Watch: CNN Host Gets Kamala Harris to Admit She’s Taking Away Your Employer-Provided Health Insurance

/0 Comments/in , /by

During an interview on CNN Thursday morning, presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was forced into admitting her health care proposal would strip Americans of their employer-provided health insurance plans.

“You said your opponents were lying, or weren’t being honest about [your new health care proposal],” CNN “New Day” co-host John Berman said to Harris. “The issue of your private insurance — one of the things that has been charged is that you will not be able to keep your private insurance. If we get insurance though CNN, if GM workers get insurance through GM — under your plan, they will not be able to keep that private insurance. Is that true?”

“My plan will separate your health care from your employer, meaning your employer will no longer dictate the kind of health care you receive,” Harris answered.

“Under my plan of Medicare-for-All,” she continued, “private insurance companies will be able to provide coverage if they play by our rules. Therefore, what that means is that you don’t have to be wed to your employer to keep the insurance that you like and that you need.” . . .

“No,” Berman shot back, “you’re basically allowing for a Medicare Advantage plan, where, insurers can enter that plan and they can choose it if they want to. But if you’re getting insurance from GM, from your employer, you will not get to keep that … It’s a private plan, not necessarily your private plan; there’s no guarantee that your private plan will be part of that [option].”

(Read more from “Watch: CNN Host Gets Kamala Harris to Admit She’s Taking Away Your Employer-Provided Health Insurance” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Give Americans the Right to Sue the Pants off Sanctuary Jurisdictions

/0 Comments/in , /by

Why is it that every single law designed to keep out illegal aliens gets turned on its head and every legal loophole gets magnified and exploited? That is because illegal aliens have tens of thousands of pro bono lawyers to distort the law on their behalf, but the sovereign American citizen has no legal help to enforce the laws that are being ignored or violated. One game-changing idea would be to give certain Americans standing to sue when immigration law is violated.

The current border crisis has its origins in one source: the ability of illegal aliens to sue our state and federal governments for simply enforcing our sovereignty, despite centuries of case law stating they have no standing in our country. Yet whenever Americans harmed by illegal aliens try to get standing to sue against lawlessness that affects their security and the public welfare, they are denied standing. Criminal smugglers can sue our government, yet Kate Steinle’s parents can’t sue San Francisco for harboring the illegal alien who killed their daughter. It’s time to turn the tables.

If the open-borders lobby is going to strip sovereignty from the democratically elected representatives and “pass” its legislation in the courts, then it should die by the courts as well. Illegal aliens are more powerful in the legal world than Americans. But what if we changed that equation? What if we create pressure against local governments that will have to fear lawsuits for not enforcing immigration law and especially for outright thwarting it? What if the federal government could be sued for not enforcing any of the 8 U.S.C. 1182 inadmissibilitiy requirements and letting in health concerns, criminals, public charge risks, and labor-seekers into the country? What if states and localities could be sued for violating 1373 (blocking law enforcement from communicating with ICE) and 1324 (harboring, shielding, and inducing illegal immigration)?

The secret antidote to the open-borders problem is simply to enforce current law. But the only way to do that is to even up the litigation score in this litigious society. Why is it that we barely hear about the daily examples of Americans killed or harmed by illegal aliens? We never hear about the fiscal burden, criminal burden, cultural problems in schools and other community centers. That would all change if there were a private right of action for victims of illegal aliens and other Americans or public officials to sue under the right circumstances. It would create an entire market to seek out whether a specific crime or cost was caused by illegal immigration or a particular illegal immigrant. It would change the narrative back to where it needs to be: protecting the interests of Americans over the aspirations of illegal aliens.

Recently, Sen. Thom Tillis introduced a bill — S. 2059: Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act of 2019 — advertised as doing just that. Conversions might happen on the road to Damascus, but in politics, conversions tend to present themselves on the road to competitive Republican primaries. Tillis was never one to stand for sovereignty, but he now has a primary challenger who has the ability to self-fund, so he is naturally trying to get on the right side of immigration. Conservatives should welcome this change, if it is actually more than just a press release, and demand that Tillis use his prestige with GOP leadership to actually force a vote on this bill.

