Mediaboss Marketing

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

While most of the mainstream media has chosen to ignore the travesty thats occurring out our Southern Border, Guy Relford is reminded about the language the founding fathers and what they meant by a well regulated militia. Not only are arms necessary for our own self-defense, but they are also necessary for the survival of a free state and its citizens.

The founding fathers would say, why dont we call out the militia? Why dont we do whats necessary to protect the security of this State?

Hear the show in its entirety and older shows here:

Watch the entire show on YouTube.

Read more from the original source:
What Would the Founding Fathers Think About the Illegal Immigration Surge? - WIBC - Indianapolis News & Politics

Updated 10 May 2023

To play this content, please enable JavaScript, or try a different browser

The Archbishop of Canterbury argues against the Illegal Migration Bill, but Lord Howard backs it.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has attacked the government's migration plans, saying they risked "great damage" to the UK's reputation.

Justin Welby said the Illegal Migration Bill would not stop small boat crossings, and it failed in "our moral responsibility" towards refugees.

He was speaking as the bill began what is expected to be a rocky passage through the House of Lords.

But Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick urged peers to back the legislation.

Adding that the archbishop was "wrong" in his criticism, he said: "There is nothing moral about allowing the pernicious trade of people smugglers to continue.

"I want to see that stopped, and this bill is the only way to do that," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One.

He added that critics of the bill, including opposition parties, had not suggested "any viable alternatives" to stop journeys across the Channel.

The archbishop's pointed intervention came during a lengthy, highly charged debate about the bill in the Lords on Wednesday.

The legislation cleared its first parliamentary hurdle in the Lords after a Liberal Democrat bid to block it was rejected by 179 votes to 76.

The bill, unveiled in March, is a key part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's plan to "stop" small boats crossing the English Channel - which he has made a priority ahead of the next general election.

It will place a legal duty on the home secretary to detain and remove those arriving in the UK illegally, to Rwanda or another "safe" third country.

This has prompted outrage from opposition parties and charities, which argue the bill is unworkable and could breach international law.

'Short-term fix'

The archbishop, one of nearly 90 peers who have put their names down to speak in the debate, told the Lords the bill "fails utterly" to take long-term view of the migration challenges around the world.

Although he conceded existing international law was in need of updating, he said the bill represented a "dramatic departure" from existing conventions and would undermine international co-operation on the issue.

Describing the bill as a "short-term fix," he said it "risks great damage to the UK's interests and reputation, at home and abroad".

He added it was "morally unacceptable and politically impractical" for the UK to let the poorest countries deal with asylum seekers when the UK is cutting its international aid spending.

Baroness Helic, a former adviser to William Hague when he was foreign secretary, described the government's plans to stop small boats as "a race to the bottom".

The baroness, who fled to the UK from war-torn Bosnia at the age of 23, argued the Illegal Migration Bill represented "an outright ban on asylum" and questioned its morality.

But other peers spoke for the bill, including Conservative Lord Forsyth, who said he was "yet to hear" a solution to stop boat crossings from critics of the bill.

He congratulated the archbishop for his "fantastic job" at the Coronation on Saturday, but added that while he agreed with him on spiritual matters, they disagreed on the bill.

He said he agreed it needed further scrutiny, but it was "not reasonable to criticise the government for trying to deal with this problem".

The government made a series of concessions to different sections of the Conservative Party to ease its passage through the Commons last month.

However, senior peers have told the BBC they expect significant opposition in the Lords - where the government does not have a majority.

Although peers did not vote on amendments during the debate, it was their first chance to have a say on the bill.

Lib Dem peer Lord Paddick put forward a rare "motion to decline" that would have blocked the bill from continuing in the Lords, forcing the government to reintroduce it from scratch in the Commons.

But the motion was heavily defeated in the Lords, with peers rejecting it by 179 votes to 76, majority 103.

Lord Paddick said: "This Bill is all pain and no gain. This is a question of principle."

Labour peer Lord Coaker said that although his party was against the bill, the Lib Dem motion was not the best way to oppose it.

He said Labour would do "all we can" to change the bill at a later stage, vowing that the party would not be "cowed" into accepting the verdict of the Commons.

Modern slavery concerns

The government has also faced strong criticism from senior Tories, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, over the potential impact of the bill on victims of modern slavery.

The bill would take away temporary protections against removal from the UK that are currently offered to suspected victims of modern slavery or human trafficking while their case is considered.

Critics say this could deter victims from going to the police.

There has also been concern, including among Conservative MPs, over new powers in the bill to detain children on the suspicion that they are liable for removal.

Ministers have agreed to work with Tory MPs on a time limit for how long unaccompanied children can be detained.

To get the bill through the Commons, ministers also promised to set out new safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, after pressure from backbenchers.

Go here to see the original:
Migration bill risks damage to UK's reputation, says Archbishop of Canterbury - BBC

Twitter owner and billionaire Elon Musk argued that the American public was not fully aware of the border crisis Monday, just days before a Trump-era control policy is scheduled to end.

"I dont think the American public understands that people from all countries are crossing the southern border, as it is so easy to do so," Musk tweeted Monday.

Musk was responding to a video that purportedly showed the Texas Tactical Border Force deployed in advance of the end of Title 42. Former President Trump and his administration used Title 42 to expel hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from various countries to Mexico, but that policy has only days left before it expires.

MIGRANTS SURGE BY US-MEXICO BORDER AHEAD OF TITLE 42 EXPIRATION

Twitter owner and billionaire Elon Musk argued that the American public was not fully aware of the border crisis Monday, just days before a Trump-era border control policy is scheduled to end. (Muhammed Selim Korkutata / Anadolu Agency)

Assuming a court order doesnt interrupt the process, Title 42 will lapse on May 11 at 11:59 pm.

The news has been met with a clear response at the southern border, as tens of thousands of migrants are reportedly surging at the U.S.-Mexico border ahead of Title 42's expiration.

In the Texas border city of El Paso, about 2,200 migrants are currently camped or living on the streets a few blocks from major ports of entry that connect El Paso with the Mexican city of Jurez. The city is prepared to open up shelters next week if needed at two vacant school buildings and a civic center.

Three cities in Texas have declared a state of emergency, including El Paso, Brownsville and Laredo.

ABBOTT ACTIVATES 'TEXAS TACTICAL BORDER FORCE,' 545 MORE NATIONAL GUARDSMEN DEPLOYED BEFORE TITLE 42 EXPIRES

Mayorkas claimed that "[t]he border is not open" during a recent press conference in Brownsville, Texas. (Fox News)

El Paso mayor and Democrat Oscar Leeser is also warning that an "unknown" number of illegal immigrants will cross the border as Title 42 ends.

"We are getting prepared now for the unknown. The unknown is how many people will come here," El Paso mayor Oscar Leeser told reporters this month, according to The New York Times.

"Federal immigration laws are broken, and they didnt break during this administration or the last administration," Leeser said. "We have to figure out where we are heading. There is no light at the end of the tunnel."

MAYORKAS RIPPED FOR SAYING THERE ARE ORDERLY PATHWAYS TO ENTER COUNTRY LEGALLY: THATS FOR SUCKERS'

Biden border czar Alejandro Mayorkas has continually defended his part in the border crisis after criticism from Republicans and Democrats.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Mayorkas said Sunday that illegal immigration is a "decades-long problem" that "hasn't been fixed since the '90s" and also claimed that "[t]he border is not open" during a recent press conference in Brownsville, Texas.

Read the original post:
Elon Musk says many Americans don't know that illegal immigrants 'from all countries' are crossing border - Fox News

The decision by Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) and former Gov. Doug Ducey (R-AZ) to begin busing illegal immigrants to Democrat-run sanctuary cities has been a political masterclass in forcing your opponents to recognize a problem of their own making, and it is now paying dividends for the 2024 elections.

President Joe Biden has dropped New York City Mayor Eric Adams as a campaign surrogate after Adamss repeated criticism of the administrations handling of the border crisis. Adams had been repeatedly asking for federal aid as Texas and Arizona bused illegal immigrants to New York City, very quickly claiming that the city was overwhelmed after receiving a small fraction of what much smaller border towns have been absorbing for years.

BIDENS LATEST EFFORT TO MAKE EVERYTHING YOU NEED MORE EXPENSIVE

This came to a head last month, when Adams outright said that the president and the White House have failed this city. Adams and New York City Comptroller Brad Lander also took a swipe at Gov. Kathy Hochul and the delays in aid promised by the state budget.

As a result, Adams has been dumped by Biden, with anonymous quotes coming out from the advisory board that Adamss comments are almost certainly what got him the boot and that the relationship has soured. The immigration crisis has put a wedge between Biden and the Democratic mayor of the biggest city in the country, all because Abbott and Ducey made sure that New York City was experiencing a smaller version of what their own border towns have lived through since Biden came to office.

This is the cherry on top of an exercise that exposed Adams, as well as Democrats in Chicago and Washington D.C., as being hypocrites when it comes to sanctuary cities and illegal immigration.

The buses of illegal immigrants have left those cities whining about the strain on their resources, erasing their sanctimonious attitudes toward border states that have endured the brunt of this crisis from the beginning. You can only imagine how much worse the complaining will be with the upcoming surge at the border as Title 42 expires.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Abbott and Ducey both deserve credit for this move, which could have easily been a weak political stunt if executed poorly.

Instead, by simply asking sanctuary cities to live up to their names, they have caused widespread introspection (or, at the very least, involuntary admissions of failures) among Democrats running these cities. It was an incredible play, and one Republicans should keep in mind as the border crisis prepares to grow even worse.

See more here:
Abbott and Ducey busing illegal immigrants to Democratic cities was ... - Washington Examiner

Editor's note: Word around the campfire is that Border Patrol is gathering up more than 10,000 illegal aliens a day at the United States-Mexico border. Confusion is everywhere. Some illegals tried to get to this country before a policy deadline Thursday night, and some waited for after that same policy deadline. Here is a speech we offer free to the president of the United States. The White House is more than welcome to copy and paste this to a TelePrompTer:

Good evening. Usually presidents of the United States address the American people in these kinds of speeches, or, in times of emergency, perhaps the entire world. I address these remarks to a special few--a special few thousand, or maybe tens of thousands, massing in northern Mexico.

Where to begin? I understand that United States Border Control is already seeing a massive wave of illegal immigrants, and expects more in the days to come. The newspapers of this country say there is much confusion among immigrants in northern Mexico, who come from countries all over Latin America. Maybe even beyond. Some of these border crossers told the press that they rushed to get here before Title 42 expired; some told the press exactly the opposite--that they were waiting in Mexico until the expiration was official. This is what happens when smugglers and coyotes not only take control of some folks' life savings, but their information, or rather misinformation, sources.

I understand that "the beginning" is always a good place to start. So let's note this first: The United States has always been a nation of immigrants, even before there was a United States. And that's not going to change. Sure, there are cranks, but most thinking Americans know that our economy benefits from having immigrants work in many occupations.

From the Irish fleeing a potato famine, to Germans fleeing fascism, to Asians looking to escape poverty--and for all those from other parts of the world looking for their own American Dream--this country has not only accepted them over the centuries, but for the most part, welcomed them.

Having said that . . . .

This is a nation of laws, including immigration laws. Those who cross our borders illegally will be treated like illegal aliens, as any other nation would treat those who ignore its internationally recognized borders.

As for this Title 42 policy that has been twisted and turned around to supposedly say anything that a human trafficker wants it to say: It is true that the previous administration created Title 42 during the pandemic to expel immigrants on the fast track, and that policy ended with a sunset clause this past week. But that is not, repeat not, an open invitation. My administration plans to implement new limits on immigrants, and those who don't qualify will be quickly sent back to their own countries.

Yes, my administration will send you back. We have plans already drawn up to do just that. And that long, treacherous, expensive, often deadly trip you made to northern Mexico will be for nothing. Don't do it.

You might have heard that I've deployed more American soldiers to the border in anticipation of this so-called wave. They are there to block this wave. Governors of certain border states are using their own National Guards to free up Border Patrol for more surveillance and watch-keeping. Like most other nations of the world, the United States is serious about its border.

Citizens of the United States know how lucky they are to live here. And we understand that people flow toward jobs like water flows downhill. But we demand that our laws are followed and, just as we've developed ways to build levees to keep floods from our homes, we have developed ways to keep illegal immigration from flooding our borders. Including holding cells. And more Border Patrol funding. And bus tickets heading down south.

To those who've done things the legal way, the appropriate way, and have taken their turn in line, I say: Welcome to the United States.

For those who'd skip the line and break our laws to illegally sneak into this country, we as Americans say: Here's your bus ticket home.

Thank you, and God bless--not just the United States of America, but all those who'd become fellow citizens of this country in the future.

Provided they get here legally.

View original post here:
EDITORIAL: Our dream speech (and probably only in our dreams) - Arkansas Online