June 16, 2019

Obama’s Meager Efforts to Fix Immigration Crisis Criticized by Black Activists

Tiny Deportation Effort Just Doesn’t Cut It

“This is What Happens When Commonsense Principles and Practices are Ignored Because of Racial Guilt and Racial Politics”

Washington, DC – Helluva job, Mr. President!

With the Obama Administration taking a bow for arranging for the deportation of approximately 40 Honduran illegal aliens, members of the Project 21 black leadership network point out this number is infinitesimal in addressing the “urgent humanitarian situation” the White House allowed to erupt. They also point out the unchecked influx of illegal immigrants is a clear and present danger to the wellbeing of the President’s black supporters.

“The few dozen illegal aliens the government did deport barely matter in the grand scope of things when 90,000 illegal alien children alone are expected to surge across the border by the end of the summer,” said Project 21’s Kevin Martin. “For every illegal alien who crosses the border, it means potentially one less job for a black American now or in the future. Unfortunately, this is what can be expected from progressive policies seemingly rooted more in calculated political gain and nothing more. And, in this case, his calculations are wrong.”

The approximately 40 Honduran illegal aliens who were just flown back to Honduras were held at a facility in Artesia, New Mexico created to house approximately 400 people. Only ten percent of that one small facility were deported. According to estimates made by the Obama Administration, over 90,000 children alone are expected to enter the U.S. illegally by the end of September.

Project 21’s Martin added: “President Obama’s brand of politics has done more harm than good for black America over the past six years as our community has borne the brunt of the recession and a mostly jobless recovery in which black youth unemployment lingers over 30 percent. Now we must deal with this influx of illegal alien children and others. It’s time for blacks who supported Obama to see the writing on the wall: he doesn’t care about their concerns and must believe they won’t desert him. This could be the final insult.”

According to Fox News interviews with several illegal aliens, their motivation for coming to American is rooted in a belief that the Obama Administration — having promoted amnesty and using executive power to order selective enforcement of immigration law — will allow those who cross the border to stay in the United States.

“This is what happens when commonsense principles and practices are ignored because of racial guilt and racial politics,” said Project 21’s Charles Butler. “With this crisis on the border, Americans are coming together to demand that we take control of our country back from the advocates of illegal immigration and other failed liberal policies.”

“The President’s obsession with granting amnesty for over 11 million illegal immigrants may be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Black communities across America are saying ‘enough’ to the neglect this administration has shown them,” said Michael Dozier, another Project 21 member. “Sending 40 people back across the border while thousands walk in the opposite direction is the equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on an arterial bleed. This farce is an attempt to play to the emotions of his supporters. But black Americans are waking up. They are tired of being placed on the back burner while the President uses his pen and phone on issues that are a detriment to their community.”

In 2014, Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media over 800 times — including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh — on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer membership comes from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .


On Immigration, Big Business Ducks Key Question

Marriott Chairman J.W. “Bill” Marriott, Jr. Ducks Key Question on Immigration at Company Shareholder Meeting

Declines to Explain Why Big Companies Supporting “Path to Citizenship” Don’t Lobby to Secure Southern Border First to Help Build Public Support for the Immigration Law Changes Big Business Wants

Washington DC – Justin Danhof, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s Free Enterprise Project, today asked J.W. “Bill” Marriott, Jr., Executive Chairman of Marriott International, about the company’s push for immigration reform at the company’s shareholder meeting in Washington D.C. today.

Danhof, in his question, noted that 57 percent of the U.S. public supports the border fence and 69 percent supports using the U.S. military to keep Mexican drug violence out of the U.S. There is strong support for border security, and strengthening border security would increase public support for legalization of illegal immigrations already here. Therefore, given that the company has pushed for immigration reform for years without success, why does it not push for completing the fence and then push for legalization, as doing the former would make the public more agreeable to the latter?

“In his response, Mr. Marriott started by explaining that Marriott does very much support the idea of border security but, at the same time, he explained that many of the company’s employees that are here legally and work using green cards deserve a path to citizenship,” said Danhof. “That was really the entire crux of his answer. He did not say a word directed at the central point of my question, which was, ‘why doesn’t the company publicly support building a border fence and then engage in comprehensive immigration reform?’ It was as if I hadn’t asked that.”

“The company’s position is clearly to continue to push for legal status and border security at the same time,” Danhof continued. “As I plainly articulated, this approach has failed in the past and could also fail going forward. Either way, it is a method that does not have the broad backing of the American public, and the company is risking its strong reputation with this approach.”

“It is incomprehensible that a business such as Marriott that is heavily involved in the immigration debate cannot answer a simple question: why not build a secure border fence first, and then engage in the other dynamics of reform? If Marriott were to publicly endorse this approach, the company would align itself with a large block of the American public that is genuinely concerned about border security and continued illegal immigration from Mexico,” continued Danhof.

“When big businesses and politicians converge to write sweeping legislation, be it on energy, health care or immigration, the lone voice in the wilderness, that is all too often ignored, is the American people. Today, Marriott signaled that it is perfectly willing to ignore the public and engage with the political class in Washington, D.C. to overhaul America’s immigration system. As a hospitality company, Marriott relies on branding and customer service to drive success. It is incomprehensible that Marriott would take such a dramatic risk with the company’s reputation by ignoring the public,” Danhof concluded.

“Big business is its own worst enemy when it comes to so-called ‘immigration reform,'” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, and also a Marriott shareholder. “If our southern border were secured, the public would be far more willing to support legislation to grant legal status to those who are here illegally. But Big Business wants the ‘reform’ of granting legal status, as well as other legal changes to let in more immigrants with certain skills, without first closing the border. Has Big Business gotten what it wants? Not since 1986. So why doesn’t Big Business push for border security as a tactic to get broad public approval for the legal changes it wants? That’s the mystery, and we’re sorry Mr. Marriott chose not to explain it. Unfortunately, we’re left to speculate that the reason may be that Big Business really does not want the supply of immigrant labor from across our southern border to dry up, so it pushes to grant legal status and even citizenship to illegal aliens already here while doing little to stop continued illegal immigration.”

“Immigration ‘reform’ advocates keep calling for a ‘compromise,'” concluded Ridenour. “Here’s a compromise: We enact legalization without border security in 1986, and border security without legalization in 2014. If someone wants to do something else about immigration after that’s done, we can discuss it.”

Justin Danhof also asked Marriott executives about immigration at the company’s 2013 shareholder meeting. A detailed write-up of that exchange, including an audio recording, is available here.

The full text of Danhof’s question to Mr. Marriott, as prepared for delivery, is here.

Marriott International said it would be posting an audio recording of the shareholder meeting on its website sometime this afternoon, but it had not been posted at the time this release was completed.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist program. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing conservative and free-market principles in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. The National Center has participated in 30 shareholder meetings so far in 2014.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


Homeland “Gestapo” Security Aiding and Abetting Criminals

The Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security is brazenly violating U.S. law and participating in criminal conspiracies to smuggle illegal immigrants into the United States, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said in a December ruling. He also noted that the schemes were helping to fund Mexican drug cartels and jeopardizing the lives of children. According to Hanen, the apparent Obama administration policies in question are part of a trend and represent a “dangerous course of action,” costing taxpayers huge sums while enriching criminal syndicates.<<<Read More>>>


Welcome the Undocumented


Immigration for Freedom – Immigration for Freebies

Immigration is a hot button issue in the U.S. these days, I suppose hidden behind the shroud of the claims that we need to tighten up boarder security to keep out terrorists and mixed in with this tale we hear of the criminals, unchecked because of lax immigration laws and the cost to the taxpayer, etc.

While Congress puts up a false front of pretending to debate immigration “for the good of all”, it appears nobody cares much about the grass roots of immigration, what it was, what it meant and in particular what was expected of those wanting to come to America.

Few even realize that immigration was mostly sold as a dream vacation for some, as greedy capitalists wanted cheap labor to bulk up their profit margins. And we can’t overlook the millions of immigrants sent to the United States by the Catholic Church in order to gain global dominance and control as many countries and their governments and their education institutes as possible.

I suppose the Pilgrims were some of our first immigrants, but even from the time of 1620 until the early 1900s, what drove people to want to come to this country is a far cry from what it is today. Consider the differences between once when the sales pitch was about being a free and ideally an equal chance to accomplish what every other man could. Today, not totally unlike many years past, we still have greedy capitalists seeking to exploit the foreigners for money, the Catholic Church still looking for a super majority of followers and we can easily add to that now, the slimy politicians looking for more voters who will keep them in their cushy and corrupt jobs as out of touch, wealthy criminals who hide behind the red, white and blue.

I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I have no issue with letting anyone who wants to come to this country for all the right reasons, to do so. Once America had an identity and dream for a future that is very much unlike what reality has bestowed upon us today. Why is it that we feel compelled to give immigrants more than they need to come here?; i.e. food stamps, welfare, education, driver license, etc. The immigrants of the past came and got a piece of paper that told them they had a right to be here and take care of themselves, by themselves and if they wanted they could work toward citizenship and assimilate into an America that was free and independent. Wanting a chance to better themselves and a fair shot at doing so, separated the wheat from the chaff. This is what made America great. An immigrant had to really want to be an American; an American once defined.

My how things have changed.

Over the weekend I read a short book by Mary Antin called: They Who Knock at Our Gates – A Complete Gospel of Immigration. The Riverside Press, Cambridge – 1914. The book examines the justification of immigration as is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence; that the reasons for America to want to be free from the despotic reign of King George, so too must all humans be given that same right.

But as I’ve tried to point out, immigration and what drives people to seek refuge in this country has drastically changed. To prove this point, below I’ve typed out an excerpt from the book that is describing what kind of person(s) wants to come to America and why. Compare this with what is happening today.

“I have little sympathy with declaimers about the Pilgrim Fathers,
who look upon them all as men of grand conceptions and superhuman foresight. An entire ship’s company of Columbuses is what the world never saw.” – James Russell Lowell

It takes a wizard critic like Lowell to chip away the crust of historic sentiment and show us our forefathers in the flesh. Lowell would agree with me that the Pilgrims were a picked troop in the sense that there was an immense preponderance of virtue among them. And that is exactly what we must say of our modem immigrants, if we judge them by the sum total of their effect on our country.

Not a little of the glory of the Pilgrim Fathers rests on their own testimony. Our opinion of them is greatly enhanced by the expression we find, in the public and private documents they have left us, of their ideals, their aims, their expectations in the New World. Let us judge our immigrants also out of their own mouths, as future generations will be sure to judge them. And in seeking this testimony let us remember that humanity in general does not produce one oracle in a decade. Very few men know their own
hearts, or can give an account of the impulses that drive them in a particular direction. We put our ears to the lips of the eloquent when we want to know what the world is thinking. And what do we get when we sift down the sayings of the spokesmen among the foreign folk? An anthem in praise of American ideals, a passionate glorification of the principles of democracy.

Let it be understood that the men and women of exceptional intellect, who have surveyed the situation from philosophical heights, are not trumpeting forth their own high dreams alone. If they have won the
ear of the American nation and shamed the indifferent and silenced the cynical, it is because they voiced the feeling of the inarticulate mob that welters in the foreign quarters of our cities. I am never so clear as to the basis of my faith in America as when I have been talking with the ungroomed mothers of
the East Side. A widow down on Division Street was complaining bitterly of the hardships of her lot, alone in an alien world with four children to bring up. In the midst of her complaints the children came in from school. “Well,” said the hard-pressed widow, “bread isn’t easy to get in America, but the children can go to school, and that’s more than bread. Rich man, poor man, it’s all the same: the
children can go to school.”

The poor widow had never heard of a document called the Declaration of Independence, but evidently she had discovered in American practice something corresponding to one of the great American principles, the principle of equality of opportunity, and she valued it more than the necessaries of animal life. Even so was it valued by the Fathers of the Republic, when they deliberately incurred the dangers of a war with mighty England in defense of that and similar principles.