However, the bill does need some tweaking. As advertised, it offers a private right of action for victims of illegal aliens who were previously released by sanctuary cities to sue the sanctuary jurisdictions. It also withholds some funding from those same jurisdictions. However, there is a problem with the definition of a sanctuary. “A jurisdiction would not be deemed a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’ based solely on policies where officials do not share information or comply with detainers for illegal immigrants who come forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense,” wrote Tillis in a press release.

This will essentially invite numerous cartel and gang members to invoke the victim or witness exception and have the locals cover for them. There is no reason to put this exception into the bill. By definition, anyone arrested and processed in a jail who is an illegal alien should be turned over to ICE. The entire notion that there is a concern of victims of crime not speaking out for fear of deportation is absurd, because we are not talking about local law enforcement informing on people in their houses and on the streets; we are talking about someone arrested for a crime.

If Tillis were committed to making this bill work beyond a campaign press release, he should reintroduce section 2203(C) of the “Goodlatte bill,” which creates this right to sue sanctuaries without this gaping loophole. Also, the Goodlatte bill authorizes the private cause of action if a jurisdiction releases an illegal alien, in violation of a detainer request, who was arrested for a crime. The Tillis bill limits it to those released after being convicted of a crime. So many criminals are never convicted of crimes but are dangerous nonetheless. Why should an illegal alien who is arrested for assault or robbery but never convicted be allowed to remain in this country? We shouldn’t have to land a conviction on an illegal alien in order to comply with immigration law.

Jessica Vaughan, who monitors sanctuary cities for the Center for Immigration Studies, believes that allowing victims of illegal aliens to sue jurisdictions will be a game-changer:

“I have heard over and over again from sheriffs in very different parts of the country that they want to cooperate with ICE and know that it’s the right thing to do,” said Vaughan, “but they are prevented from doing so by concern that taxpayers will have to foot the bill to fight predatory lawsuits from the ACLU and other anti-enforcement advocacy groups. Some sheriffs have told me that the only reason they don’t cooperate is because the county attorney told them that they were afraid of having to pay out sums of money to people who were mistakenly sought by ICE, or because of rulings by judges in other parts of the country (even if not binding on other regions). Yet these same county officials were not afraid of the public outrage at the release of deportable criminal aliens back to communities to re-offend.”

“Allowing families or individuals who are victimized because of sanctuary policies to sue would definitely change the calculation that some of these jurisdictions are making. They should be doing the right thing for the sake of public safety, but if they end up doing the right thing because of fear of lawsuits, that is a game-changer, because right now the legal deck is stacked in favor of the anti-enforcement side.”

Before American taxpayers are forced to pay for the rope to hang themselves, Republicans should stake this election out on the issue of giving American taxpayers and victims of crime as much standing in court as those invading our border. (For more from the author of “Give Americans the Right to Sue the Pants off Sanctuary Jurisdictions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Majority of Senate Republicans Vote to Send Budget ‘Monstrosity’ to President Trump’s Desk

/0 Comments/in , /by

A budget agreement that suspends the debt ceiling for two years, raises federal spending limits, and sets America up to add another $2 trillion to the national debt is on its way to President Donald Trump for signature after passing the Senate by a vote of 67-28.

A final vote on the bill was originally expected on Wednesday, but was pushed to Thursday afternoon amid questions about whether or not Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s leadership team would be able to get more than half of Senate Republicans behind the bill. House Republicans voted against the measure by a ratio of 2 to 1 the week before.

Twenty-three Republicans voted against the bill, fewer than half of the 53-member conference. Of the 67 who voted in favor, therefore, only 30 were Republicans, meaning that the bill passed with more Democrat support.

Five Democrats voted against the measure: John Tester, Mont.; Joe Manchin, W.V.; Amy Klobuchar, Minn.; Michael Bennet, Colo.; and Tom Carper, Md.

