.jpg)
I have not heard from anyone a student's university tuition implies they are paying for a safe environment. Unless their school is safe they are denied their constitutional guarantee, ie. "their right to pursue happiness."
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?
I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News have written a column titled, "Mexican Visitors' Lament.”
I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "Illegal aliens pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes. What happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?”Hmmm, I thought, what would happen?
So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below. It's a good question...it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders. What would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? This may surprise you!In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone. Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. Denver's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home,' the U.S. economy would return to the Rule of Law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage.
Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids.
Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually and would vacate our country.
In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the '18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
America's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America's economy which currently suffers a $30 trillion debt.
More than $30 TRILLION !!
At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country - brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders. Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities' greenhouse gasses.
Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads, electricity, or any kind of sanitation.
The New York Times reported them to be America's new ' Third World ' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)
We already invite a million people into our country legally/annually, more than all other countries combined- with growing anarchy at our borders.
It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life. Interesting statistics below!Here are 13 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens (that's Billion with a 'B’)2. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens.3. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.4. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year.5. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.6. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.7. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.8. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.9. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border.10. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.11. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.12. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States!Total cost - a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR !And we don't need a wall?THOSE WHO WOULD DISRESPECT OUR FLAG, HAVE NEVER BEEN HANDED A FOLDED ONE!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On it's way:
https://www.newsweek.com/fusio
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An Anti-Semitic Occupation of Harvard’s Widener Library
Claudine Gay promised to prevent ‘disruptions of the classroom experience.’
How’s that working out?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The country is united, Netanyahu is down but not out, and peace still has a chance—eventually.
In Washington, almost every conversation about Israeli politics starts with two big ideas: that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a dead man walking, and that his fall from power will bring someone more amenable to two-state negotiations with the Palestinians.
Israelis scoff at both notions. Even Mr. Netanyahu’s harshest domestic critics aren’t sure that his career is over. The Oct. 7 attacks wounded him badly, but he’s pulled enough rabbits out of enough hats over the years that few are ready to write him off. The common view seems to be that Mr. Netanyahu, like Westley in “The Princess Bride,” is only “mostly dead,” and that his government has at least six to 12 months to run.
As to the policies of his potential successors, there is no pro-“peace process” movement in Israeli politics today. With the Oct. 7 attacks still reverberating, no serious Israeli politician would dream of running on a platform of facilitating the emergence of a Palestinian state.
That said, the Beltway chatter about “the day after” in Gaza and the future of the Palestinians overstates the difference between the Israeli and American positions. There is a narrow path for progress here.
There is consensus in Israel not only that Hamas lacks the will (and the human decency) to be an interlocutor for a future Palestinian state, but also that the terminally corrupt and exhausted Fatah movement now in power in the West Bank is too ineffective and unpopular to survive the hard compromises that peace would require. The Fatah leadership would be too vulnerable to being overthrown by more-radical Palestinian movements for Israelis to trust it as a security partner. The chance of Israelis seriously engaging with an unreformed Palestinian movement on the old Oslo peace agenda is zero. On this point, Mr. Netanyahu and his rivals agree.
But what if there was a deep reform in Palestinian governance? What if, with significant financial and political support from the Gulf Arabs, a new generation of pragmatic Palestinian leaders bent on stability and economic development replaced the tired old guard and rejected the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in favor of more-effective institutions, stopped financial payments to the families of terrorists in Israeli prisons, and introduced real educational reforms to stop radicalizing young Palestinians?
Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United Arab Emirates has experience with or interest in building democracy. But both have been successful at addressing extremism and improving governance. There are pragmatic Palestinians all over the world who have turned their backs on the hollow radicalism and stale rhetoric of official Palestinian politics and become successful in business and other fields. Bringing these parties together with like-minded Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza could start a new era of better Palestinian governance and pragmatism toward Israel.
If that happened, over time Israelis could come to trust Palestinians again. Peace with a weak and unstable entity like the Palestinian Authority in its current form is impossible. Peace with a time-tested, stable and competent Palestinian Authority backed by the Gulf Arabs would be another proposition.
The Gulf Arabs badly want new and better Palestinian leadership to emerge. That is partially because they want regional stability and partially because they genuinely want a better future for the Palestinians. The Biden administration could launch a process of political reconstruction among Palestinians by helping the Gulf Arabs, the Israelis and a mix of new and old Palestinian leaders develop an interim program for the rehabilitation of Gaza, serious change on the West Bank, and a growing role for a reformed Palestinian Authority.
The negotiations wouldn’t be easy, and like many other hopeful initiatives in the history of this tragic conflict, this attempt could fail. But the opportunity is real. Israel needs American support and would like to deepen its relations with Arab neighbors. Team Biden wants stability and a foreign-policy success. Palestinian politics have reached a dead end both in the West Bank and Gaza. The Gulf Arabs want détente in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to block Iran’s effort to legitimate its regional ambitions by appearing as the chief supporter of the Palestinian movement.
The old Oslo peace process is dead, but President Biden has a chance to initiate a new kind of peace process that could at long last lay the foundation of a peaceful future for both peoples.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is what motivates radical Democrats:
https://twitter.com/
Three blind university presidents
Garbage in, garbage out. The world needs less professors anyway. Op-ed.
Take That, Thomas Friedman!
by Rafael Medoff
(Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of more than 20 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest is America and the Holocaust: A Documentary History, published by the Jewish Publication Society & University of Nebraska Press.)
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations this week dramatized Hamas’s villainy and intransigence by holding up a sign with a Hamas leader’s phone number, and urging the assembled UN delegates to call him.
“Tell Hamas to put down their arms, turn themselves in, and return our hostages,” Ambassador Gilad Erdan declared. “This will bring a complete ceasefire that will last forever.”
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman probably was more than a little annoyed by Erdan’s tactic. Friedman must have thought he had cornered the market on sarcastically publicizing telephone numbers, when he persuaded the U.S. Secretary of State to use that tactic against Israel’s leaders years ago.
This episode goes back to Friedman’s first decade at the Times, and intersects with his original declared aspiration to work “at the Middle East desk of the State Department.”
At some point in the late 1980s, Friedman became a personal friend and tennis partner of then-Secretary of State James Baker. Needless to say, journalists do not usually serve as secret advisers to government officials whom they are covering. The editors of The New Republic, remarking on Friedman’s extremely sympathetic coverage of Baker, once suggested he should be called “the New York Times’ State Department spokesman” or “the James Baker Ministry of Information.”
Neither Friedman nor the Times revealed his relationship with Baker at the time. But in his 1995 autobiography, The Politics of Diplomacy, Baker admitted it. More than that, Baker revealed that when he and Friedman met for their weekly tennis game, Friedman would give him advice on how to pressure Israel.
Baker gave Friedman “credit” for conceiving a public relations gimmick that directly undermined the U.S.-Israel friendship. While testifying to a congressional committee in June 1990, Baker tried to embarrass the Israeli government by reciting the White House phone number and sarcastically suggesting that Israel’s leaders should “call when they're serious about peace.”
Among the many ugly aspects of James Baker’s treatment of Israel, the phone number episode hardly was the most grievous. There was, of course, the time he cursed out American Jews over their voting patterns. And there was the crisis he provoked by blocking U.S. loan credits for the resettlement in Israel of Soviet Jewish refugees.
Baker also has repeatedly heckled Israel since leaving office. In one particularly absurd outburst, Baker claimed (in 2007) that if the U.S. would begin negotiations with Syria, Syria would stop arming Hezbollah and Hamas would recognize Israel.
Still, there was something about the phone number insult that stung. Maybe it was because it was so wildly inaccurate for Secretary Baker to claim that Israel wasn’t serious about peace. Or maybe because he was treating America’s loyal ally with such mean-spirited, undeserved contempt.
There was a fascinating postscript to the episode. On November 7, 2009, Friedman wrote yet another column in the Times accusing Israel of not being seriously interested in peace. He recommended to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that she should “dust off James Baker’s line: ‘When you’re serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack.’ Otherwise, stay out of our lives."
Remarkably, Friedman did not acknowledge in that column that he was the one who was the original author of that sarcastic jibe. Instead, he pretended that it was “James Baker's line.” Invoking the former Secretary of State gave the line more gravitas. And presumably, Friedman assumed most Times readers would not realize that Baker had already revealed the truth in his autobiography, years earlier.
Ambassador Erdan may not be familiar with Thomas Friedman’s sarcastic ghostwriting for Secretary Baker. But even if it was not Erdan’s intention, the sign that he held up at the UN this week rhetorically turned the tables on an arch-critic of Israel. It was long overdue.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment