American Elephants


DACA is More Complicated Than You Think by The Elephant's Child

From the New York Post today:

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday that it was “not in our nation’s interest” to expel the roughly 800,000 young people protected from deportation by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

“I do believe that kicking these 800,000 kids out to countries that they have probably not been to since they were toddlers, countries that speak languages that they may not even know, is not in our nation’s interest,” Ryan said.

Who are these “young people”, “kids”, “dreamers”,  innocent children, that were covered by former President Obama’s illegal executive order?  They must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, so some of them are 35 years old. Kids, indeed. Here are the guidelines, read them carefully.

So that batch of children under the age of 31 are dreamers and must be covered, but according to today’s news, “despite the intense summer heat, thousands of illegal alien minors and families risked their lives to illegally cross the border with Mexico in August. The apprehension of family Unit Aliens rose by 37 percent this week, the fourth straight month of increases.

So these illegal alien children, brought to the United States by their parents, are not covered by DACA, but is that fair? Do we have to give the same consideration to all children of illegal alien parents  the same coverage to be fair? One thing a good many mothers learn is that saying “Well, just this once…” doesn’t work. You either have rules or you don’t.

A former immigration official estimates that the fraud rate for the DACA program is at 40 to 50 percent. Experts say that under Obama, background screening was lax and applicants lied about their qualifications. USCIS employees deferred to get them through. 21 percent have dropped out of high school, far above the national rate.

These are not 800,000 innocent children who are headed for college and going to enrich our nation with their entrepreneurial spirit. Some may be, some won’t. Many have  already committed felonies. Yet the Democrats’ latest talking point is simply that not making them all citizens is cruel. And we can’t have a wall because a wall is cruel (though walls work to reduce the flow). If we must offer citizenship to this bunch, why then must we not offer citizenship to the next bunch and the next?

I am not anti-immigrant. I welcome immigrants. But I do believe that the 4.4 million people who have signed up legally to immigrate to the United States and are waiting patiently in line — for years — for their turn, deserve priority.

I believe we need a new immigration system that recognizes that we can only admit a certain number in a year without too much disruption. I don’t believe in chain immigration, where once someone gets in, they can get all their relatives in, uncles and brothers and grandparents. There’s the problem of “anchor babies.” Some women from foreign countries hide their pregnancy to visit and have their baby as an American citizen. I don’t believe that some industries should be able to import cheaper workers so they can refuse to hire Americans and increase their own billions. American workers should be protected from that kind of competition. But where do you draw the line with farm workers or computer programmers or doctors? What about exchange students who don’t go home, or legal visitors who simply overstay their visas? Democrats lean towards open borders, and those who will be future Democrat voters, without addressing the problems involved. But they are always a little light in the consequences department.

The Center for Immigration Studies (cis.org) is a think tank devoted to the study of immigration, which is a very complicated subject, and worth your attention. Here’s a speech by Heather MacDonald (in 2016) examining mass illegal immigration and its effect on American society. Europe may be committing a slow suicide. Its a very contentious subject, and it behooves us to study up. Our representatives in Washington seem to be more worried about how they will be treated by the mainstream media, because we seem so poorly informed.



It’s Not About Clean Water. Another Big Lie From the EPA. by The Elephant's Child

unofficial-stream-small-custom-e1339556645568
The House has joined with the Senate in voting to overturn the EPA’s attempt to extend their control of “navigable waters” to every creek, stream, ditch and trickle to exert control over privately owned land across the United States.

The EPA has been acting with Congressional authority over “navigable waterways” since the 1972 Clean Water Act became law. Earlier this year they extended without any input from Congress their “clean water rule” as authority to control dry creeks, potholes and puddles. The intent was that private individuals or businesses would require government permission to do anything on their own property that was remotely related to water — like digging a drainage ditch, for example —that would give Washington sweeping powers over private land.

A federal judge told the EPA in August that it had gone too far, but the EPA shrugged and said they would continue to impose the rule in the 37 states that were not part of the lawsuit.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called the EPA’s attempted rule a “power grab’ last Wednesday —the day the House voted 253-166, with the support of 12 Democrats to overturn the rule. It is the same resolution that was passed by the Senate in November. Now it will go to President Obama’s desk. He will undoubtedly veto the bill.

I’m not sure just when the current crop of Democrats decided that they could be Socialists without actually using the name — by controlling everything with regulation instead of owning the means of production. They are, however, well on their way to extend a web of federal power over everything, including private property.

I don’t know how the Navajos’ lawsuits against the EPA are proceeding over the agency’s toxic spill into the waters that serve the Navajo Nation for drinking water, irrigation and stock feed, but it is simply further proof that the EPA’s efforts are just a power grab, and have nothing to do with clean water — nothing at all.




%d bloggers like this: