Mediaboss Marketing

This years protests in Portland and Bend, Ore., have many wondering how the Beaver States increasingly radicalized left will cope if President Trump is re-elected. After the 2016 election, a group of Oregonians submitted a petition for a ballot measure asking voters to consider secession. It went nowhere, but this year could be different. A 2017 Zogby poll concluded that a plurality of Americans (39%) believe states have a right to secede, so perhaps the idea isnt far-fetched.

Rioters in Portland laid siege to the citys federal courthouse for more than two months this summer. Mayor Ted Wheeler, who failed to control the chaos, is facing a serious re-election challenge from Sarah Iannarone, an avowed antifa supporter, who has outraised him and could win the nonpartisan contest.

But Portland isnt the only place in Oregon that seems to be drifting further from what passes for normal in the U.S. Consider the hysterical reaction of locals and election officials in Bend when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents attempted to take two illegal aliens into custody in August. Hundreds of protesters blocked ICE buses, and a 12-hour standoff ensued before agents could remove the men.

Bends political establishment defended the protesters. Ive never been so disgusted by my government and so proud of my community, tweeted John Hummel, Deschutes Countys district attorney. Bends Mayor Sally Russell added: In no way do I support ICE. Nor can our Bend Police Force, because Oregon is a sanctuary state and it is illegal. ...ICE is a Federal agency and frustratingly we have no power over the Executive Branch of our country.

ICE hasnt detailed the charges against Marco Zeferino and Josue Cruz-Sanchez, whose detentions triggered the standoff, other than to say they have violent criminal records and re-entered the U.S. unlawfully after prior apprehensions. But both men have arrest records reported by local media. Mr. Cruz-Sanchez pleaded guilty in 2018 to fourth-degree assault (domestic violence) and felony coercion for injuring and threatening his partner. In February 2019 he was arrested for burglary and a parole violation and pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal trespassing. Three months later, he pleaded not guilty to fourth-degree assault charges related to a separate incident.

Read the original here:
If Trump Is Re-Elected, Oregon Could Be Headed for a Crackup - The Wall Street Journal

Take it from someone who has been fighting the open-borders lobby for more than 30 years: If you think President Trump hasnt delivered on his immigration and border security promises, then you need to take a closer look at the record.

This administration has made incredible progress toward ending the toleration for lawlessness and mass unchecked migration that defined American immigration politics for decades.

Remember the situation that prevailed before Trump, when the Obama-Biden administration effectively gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in direct contravention of the law with a couple strokes of a pen called DACA and DAPA. Those blatant abuses of executive authority were basically ignored, even by establishment Republicans.

Despite its popularity among the Republican base and Americans as a whole, the attitude in Washington was one of unconditional surrender. Recall that in 2013, only some last-minute heroics in the Senate prevented a full-scale, irreversible amnesty. Even the knowledge that this weaknessconvincedtens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American children to walk to our border alone, convinced they would be given permisos to enter the United States, did nothing to shake Washington out of the open-borders consensus.

Then came Donald Trump, and almost overnight, the issue was at the very forefront of the American political consciousness. As soon as it got a fair hearing, the immigration issue catapulted a Republican to the White House.

Unfortunately, some of the people who were motivated to vote based on immigration and the border in 2016 have allowed themselves to become disheartened by the open borders lobbys demoralization campaigns, which are designed to create the impression that President Trump hasnt kept his promises.

That couldnt be further from the truth.

Over the past three years, the refugee racket has been utterly crushed, to the open dismay of the globalist NGOs and resettlement experts who got richfloodingthe American hinterland with hundreds of thousands of unvetted people from some of the worlds mostdangerousplaces. In 2020, refugees are capped18,000, thelowestsince the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 opened the floodgates to the Third World.

Before President Trump, the people responsible for this travesty wereleveragingtheir connections in the Obama administration to tell states and towns all over America that they had no choice but to accept tens of thousands of military-aged Syrian men. Today, these refugee grifters are on the ropes. They and their friends in the left-wing media arefuriousthat they areno longer ableto override the wishes of American communities. And theyre desperately hoping for a Biden-Harris administration that would put them back in business.

Before President Trump, the ACLU and an army of immigration lawyers were turning our asylum laws into a secondary immigration system that could be used to circumvent limits put in place by Congress. Effectively limitless numbers of people could present themselves at the border, make a declaration of credible fear of persecution for anever-growinglist of social ills in their home country, and count on being caught and released into the United States.

Under President Trump, this farce has beendealta mortal blow. This administrations Remain in Mexico policy, along with agreements with Central American countries, haveput a stopto it. Genuine Central American asylum seekers now can stay in Mexico, safe from the political persecution they claim to face in their home countries. If American immigration courts find their claims valid, we are happy to allow them in just as the law is supposed to work.