In a Tuesday statement against the legislation, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said the legislation “isn’t only a betrayal of conservatism but an example of government at its worst,” citing the fact that the bill was written behind closed doors.

“This budget deal is yet another missed opportunity to rein in excessive government spending,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said after the vote. “Instead of running up bills we can’t pay, we should be fighting for the American people’s commonsense priorities such as securing our southern border, cutting taxes, and reducing regulations.”

Supporters of the deal, however, have touted it as a compromise reached by a divided government to avoid a potential default or shutdown.

“One of our most important jobs as members of Congress is delivering the resources to fund our government, provide certainty and support for our military and our veterans, and ensure economic stability for American families,” Sen. Shelley Moore-Capito, R-W.V., said in a statement. This agreement puts us on the path to accomplish all of those goals.”

Before the final vote on Thursday, the Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have raised the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts by a vote of 23-70. Paul announced the vote the day before in a floor speech where he lambasted both parties for putting the budget deal together and called the legislation “a monstrosity” and “an abomination.” During the Wednesday speech, he also decried Republicans who he predicted would vote for his bill as political cover before supporting final passage of the agreement.

The vote was one of the last few remaining items of Senate business to wrap up before members of the upper chamber depart for this year’s five-week summer break. (For more from the author of “Majority of Senate Republicans Vote to Send Budget ‘Monstrosity’ to President Trump’s Desk” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Border Patrol Agents in One Sector Apprehended 225 Border-Crossers in a SINGLE MORNING

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite a reported drop in large groups of migrants attempting to illegally cross the U.S. border, immigration authorities apprehended a group of over 200 attempted border-crossers in New Mexico earlier this week.

According to a press release from U.S. Border Patrol El Paso Sector, agents working around the Antelope Wells port of entry in new Mexico apprehend 225 illegal aliens “in the early morning hours of July 30.” The agency said that the those apprehended were mostly “Central American families and unaccompanied juveniles.”

The Border Patrol sector’s statement says that Border Patrol paramedics screened the group for medical conditions and, after determining that “no member of the group required additional attention,” sent everyone in the group to border stations to be processed. Pictures provided to Blaze Media along with the press release show the large group of border-crossers in Border Patrol custody, their faces blurred.

“Even as temperatures rise to dangerous levels, criminal organizations continue to exploit innocent human lives in order to enhance their illicit gains without regard to the risks associated with the hazardous practice,” the press release explains. “In most cases these smugglers never cross the border themselves in order to avoid apprehension.”

This week’s apprehensions come after acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told Congress that attempted crossings by large groups were on the decline, saying that only four large groups had been apprehended since the Mexican government beefed up its own immigration enforcement earlier in the summer.

Later that month, McAleenan told Fox News: “In July, we have had groups in [the Rio Grand Valley Sector] have over 100, a few of them. But it’s a completely different scenario than May, when we had 28 large groups and up to 1,000 per group. It was a very different and challenging effort.” (For more from the author of “Border Patrol Agents in One Sector Apprehended 225 Border-Crossers in a Single Morning” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

What ‘Travel Ban’? Trump Admin Extends TPS Amnesty for Syrians in Another Missed Opportunity

/0 Comments/in , /by

The more the rhetoric on immigration and sovereignty heats up on Twitter, the more things stay the same since Obama … or worse.

Following two decades of record immigration from the Middle East without any ability to vet loyalties to America, President Trump campaigned on a moratorium of immigration from countries with a large presence of terrorism. In the end, he only shut it off from Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Sudan, and even then, thanks to the administration’s capitulation to the lower courts, it was watered down several times. Yet, the Left still accuses him of an across-the-board ban on Muslim immigration. Beto O’Rourke said as much last night during the Democrat debate.

In reality, not much has changed since Obama. Yesterday, I warned about the abuse of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and how it has turned into an indefinite amnesty program for people who abused our system, allowing criminals to remain in the country. Well, today, the Trump administration agreed to extend TPS for Syrians, not just for the standard six months, but for 18 months, according to the Washington Post’s Nick Miroff.

In other words, despite the promise to be the first president to finally make Temporary Protected Status, um, temporary, it will now likely remain forever like all the others. It’s already been in place for over seven years, and now that Trump has blinked once – and for such a long extension – it will never be revoked. He did the same with El Salvador, Haiti, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Thus, out of the few remaining countries left from his original promise of a moratorium, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen all have the TPS loophole. What’s next? Is he going to grant TPS to Iran?

Ultimately, the DHS secretary is the one who signs off on this decision, and Kevin McAleenan is clearly not in line with Trump’s campaign promises.

Roughly 7,000 Syrians have been given TPS as of early this year. I’m sure we can rest easy that all of them have been properly vetted and that none of them are like Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, a Syrian refugee who was recently arrested by the FBI for attempting to bomb a church in Pittsburgh.

According to the Congressional Research Service, roughly 417,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries remain here with TPS status. Remember, the longer these people remain in the country under a program that was designed to run no longer than 18 months, the more opportunity they have to adjust their status to a green card. Also, either way, any child born to them is erroneously viewed as an American citizen. Temporary, indeed!

Although Syrian TPS was first offered on March 29, 2012, and should only have applied to those who happened to already be in the country at that date, DHS allowed people to come here all the way up to August 2016 – four years after the designation – to take advantage of it.

This comes as hundreds of thousands of patently illegal DACA amnesty work permits have been renewed under this administration. Even the crazy judge who interfered in the process made it clear that Trump could end it if he issued a proper regulatory change through the Administrative Procedure Act process.

Plus, the administration continues granting over 750,000 of work permits to nearly every illegal alien who comes to our border, even though this policy, much like TPS, is only discretionary even for legitimate asylum applicants.

And we are refusing to close the border to a single country, even to nationals of Ebola-ridden Congo, as a third world country like Rwanda is smart enough to do so.

As if that weren’t enough, Trump is signing what is at least the twelfth budget bill of his presidency that doesn’t have the promised border wall and ICE funding, but spends us into oblivion on everything Democrats want.

“Conservative” “figures,” as they remain obsessed with focusing on internal Democrat politics, are missing the point. The president has some good instincts and wants some of the changes he promised. But his administration is full of swamp creatures with the status quo mindset, and certainly nobody in congressional leadership will pull him to the Right. The gravitational pull in Washington is only to the Left. Absent a firestorm from the notorious conservatives on Fox or on radio, the president will inevitably, however reluctantly, maintain swamp creatures like Kevin McAleenan and sign off on the same liberal policies.

The swamp will not be drained on its own. As conservatives in public policy, we are our best advocates – we are our only advocates. The president will hear 101 absurd arguments from the lawyers at the DHS, the DOJ, and in the Office of Legal Counsel about how everything the Left wants is legal and everything we call for is unlawful or unfeasible. This happens every day. There are a few brave souls in the administration who try to push our agenda, but rather than getting air cover from outside “conservative movement” figures respected by the president, the guns lie silent and the swamp machine overwhelms their ragtag forces.

Thus, we do the president no favors by standing down precisely when we need to stand up and be counted. He will follow if conservatives lead, but he will not lead the fight if conservatives are focused on everything but what they can actually influence.

Conservative commentators are focused on the election, even though it’s still just the Democrat primary. But why do we care about elections? Well, presumably, we care because of the policy outcomes achieved by those elections. There is still another year and a half with Republican control of the entire executive branch, where these figures have the opportunity to influence numerous important decisions every day. Let’s live in the here and now.

Moreover, what of the next election and the subsequent four years? If we are now content with Republican presidents gratuitously continuing liberal policies that can be countermanded by simple administrative actions, then the Democrats have already won. There is no greater victory for them than having their policies secured, irrespective of the outcome at the ballot box in November. (For more from the author of “What ‘Travel Ban’? Trump Admin Extends TPS Amnesty for Syrians in Another Missed Opportunity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE