Archive | PHLWatchdog RSS feed for this section

The Democrats’ Illegal Immigration Nightmare

27 Feb

In two memos released last week, the Department of Homeland Security outlined sweeping new guidelines to crack down on people living in the country illegally. The so-called “Dreamers” are still exempted from deportation, all other illegal aliens are put on notice:

Under this executive order, with extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to enforcement proceedings, up to and including removal from the United States. The guidance makes clear, however, that ICE should prioritize several categories of removable aliens who have committed crimes, beginning with those convicted of a criminal offense.

I have been writing about the high cost of cheap illegal immigrant labor for more than 10 years. I nodded my head in agreement as I read New York Times Political Columnist Tom Edsall’s recent column, “The Democrats’ Immigration Problem.” Edsall wrote:

In any analysis of the 2016 vote, it is difficult to separate the issues of immigration and free trade. In an October 2016 report, Pew found that Trump voters were decisively more hostile to both free trade agreements and immigration than the general public, and much more hostile than Clinton supporters.

A detailed analysis of exit polls in four key states that helped deliver the election to Donald Trump — Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — produced interesting findings not only about Hispanics, but also African-Americans — who are less supportive of liberal immigration policies than other core Democratic constituencies — and whites. In each of these states, opposition to immigration was higher than the national average.

Nolan McCarty, a political scientist at Princeton, said:

Purely in terms of politics and strategy, the Democrats have played immigration badly. They have allowed their position to be associated with open borders and sanctuary cities. They have based their opposition to the immigration restrictionists in terms of identity politics rather the economic benefits of well-managed immigration. This has caused them to be deaf to concerns that many voters have about the effects of immigration on wages and public services. While I do not think the evidence shows immigration has these alleged harms, the Democrats have to do better than dismiss all opposition to immigration as racism.

Democrats have to do a lot better. According to a survey from Harvard–Harris Poll, Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities.

voters-largely-disapprove-of-sanctuary-cities-cropped

Similarly, a new Quinnipiac University National Poll found an eye-popping 94 percent of respondents want illegal immigrants to be deported under certain circumstances.

illegal-immigration-poll

The Quinnipiac University National Poll is available here.

Jill Stein’s Vanity Recount

5 Dec

I am a founding member of the Election Verification Network. The membership includes University of Michigan computer science professor J. Alex Halderman, the computer science expert who sparked Jill Stein’s petition for a recount in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Since its founding, EVN has pushed for voter-verified paper ballots and a forensic audit of every election. So it’s not surprising that Alex and other members have latched on to calls for recounts in three states.

But Jill Stein’s vanity recount is not advancing election integrity. Instead, it’s setting back electoral reform.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorialized, it smacks of a “vanity project”:

Maybe ‘democracy’ will be served by Jill Stein’s quixotic moralizing. More likely, Jill Stein and the Green Party will be served.

Jill Stein may actually believe that demanding a recount of presidential tallies in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will ensure that “democracy” is served.

More likely, she believes the Green Party will be served by her audacious PR stunt.

Either way, the Stein recounts are a colossal waste of money and energy when there is not a shred of credible evidence of fraud or error and when the final vote in these three states likely will not change very much.

Stein’s quixotic moralizing damages the credibility of the very institution she claims to protect — the sanctity of the ballot box.

Those who donated to Recount 2016 did so voluntarily. Stein paid the state of Michigan $787,500. But taxpayers could end up paying $5 million in additional costs. So Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed a lawsuit to halt the “dilatory and frivolous” recount:

Michigan voters rejected Stein’s candidacy by massive margins but her refusal to accept that state-verified result poses an expensive and risky threat to hard-working taxpayers and abuses the intent of Michigan law. We have asked the court to end the recount which Stein is pursuing in violation of Michigan laws that protect the integrity of our elections. It is inexcusable for Stein to put Michigan voters at risk of paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Electoral College in the process.

Meanwhile, the Green Party has withdrawn its lawsuit for a statewide recount in Pennsylvania. Although Stein has raised over $7 million, they claim the petitioners “cannot afford to post the $1,000,000 bond required by the Court.”

In a tweet, Stein asks, “How odd is it that we must jump through bureaucratic hoops and raise millions of dollars so we can trust our election results?”

jill-stein-tweet

What’s really odd is that the candidate who received less than 1% of the vote is pushing for a recount in Pennsylvania rather than the candidate of the 1%, Hillary Clinton.

pennsylvania-results

Facing long odds in Pennsylvania, the nutcase is taking her case to federal court. If the case winds its way through the federal court system and makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump’s pick will be there waiting for Dr. Jill Stein.

%d bloggers like this: