.
Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan is
about to see two things he’s never seen before. And given he’s been in
the Statehouse since 1971, that’s saying something.
The first is the strength of his
majority.
Democrats have never held more than 72
seats in the 118-member Illinois House, with the high water mark coming
in 1991. The magic number required to put a constitutional amendment on
the ballot and override the governor’s veto is 71 votes.
As of Nov. 8, House Democrats are in
line for 73 House seats in 2019, possibly 74 – a new record. It will be
Madigan’s largest majority ever.
The second is the type of person who
will occupy the governor’s office.
Madigan has worked with two governors of
his own party since he was first elected House speaker in 1983: Rod Blagojevich
and Pat Quinn. These two men were not shrewd power brokers, to say the
least. Madigan could pinion both at will.
Enter billionaire Gov.-elect J.B.
Pritzker, who just spent more than $170 million to unseat Gov. Bruce
Rauner. That money is a total game-changer for Madigan’s Democratic
Party, which has traditionally relied on government worker unions,
trial lawyers and business interests who need special favors in order
to fill its coffers.
So far, Madigan has brought Pritzker
entirely into the fold. He knew Pritzker’s money would be a major boost
for his House candidates across the state.
But what happens when Pritzker goes from
candidate mode to manager mode? He will inherit a massive bill backlog,
a state that’s one notch above a junk credit rating and a budget that’s
already out of balance by $2 billion. He will not be able to raise
enough revenue to cover already-bloated spending and new promises in
the short term. Something’s got to give.
Government unions, for example, might
not get everything they want at every turn. These fractures will be
where Pritzker’s money becomes a double-edged sword for Madigan.
Those deep pockets could provide the
speaker covering fire to go against his traditional power base. But
Pritzker’s money could also offer Madigan’s House members the same
cover should they dare to go against the speaker.
For the first time ever in Madigan’s
speakership, Democratic lawmakers could have a real choice to seek
shelter elsewhere when a tough vote comes around.
One key factor in all this is what
Madigan wants beyond power: legacy. It’s clearly on his mind.
The day after polls closed, Madigan
released an odd personal statement under the Democratic Party of
Illinois letterhead. In it, he claims Republicans lost because they
tried to make the election a referendum on Madigan, but that strategy
backfired because the speaker is actually “a champion of smart economic
and social policies” and has provided “real, tangible economic benefits
to the people and families of this state.”
It’s completely out of touch with
reality. And Democrats know that.
Recall that in 2012, a political action
committee closely linked to Madigan paid for mailers attacking …
Madigan. The mailers were sent in support of a Democratic challenger
running against incumbent Republican state Rep. Skip Saviano. “A vote
for Skip Saviano is a vote for Mike Madigan!” said one. “Democrat
Speaker Mike Madigan calls the shots for Skip Saviano,” said another.
If voters actually love the speaker,
Senate Democrats must not have received the memo.
Three Democratic Senate challengers ran
a week’s worth of TV ads in September calling for term limits on
Madigan, before the Chicago Federation of Labor demanded they be taken
down. Of those three challengers, one picked up a Republican seat and
another is down just 12 votes with mail-in ballots left to be counted.
In Madigan’s own chamber, Democrat Anne
Stava-Murray pulled off a shocking upset in Chicago’s western suburbs
against incumbent Republican state Rep. David Olsen. Stava-Murray vowed
to vote against Madigan for House speaker.
Madigan remains a black eye for the
Democratic Party brand in Illinois. His House members are well aware of
that. But for now, they still need his protection.
President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he is preparing an executive order to end birthright citizenship has the left and even some conservatives in an uproar.
But the president is correct when he says that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship.
An executive order by Trump ending birthright citizenship would face a certain court challenge that would wind up in the Supreme Court. But based on my research of this issue over several years, I believe the president’s view is consistent with the view of the framers of the amendment.
Those who claim the 14th Amendment mandates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically an American citizen are misinterpreting the amendment in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.
Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.
Most countries around the world do not provide birthright citizenship. We do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. That should be changed.
Many Republicans, Democrats, and independents believe the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics of the president’s possible action erroneously claim that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself or herself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal immigrants alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States, as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,” would be considered citizens.
The amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.
Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.
Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction—which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws—and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.
So while a foreign tourist could be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute, he could not be drafted if we had a military draft or otherwise be subject to other requirements imposed on citizens, such as serving on a jury. If a foreign tourist has a baby while in the U.S., her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S.
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents.
Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens.
The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens. Those children are considered citizens of the native countries of their parents, just like children born abroad to American parents are considered U.S. citizens, no matter where the children are born.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal immigrants—only permanent, legal residents.
U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The federal government has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports and other benefits to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
As a result, the president of the United States has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and to issue passports and other government documents and benefits only to those individuals whose status as U.S. citizens meets this requirement.
First of all, before I start this, let me say I disagree with most of the usages of the word “privilege.”
The left refers to people of “privileged background” for instance, when what they really mean is “rich” or, these days, “middle class and with parents who insisted on education.”
I suppose this makes some sense in the context of a leftist world view, but it makes no sense in reality.
You see, privilege means “private law.” In terms of the past, noblemen were privileged because the law either didn’t apply to them (at all) or they had special laws that applied to them. For instance, in many jurisdictions, noblemen were exempt from the capital penalty. In most “clergy” were exempt from the death penalty. And the benefit of clergy would be given to anyone who could read and write. That was privilege. Private law. “The laws don’t apply to us, and you can’t make us obey them” if you prefer.
So in terms of left-Marxist world view, it makes sense to think that anyone who has more has somehow cheated the existing laws. Or to believe that anyone who has better outcomes than someone else is taking advantage of a “private law,” that is, cheating.
The problem is that this only makes sense if you buy into the leftist world view, in which every human being is a widget, or if you prefer a game piece, with exactly the same qualities as any other game piece.
In actuality, humans can get rich without cheating anyone and outcomes of anything vary a lot depending on the qualities of the human beings involved and, yes, on their level of effort too.
Which brings us to real privilege: the de-facto exertion of a private law.
For instance, take the Kavanaugh hearings when all the liberals were assuring us that we didn’t need to presume innocence until guilt was proven. Did you notice that not only didn’t any of them revise their opinion of the sexual scandals of Bill Clinton – against whom guilt was overwhelmingly proven – but they were also adamant that the same principles they were trying to apply to Kavanaugh didn’t apply to Keith Ellison?
This makes absolutely no sense. If you “believe all women” (and btw, that too is privilege. Where is the “believe all men?”) why not believe Ellison’s battered girlfriend, who has the hospital visit to prove it, or Juanita Broderick before you believe Christine Ford?
The liberals handwavium explanation amounted to a lot of handwavium and what my grandmother used to call “trying to remove the butt from the path of the syringe.” I.e. “it’s a job interview” or “she is credible” or whatever were not so much arguments for believing one person and not believing the other as attempts to make you look elsewhere and forget to argue.
You see, they know the principle but can’t say it aloud – some of them not even to themselves – because that would cause them to admit that they are chock-full of privilege, which their theories force them to view as a sin.
In fact, all their claims of other people’s privilege are to excuse their own establishment of a private law for themselves.
For instance, how many discussions have you seen in which some white man is told to stop talking because he’s full of “white privilege” and should “educate himself.”
And yet, I can honestly say that in my decades in this country and in association with white men (husband, friends) I’ve never seen any of them have recourse to private law that excuses their crimes or gives them an easier time in surviving. In fact, and contra one of my colleagues in science fiction, who claimed that being a white male in America is “life on the easiest setting,” white people in the US (and white men in particular) get fewer opportunities at scholarships, fewer set-asides in either positions in education or employment, and preference in promotion, and in general a rougher path through life, regardless of background. (Of course, those who come from greater wealth have an easier time relatively, and sufficient wealth makes up for all other conditions. That’s just part of being human.)
Then there is the time my son was told he was privileged because we had lots of books in the house and encouraged reading. That particular teacher must have been having a flash back to that “benefit of clergy.” Or something.
And yet, there is one glaring form of privilege in the United States today.
In fact, I think that’s what my colleague was confused about. You see, he’s a vocal liberal, and I think that’s why he’s experienced a meteoric rise through the field, despite a … passable talent and an absolute refusal to work harder or reach higher than strictly needed.
The same could be said about other liberals in the public eye, male and female and of every race: for instance, can anyone imagine a Republican of any race of sex having the meteoric rise Barrack Obama experienced, from Freshman Senator to President?
Did anyone see Sonya Sotomayor, a woman stupid enough to think that being Latina confers special wisdom, being questioned about her obvious racism and sexism? Does anyone think a Republican nominee of any race – remember Clarence Thomas? – would get as easy a ride into the Supreme Court of the United States?
Has anyone noticed that when there’s any reason to call on a speaker to explain a public disaster or event, outside explicitly conservative venues, the “expert” called upon is always leftist?
I’ve been jaw-dropped on more than one occasion to see a freshman colleague of mine called to comment on say space developments when this person might have written one or two books and none of them concerned with space. But, you know, it’s liberal privilege.
Liberal privilege ranges from quite literal private law — anyone see a Republican who left a girl to die in his car go on to become the Lion of Senate? — To an easing of the way, a magic carpet ride to the top for good little boys and girls who express the right (left) position.
Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.
And you know why as well as they do: for near on a hundred years, they’ve had control of the bureaucracy, as well as of those fields that shape the narrative, including the news, entertainment, and literature.
Their crimes are excused, while crimes are invented in the account of everyone who opposes them.
All of which would be galling enough without the newest wrinkle.
It started a long time before the Kavanaugh hearings. For a long time, they’ve been trying to deny anyone to the right of Lenin the rights secured to us by the Constitution of the United States. Their attacks on the Second Amendment are legendary, but latel,y they’ve been trying to extend the fight. For instance, we’ve seen them not only declare that certain words should be crimes, but working through those companies they control to prevent the free speech of those they don’t like or consider dangerous (often the same thing.)
And in Kavanaugh’s hearing, they tried to deny that anyone they oppose can have the right to due process and the presumption of innocence.
It’s not just that the left wants their own private law. It’s that the rights they’re arrogating for themselves under that de-facto law are the rights all of us are entitled to.
We are not peasants. We will not get in line. And we will continue to demand equality under the law. It’s the least we’re entitled to as Americans: an end to liberal privilege.
An army is marching on us. Right now, somewhere beneath the line that separates the United States from the Third World, a massive force approaches, intent on pouring into America like the Spaniards did in Mexico. They rolled across Mexico's southern frontier — and Mexico's finest — liketoros over juevos. While the arena-sized crowd contains many men, women and children whose dreams of life among the gringos are filled with champagne and caviar — or at least potable water and edible food — many among them are thinking more "Grand Theft Auto" than "America the Beautiful." The latest estimates place the size of the mobs around 10,000. Even if only 1 percent of them aspire to an American nightmare instead of an American dream, that's 100 new rapists, murderers, MS-13 narcoterrorists or garden-variety thugs who are making a run for our border.While the overwhelming majority might never do worse here than overstaying the time on the parking meter, I would be remiss if I did not note that nearly all of them illegally crossed the border separating Guatemala and Mexico, and say they plan to do the same when they reach the border separating us from them. Whatever they intend, from day labor to drug dealer, they intend to do it here. And somehow, despite the danger unfettered illegal immigration presents to any nation which allows it — I'm looking at you here, pretty much every country in Europe — we're actually embroiled in a debate over what to do.
While Americans who think America is worth protecting have expressed alarm, the Democrats are acting like little kids on the night before Christmas. While conservatives see people, some of whom are intent on doing serious harm to the Union, liberals see potential voters to be purchased with taxpayer-funded entitlements. While I suggest we consider combing the mob for malefactors, the pro-amnesty crowd wants to show them where we keep the valuables. While we call for action to preserve the country, they act on what the country should call illegal aliens.
Moreover, they don't even like the place. Even at the heights of the Obama regime's war on liberty, liberals never stopped shrieking about their grievances. Since Hillary Clinton came up one burrito short of the El Presidente Special, they've yammered about the racism and sexism which define everyone and everything. The same people who insist we should let every Tomas, Ricardo and Jorge crash on our national couch despise everything about America. Imagine how disappointed our newest residents will be when the liberals who rolled out the red carpet have turned the house into a replica of the crappy haciendas they fled. Eventually, we will have imported enough of what makes Latin America such a party that we'll be drinking ourselves under the same table.
The cohort bearing down upon us like Cortez on the Aztecs won't be the last. But rather than build up the battlements, we're yelling at each other about whether to build them at all. Someone should tell the pro-amnesty crowd how well that worked out for the Aztecs.
The caravan from Central America that has grown from 3,000 to 4,000 people in the last few days is an attempted invasion and an attack on the United States.
This assertion will almost certainly be denounced by the usual sources as being hateful or offensive, but it is long past time we stop letting the Left prevent us from using words which clearly communicate reality.
The fact is: Thousands of people have openly stated their intention to break American law and invade our country. Other people, some of them Americans, are funding this deliberate effort to invade America.
If you think “invade” is too strong a word, watch this videoof the caravan tearing down fences separating Guatemala and Mexico while waving the Honduran flag (the country these people no doubt plan to claim asylum from). How is this not an invasion?
We cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by the heart-wrenching pictures and misleading words the left-wing media will doubtlessly manufacture if this caravan arrives at our border.
We also must reclaim our narrative from the Left. We cannot allow them to demonize us and distort what we stand for and what we are trying to do.
Let me be clear about where I stand.
I strongly favor legal immigration. I am happy that America remains the most welcoming country in the world for legal immigrants. According to Pew Research, in 2015 there were a little more than 30 million legal immigrants in the country. This is higher than the population of Texas – our second most populous state. I think this is a great thing that makes America stronger. It is simply a lie to say I oppose immigration.
Furthermore, I have worked very hard to get sound, responsible immigration reform for decades.
In October 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform Act, which granted amnesty to about 3 million people (originally estimated to be 300,000). I voted for the bill in return for two commitments: to control the border and to establish a guest worker program. Similarly, President Reagan wrote in his diary that he would reluctantly sign the bill, because as he wrote: “It’s high time we regained control of our borders and [Simpson’s] bill will do this.”
The harsh lesson of 1986 was that liberals took the amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants and then broke their word on controlling the border and creating an effective guest worker program.
Finally, on a personal level, I spent much of my childhood living in foreign countries (my dad spent 27 years in the infantry, and I now live part time in Rome, Italy).
I outline my record to make clear that I don’t fit any of the nasty stereotypes with which the Left smears those who threaten them (see “the Kavanaugh effect”). And neither do the vast majority of Americans who want a functional immigration system that reflects American values.
The very idea that thousands of people believe (or are being told) they have a right to invade America and demand that we take care of them tells you how sick the system has become.
The time to draw the line and fight for an honest immigration and border control policy is now.
The caravan is the perfect symbol of the arrogance – the organized effort to destroy the rule of law – and the contempt for the American system which the Left exhibits every day.
We have been so conditioned by a half-century of political correctness doctrine (developed and sustained by the liberal news media, college professors, and left-wing politicians) that we have forgotten how to tell the truth about illegal immigration.
The truth is: It has substantially increased the risk for Americans.
MS-13, the vicious El Salvadoran gang, killed 17 people on Long Island in a 17-month period in 2016. The gang has an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 members in the United States. Fentanyl and opioids also come across the uncontrolled southern border. Last year, more than 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses – more than the number killed during the eight years of the Vietnam War. There is a substantial safety impact of uncontrolled borders and the routine breaking of the law by illegal immigrants.
If America is to survive, we must win some key arguments about facts and prove that much of what left-wing politicians say – and what the liberal news media reports – is simply wrong.
If America is to survive, we must heed George Orwell’s warning in his great essay Politics and the English Language – that “political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." Nothing could more accurately characterize the Left’s speech about political correctness and their unending effort to shut down language that exposes the hypocrisy and falsehood of their members’ positions – especially when it comes to their animus toward American sovereignty and defending the border.
As I wrote in my New York Times best seller Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback, the liberal media has actively participated in creating propaganda designed to manufacture sympathy for the lawbreakers and delegitimize those who would defend American sovereignty and the rule of law.
When House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says to Harvard Kennedy School students that Democrats are for controlling our borders, she is simply lying. When she goes on to say, “we do need to guard our borders, and we do need to have immigration reform,” you have to wonder how stupid she thinks we are.
There is no evidence of any Democrat-backed program that would be effective in controlling illegal immigration. They oppose the wall in any form. They would hobble or abolish ICE. They favor so-called sanctuary cities and states in order to shield illegal immigrants from the legal immigration process. Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced an open borders bill, which every Democratic Senate incumbent has cosponsored. The national vice chair of the Democratic Party campaigns in a t-shirt which says in Spanish “I don’t believe in borders.” Democrats only ever favor complicated, impossible-to-implement legal systems, which create opportunities for people to enter and stay in America illegally.
Not only do Democrats oppose controlling the border and stopping illegal immigration, they welcome illegal immigrants as an offset to legal American voters.
Consider what Pelosi said in El Paso to immigration rights activists: “We believe that we will have leverage when we win in November. And why is that important? Because it gives leverage to every family” who came to America illegally.
Stacey Abrams, a Democratic candidate for governor in Georgia, is even clearer in her commitment to illegal immigrants. In a recent speech, she said the blue wave is comprised of “those who are documented and undocumented.” There could not be a clearer indication of the Democrats’ belief that illegal immigrants are an integral part of their coalition.
The San Francisco Democrats have even adopted a new regulation to allow illegal immigrants to vote in city elections.
The caravan invasion is a useful starting point to insist on an honest debate about our future as a country.
Every Democrat should be forced to answer these six questions before the election:
1. Do you think 4,000 or more people should be allowed to invade the United States whenever they want to, and, if so, how big and how frequent do you think the next caravans will be?
2. Who do you think is paying for these efforts to undermine American sovereignty, break American laws, and impose foreign will on the United States?
3. When you are told it is only a small number of people in this first caravan, how do you respond to the fact that we already have an estimated illegal population of 1.8 million Central Americans, 650,000 South Americans, and 425,000 immigrants from the Caribbean. Does that change the scale of the problem? If caravans are accepted the numbers will grow dramatically in a very short period.
4. When you learn that the Gallup World Poll estimates that 29 percent of people in Latin America and the Caribbean (that would be about 197 million people) want to migrate – and 29 percent of those people (about 57 million) want to come to the United States, does this change your concern about controlling the border?
5. When you learn that beyond our hemisphere, the Gallup World Poll estimates that millions more would come to the United States if they could, does that increase your interest in controlling the border?
6. If you do not think this caravan should be allowed to illegally enter the United States as an invasion of our sovereign border, what would you do to stop them?
If Democrats really wanted to control the border, how do we have an estimated 11 million-plus illegal immigrants currently in the United States – and a system that can be gamed so easily that people have continued to brazenly and openly break the law?
This caravan attack is the right place to draw the line and say, “no more.”
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is right. Congress should come back and pass the laws that would enable Americans to re-establish the rule of law at the border and protect our country with dignity and authority.
Sanctuary State Illinois: Illegal Alien Convicted of Raping Three Women After Failing to Be Deported
From Breithbarth
(WCSO)
An illegal alien who failed to be deported in 2012 was convicted and sentenced this week for the rape of two women and a third, now deceased, whom he admitted to raping.
Miguel Luna, a 37-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, was sentenced to 80 years in prison after being convicted of raping two women in 2015 and 2016, according to the Chicago Tribune. A third woman whom the illegal alien raped has since died, though prosecutors revealed evidence showing Luna admitting to the rape.
Luna had an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) final order for removal placed on him in 2012 before the rapes occurred, but the deportation order was never honored. Illinois is, for the most part, a sanctuary state where illegal aliens are protected from being deported.
Judge David Carlson laid into the illegal alien as he passed down the 80-year prison sentence.
“You were free to do these acts … whether through misguided political correctness or people who do not believe in laws or borders,” Carlson told Luna, according to the Chicago Tribune.
“One thing I can do with the sentence is show that the laws we believe in here, maybe this won’t happen again, maybe that’s a little bit of closure,” Carlson said.
The illegal alien is mandated to serve at least 85 percent of his prison sentence and he must register as a sex offender should he ever be released from prison.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
