Category: Guest Authors

Biden Violates Take Care Clause

By Joe Guzzardi

Finally! Vice President Kamala Harris, during a recent interview, said that the effects of the Biden administration’s border policy won’t be realized “overnight.” Let’s calculate just how accurate Harris is. Between now and January 2024, and using 2021 when 2 million aliens crossed into the United States as a model, the Biden administration will likely allow 8 million illegal immigrants to unlawfully enter and settle in the U.S. The “effect” on local communities, schools, transportation and hospitals will be incalculable.

The 2 million total excludes what border agents refer to as “gotaways,” individuals who evaded Border Patrol capture and now roam the interior freely. Once inside the U.S., they may or may not be found, or eventually deported.

One example is Geraldo Pando, a multiple-times deportee with a 35-page criminal history that includes felonies committed in Colorado. He was arrested for vandalizing the U.S. Capitol Police headquarters and released. A week later he was defacing Washington’s Union Station with swastikas. The Biden administration’s soft-on-crime policy and tolerance of unlawful immigration prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement from processing Pando for deportation.

Official ICE statistics prove how passive the Biden administration is about deporting criminals. During 2021, according to a preliminary ICE release, only 55,590 immigration violators were removed. For comparison, deportations totaled 267,258 in FY 2019; under Biden, ICE removals have decreased by nearly 80 percent. Moreover, the first four months of FY 2021 occurred during the Trump presidency – a period when ICE removals were significantly higher. Approximately 28,000 of the FY 2021 removals of the 55,590 occurred while President Trump was still in office.

In the meantime, the worst criminal elements are laughing at the U.S. for its willingness to open its borders and to allow and encourage felonious behavior, including some U.S. citizen-perpetrated, that reaps billions in illicit cash. Wrong-doers, aware of the fortunes that can be gained through drug and human trafficking, devise increasingly clever schemes to smuggle aliens. Benign looking vehicles are the method of choice. Last year near the Texas border, agents seized a white ice cream truck with its flavors and Frito Pie advertised on the side. Inside, agents found 15 illegal immigrants, and two American citizens stacked on top of each other. Then in mid-February, agents found a child daycare van loaded with more than 20 Guatemalans. Agents also apprehended two aliens who had child sex offenses on their records and MS-13 gang members.

Nearly nonexistent enforcement and specifically the passivity of Biden, Harris and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have created a nation-altering crisis. Mayorkas acknowledged that he’s allowed border chaos to fester. In an audio recording which agents taped during their January meeting with Mayorkas at the Yuma Sector, the secretary said that his job has grown increasingly difficult at the start of this year, more so than 2021, which he admitted was “very, very difficult.” Mayorkas added that with worldwide migrants surging the border, he expects no pause in alien crossings. In fact, warmer spring weather could exacerbate border agents’ overload.

Border agents don’t want to hear Mayorkas confess to his poor performance; they’re abundantly aware of his multiple failures. The agents hoped for, but didn’t get, his pledge to allow them to return to their duties – protecting the homeland, not processing family units for release into the interior.

Biden hasn’t so much as hinted at a course change that might deviate from his administration’s repeated federal immigration law violations and its dismissal of the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, which means the President has a duty to ensure that U.S. laws are faithfully executed. The president’s sworn duty is to make sure that those around him faithfully execute the nation’s laws, a responsibility that Mayorkas has blatantly shirked.

A PFIR analyst, Joe Guzzardi writes about immigration issues and impacts. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org and joeguzzardi.substack.com.

Biden Violates Take Care Clause

Amnesty Always Solution for Zealots

By Joe Guzzardi

Soon after 9/11, immigration activists began a full-scale lobbying effort to encourage Congress to pass an illegal alien amnesty. Their stance was that if illegal aliens received lawful permanent residency, then they would, in the advocates’ terminology, “come out of the shadows.” In the end, the narrative continued, newly legalized aliens would become citizens, embrace the American way, and those that once harbored ill-will against the United States, like the 9/11 terrorists, would eventually assimilate.

Amnesty just months after 9/11 was, on its face, an impossible-to-sell idea, mainly because most of the 9/11 perpetrators were not “in the shadows,” but legally present. In his report, “The Open Door: How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered the United States, 1993-2001,” Steven A. Camarota found that at the time they committed their crimes, 16 terrorists of the 48 total involved, directly or indirectly, were on temporary visas, mostly tourist visas; 17 were Lawful Permanent Residents or naturalized U.S. citizens, and 12 were illegal aliens.

But amnesty is like the proverbial cork; right after it’s submerged into water, the cork pops back up. In the more than two decades since 9/11, amnesties large and small have been defeated, but swiftly reappeared in other bills. Some amnesties have been introduced in Congress, and were significant in their scope: the 2005 McCain-Kennedy bill and the 2013 Gang of Eight bill. Although heavily promoted as bipartisan and reformative, both nevertheless died in Congress. The most recent amnesty effort wasn’t as straightforward as the previous two. Although amnesty wasn’t advertised as its primary feature, Build Back Better still would have granted the biggest mass pardon in history, about 6.5 million aliens, and would cost taxpayers about $111 billion.

For today, BBB in its massive fiscal totality is stalled. Without missing a beat, however, the amnesty-or-bust crowd is back to work with another far-fetched angle that it should be embarrassed to advance. Their proposed solution to stall raging inflation: press on with BBB’s amnesty via a parole provision that would grant work authorization to illegal immigrants. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) tweeted that “a comprehensive immigration reform bill,” code words for amnesty, “would help cut inflation.” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has spent his 30-plus years in Congress voting “yea” for the majority of the immigration expansion bills put before him, agrees. When reporters asked Durbin to share his thoughts about the new amnesty pitch, the Senate Judiciary Chair said: “Oh, most certainly … If there are more workers filling those jobs, it’s deflationary.”

Clemson University energy and sustainability professor Mark Thies wrote a Newsweek opinion piece titled “The Democrats Plan to Fix Inflation: Squeeze Blue-Collar Americans” that chronicled the multiple fallacies in Democrats’ talking points, reiterated year after year but never proven, that immigration benefits Americans. This time around, Democrats illogically argue that more immigration and amnesty will help curb the 40-year high inflation rate that’s crippling the middle class. While it’s true that importing more foreign workers who will become U.S. consumers grows the economy and increases GDP, it’s equally true and much more consequential that more foreign-born consumers don’t increase per-capita GDP. Fundamental economic theory proves that the overwhelming majority of immigration-driven increases in economic activity goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and other compensation. Immigration doesn’t benefit the native-born population.

Should the Democrats’ amnesty vision come true, every paroled or amnestied immigrant will receive lifetime valid work authorization that will enable him to compete with or displace an American worker. If BBB provides millions more work-authorized immigrants, then also add the 1 million lawful permanent residents who arrive annually, the roughly 750,000 temporary guest workers, the asylum and refugee arrivals, and the conclusion is that the U.S. has an immigrant labor overage at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Not yet considered are last year’s 2 million illegal immigrant border surgers who will stay in the U.S. permanently, and will eventually get employment authorization or, alternatively, enter the underground economy. More cheap labor is a constant threat to working Americans’ job security, inconsequential to congressional Democrats.

Independent and undecided voters wonder what’s happened to the traditional Democratic Party that once prided itself as working Americans’ staunchest ally. The Democratic Party of old is long gone, and today is willfully determined to undermine U.S. citizens’ economic best interests in order to advance the elite donor class. With the 2022 mid-term elections less than nine months away, analysts wonder whether Democrats will shift to the middle to woo the swing voters they’ll need in order to keep their congressional majority. So far, no indication has surfaced that a course change is in the immediate future. So that all Americans may prosper, the U.S. needs Democrats of the mindset from an earlier era to return to the fold. As President Theodore Roosevelt often said, if federal policies don’t work for everyone, they don’t work for anyone.

A PFIR analyst, Joe Guzzardi writes about immigration issues and impacts. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org and joeguzzardi.substack.com.

Amnesty Always Solution for Zealots Amnesty Always Solution for Zealots

Texas Gov Race Is Ground Zero In Immigration Battle

By Joe Guzzardi

Texas will hold its gubernatorial primary March 1, with a runoff scheduled for May 24, if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote. The question that Texas voters will face on Election Day, Nov. 8, is whether a Democrat, likely to be two-time loser Robert O’Rourke, with a failed 2018 Senate bid and 2020 presidential campaign run that went nowhere, and an open border apologist who favors Second Amendment restrictions, can win in Texas, illegal immigration’s ground zero.

The first hurdle for incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott is getting past the primary. No incumbent Texas governor lost his or her – Ann Richards (D) 1991 to 1995 – party’s nomination since 1978, when Gov. Dolph Briscoe (D) lost to then-Attorney General John Hill (D). Abbott, however, is facing strong primary challengers. They are Texas State Senator and real estate developer Don Huffines and Allen West, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant who represented Florida’s 22^nd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 to 2013. Until he resigned to launch his gubernatorial campaign, West served as the Republican Party of Texas’ chairman. Huffines and West have criticized Abbott for his coronavirus restrictions that included mask mandates and business shutdowns that they view as unconstitutional, and an unnecessary obstruction to Texans’ freedom.

Abbott’s performance ratings are weak. The Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston and the University of Texas both found that 40 percent of Texans have an unfavorable opinion of the sitting governor. Nevertheless, Abbott is favored to prevail, and will probably meet O’Rourke in November, a match up that, because of their starkly different immigration positions, should favor the incumbent.

O’Rourke knows that in Texas immigration enforcement will be a game breaker, and he’s choosing his language judiciously. The O’Rourke of today may have a tough time escaping the O’Rourke that pursued the 2020 presidential nomination. Posted on his website, O’Rourke wrote that he wants Texas to have a “legal, orderly system of immigration and uphold our country’s asylum laws.” Texans recognize these words as code for amnesty, an O’Rourke goal that’s unchanged from 21 months ago.

At an April 2019 Iowa town hall, the former U.S. representative said that giving amnesty to all 12 to 25 million illegal aliens will make American citizens – and specifically, the Angel Families whose loved ones have been murdered by criminal aliens – “demonstrably safer.” O’Rourke’s premise that once aliens “get right with the law…come into the light of day [and presumably out of the ever-present shadows]… and contribute to the success of the country…” then everything will be fine. These platitudes have never been proven true.

On border issues, O’Rourke, because of his past support for amnesty, and his failure to meaningfully criticize illegal immigration, has boxed himself in. Abbott, even though his primary opponents argue that he should do more to stop the illegal immigrant border surge, has poured hundreds of millions to strengthen border security that includes sending Department of Public Safety troops and the National Guard to the Rio Grande. Hispanic voters, a key bloc, approve of Abbott’s immigration actions; 45 percent gave Abbott an approval rating on immigration, but only 37 percent gave Biden, from whom O’Rourke will have trouble distancing himself, an immigration thumbs-up. O’Rourke will not ask Biden to join him on the campaign trail, and said that his campaign will not be about anyone outside of Texas. He will, however, accept out-of-state donations. The O’Rourke coffers have nearly $9 million as of the most recent tally, about $40 million less than Abbott.

Other issues will play an important role as the campaigns of Abbott and O’Rourke shift into high gear: Texas’ power grid, a woman’s right to choose and inflation are also important to Texans.

The Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas Tyler poll has Abbott with a commanding 11-point lead. But running behind early in the game isn’t O’Rourke’s greatest concern. The border remains open and chaotic. Based on the 2021 statistics, between today and early November, hundreds of thousands of new illegal immigrants will cross into Texas, an albatross that even the most skilled campaigner can’t talk his way out of.

A PFIR analyst, Joe Guzzardi writes about immigration issues and impacts. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.

Texas Gov Race Is Ground Zero In Immigration Battle Texas Gov Race Is Ground Zero In Immigration Battle

America Competes Act Another Attack On American Workers

By Joe Guzzardi

Nothing stops the push by Congress for more immigration – not 9/11, not the mortgage meltdown and Wall Street crisis, not dismal Bureau of Labor Statistics job reports and not COVID-19. Despite the fact that about 1 million new lawful permanent residents get work authorization each year, that about 750,000 guest workers arrive annually in a typical year and that dozens of types of nonimmigrant visas include employment permission, Congress is never satisfied.
 
Congress insists, predictably and tediously, that without more foreign-born labor, the economy will collapse and small businesses will vanish. These baseless claims, consistently proven false, are repeated year after year after year.
 
Example: In 2017, mostly at the horse racing industry’s behest, the Senate introduced the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and the House introduced companion legislation, Strengthen Employment and Seasonal Opportunities Now Act. The bills, with bipartisan support, predicted that without more H-2B nonagricultural visas, horse racing, as fans know the “Sport of Kings,” might become extinct. But, four years later, the Kentucky Derby and smaller races at other nationwide tracks continue to draw large, revenue-generating crowds.

Example: Last year, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship and immigration lawyer, introduced the Let Immigrants Kick Start Employment Act that would create a new temporary visa for founders of start-up ventures. In her press release, Lofgren said that more immigration leads to more American jobs, an often-made, but misleading claim. Although Lofgren’s bill went nowhere, Silicon Valley recorded record profits in 2021, and The New York Timespredicted that titans Google, Apple, Microsoft and other tech giants will be rolling in dough for years to come. From its July 2021 story: “The combined stock market valuation of Apple, Alphabet, Nvidia, Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook increased by about 70 percent to more than $10 trillion. That is roughly the size of the entire U.S. stock market in 2002. Apple alone has enough cash in its coffers to give $600 to every person in the United States.”
 
The latest assault on American workers is an immigration train wreck coyly called the America COMPETES Act of 2022. Boiled down to the bill’s most harmful elements, the America COMPETES Act would:
 

1. Create a W nonimmigrant visa program for foreign investors of start-ups and entrepreneurs, their families and so-called but undefined essential foreign workers who work for them, also allowing their family members to receive work permits.
2. Create a one-year path to an unlimited number of Green Cards for any W visa holder who meets certain investment and ownership stake requirements.
3. Create an unlimited number of Green Cards for foreign citizens who hold a doctoral degree from a U.S. institution of higher learning or an equivalent degree from a foreign university.
4. Create a five-year program that creates 5,000 Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) yearly for Hong Kong residents, amounting to an additional 25,000 Green Cards over the five-year period.
5. Authorize an unlimited refugee/asylee program for certain Hong Kong residents.
6. Change existing law to treat Hong Kong as a separate state from China in determining per-country limits for existing Green Card categories.
7. Grant Temporary Protected Status with work permission for Hong Kong residents currently in the U.S., regardless of their existing immigration status which may include unlawfully present status.

 
Under the guise of promoting American innovation, the act’s hodgepodge of vague language makes almost anything possible. One thing is certain – the America COMPETES Act will massively increase legal immigration, flood the labor market, make job searches for Americans in all sectors more difficult, and have an adverse effect on recent U.S. college graduates hoping to begin their careers.
 
The America COMPETES Act intentionally harms U.S. citizens, but will be a bonanza for arriving foreign nationals, employers addicted to cheap labor and Silicon Valley multimillionaires. No greater gap exists between voters and Congress than on immigration policy. The thoroughly awful, destructive America COMPETES Act is one of the most powerful examples of why the immigration chasm is so wide.
 
 
A PFIR analyst, Joe Guzzardi writes about immigration issues and impacts. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org and joeguzzardi.substack.com.

America Competes Act Another Attack On American Workers

Teenage Girl Whiffs Ruth, Gehrig, Fact Or Fiction?

By Joe Guzzardi
 

More than 80 years ago, 17-year-old lefty sidewinder and distaff Jackie Mitchell struck out on seven pitches baseball’s powerful sluggers, the New York Yankees’ Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Historians rank Ruth and Gehrig as baseball’s most fearsome back-to-back slugging tandem. On April 2, 1931, the impossible-to-believe feat, a teenage girl whiffing the two home run bashers, happened in front of 4,000 incredulous fans. The following day, TheNew York Times in its headline story “Ruth and Gehrig Struck Out by Girl Pitcher” confirmed the accomplishment of Mitchell from the minor league Chattanooga Lookouts.

Eight decades later, the time has again come to determine whether Ruth and Gehrig were part of a hoax that the Lookouts owner and notorious prankster Joe Engel arranged—he had once traded a player for a turkey, and then served the carved-up bird to local sportswriters – or whether Mitchell had legitimately whiffed the two greats.

Readers, with history’s help, can make their own decision. Ordinarily, a 17-year-old, female or male, would be impossibly overmatched against Ruth and Gehrig. To be sure, Ruth, age 37, was approaching his career’s end. Still, Ruth hit 49 homers the previous season and Gehrig, 41. But Mitchell had impressive credentials of her own. She was an all-around athlete who starred in basketball in the winter, and excelled at baseball in the spring. More than anything, however, Mitchell learned about pitching from her neighbor, Hall of Fame hurler Dazzy Vance – called Dazzy because his opponents said that his pitches dazzled them.

Vance had developed a remarkable curriculum vitae of his own. Pitching for the consistently terrible Brooklyn Robins, Vance led the National League in strikeouts for seven consecutive seasons, 1922 to 1928, and won 20 games three times. Vance taught Mitchell how to throw the drop ball, now called a sinker.

The Yankees were traveling north for their Opening Day game against the Red Sox, and had scheduled two exhibition games against the Lookouts. With Mitchell under contract, and with game one – hint, hint – an April 1 Fools Day contest rained out, the April 2 game began ominously for the Lookouts. Starting pitcher Clyde Barfoot gave up a quick double and a single. Manager Bert Niehoff signaled to the bullpen for portsider Mitchell to face left-handed batting Ruth and Gehrig, the trusted lefty versus lefty pitching strategy at play. Mitchell’s first delivery to Ruth was a ball followed by two swinging strikes, and a called strike three. Ruth threw his bat to the ground in – hint, hint, again – feigned disgust. Gehrig went down even easier than Ruth – three atypically wild swings at Mitchell’s offerings. After Mitchell walked the third slugger in the Yankees’ Murders’ Row line up, Tony Lazzeri, her day was done; the Yankees beat up on the Lookouts, 14-4.

The Times account provides some valuable insight into the goings on. Ruth, the newspaper wrote, “performed his role very ably,” and Gehrig “took three hefty swings as his contribution to the occasion.” Unsurprisingly Mitchell recalls her performance differently. Interviewed in 1987, Mitchell said, “Why, hell, they were trying, damn right.” Then, Mitchell added testily, “Hell, better [unidentified] batters than them couldn’t hit me.”

Readers trying to determine whether young “lipstick wielding” Mitchell, as one account referred to her, struck out Ruth and Gehrig on the up and up should remember that the Bambino was to his fans the consummate pleasure-giver and crowd-pleaser. He joked with them from his right field position, waved greetings as he drove through New York’s streets, visited hospitals spontaneously, signed every shred of paper, programs, baseballs, menus and match book covers put in front of him. Ruth knew that he had nothing to gain if he hit a tape measure 500-foot home run against a teenage girl and local darling. And Gehrig, who wasn’t going to show up Ruth, had nothing to prove either. Baseball loves a good story, and Mitchell’s tale filled the bill.

In 1933, after then-MLB Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis voided Mitchell’s contract, she signed with the House of David barnstorming team. But Mitchell quickly grew tired of its non-baseball antics that included playing games while astride donkeys and retired to join her father’s Chattanooga optometry office.

In the end, no one can dispute that Mitchell faced three Hall of Fame greats – Ruth, Gehrig and Lazzeri – and struck out two of them on seven pitches. No pitcher can say the same, and, best of all, Mitchell’s once-in-a lifetime story is, even if orchestrated, 100 percent verifiable fact.

Joe Guzzardi is a Society for American Baseball Research and Internet Baseball Writers Association member. Contact him at guzzjoe@yahoo.com.

Teenage Girl Whiffs Ruth, Gehrig, Fact Or Fiction?