We were also promised a wall, and a wall is what were getting. Itshappeningright now. You canseeit for yourself, verified by third parties: more than 340 miles built and standing, with more than 500 additional miles planned and paid for. And its working. The so-called caravans of 2018 and 2019 areoverand our border is more secure than ever.

For decades, Americanssaidthey wanted immigration levels to go down or stay the same, and we were consistently ignored by the Washington establishment. Thats over.Net migrationto the United States is just over half what it was in the last year of the Obama-Biden administration. The proportion of foreign-born people in the United States isfallingfor the first time since the disastrous 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.

If you care about enforcing our immigration laws, rest assured President Trump has followed through as no president has before him. He has the open-borders lobby on the run.

Tom Tancredo is a former U.S. presidential and Colorado gubernatorial candidate who represented the states 6thCongressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1999 to 2009.

More here:
Trump turned tide against immigration run amok | Opinion - coloradopolitics.com

By Carl P. Leubsdorf Dallas Morning News

Despite the polls, President Donald Trump is predicting an Election Day wave like youve never seen before. But his allies and associates in all three branches of government are hedging their bets with actions designed to extend his sway in key areas, even if he loses.

On Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled Senate is moving to cement conservative control of the Supreme Court by confirming Trumps nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Executive branch officials are rushing to extend his deregulation efforts and fill many vacant jobs.

And the administration hopes the high court will help it complete the 2020 census under rules that would bolster Republican voting and financial power for the next decade. At stake is how congressional representation is calculated and billions of dollars in federal aid are allocated to states and localities.

The court recently overturned a lower court ruling, allowing more time for completing the census and minimizing a potential undercount of minorities and younger Americans. The court also scheduled a Nov. 30 hearing on the administrations latest effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the count, which could cost three states, including Texas, one member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The court vacancy that prompted the Barrett nomination is unique, the closest to a pending presidential election such a vacancy has been filled (though several were approved soon after elections). Filling lesser jobs and taking administrative actions is less unusual, though it usually occurs at the end of a second term, not during a re-election campaign.

The administrations most questionable act is its effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the census, which is constitutionally mandated every 10 years to determine population changes used to update allocation of U.S. House seats and federal funds.

A three-judge federal court in New York, in a unanimous decision by two appointees of President George W. Bush and one of President Barack Obama, said Trump exceeded his authority in directing the Commerce Department to provide two sets of numbers, one excluding the millions of unauthorized immigrants. The Constitution says the census should provide the whole number of persons in each State.

A study by Dudley Poston of Texas A&M and Teresa Sullivan for the University of Virginias Center for Politics concluded their exclusion could cost California, Texas and New Jersey one House seat each, and similarly benefit Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio. It could also cost big states with large numbers of undocumented persons substantial amounts of federal funds.

By law, the census must be finished by Dec. 31, with the president then required to notify Congress the whole number of persons in each State and the number of representatives to which each is entitled. The House clerk, in turn, is required to pass the latter number to each state.

But the administration is already hinting it may not complete its work until early 2021. More important, it is unclear if the new House, almost certain to be controlled again by the Democrats, can reject Trump proposals that benefit Republicans.

Earlier this year, fearing delays in part from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commerce Department urged extending the census deadline until April 30, 2021, allowing more time to count those inhabitants who are traditionally harder to reach, mostly young people, minorities and poor people.

But the White House rejected an extension, presumably because that could give the final decision to the next administration if Trump loses re-election. Then, it decided to halt the count, lest it be unable to complete its calculations by Dec. 31.

Besides determining how many House seats each state will get for the next 10 years, the census guides legislative decisions on representation within the states and determines the location of recipients for the billions of dollars in annual federal aid, much of it for people below certain income levels.

The Nov. 30 hearing is the second time possible exclusion of illegals has reached the Supreme Court. Last year, it voted 5-4 to block the initial administration effort on grounds it failed to use the proper procedures.

But that could change this time, since the court will likely include Judge Barrett, named by Trump to succeed the late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, part of the prior five-justice majority. The case may provide an early sign of whether Democratic concerns about her potential impact are justified.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that officials throughout the administration are rushing to fill jobs and extending efforts to revise or scrap regulations deemed to be anti-business. They include everything from easing restrictions for carrying highly flammable liquefied natural gas on freight trains to requiring sponsors of candidates for immigration to provide detailed proof they can support the newcomers financially.

Many of these actions could be subject to congressional review under a procedure the GOP used four years ago to overturn some regulations implemented in the final weeks of the Obama administration. Overturning regulations requires a majority vote of both houses, plus the presidents signature, a possibility if Democrats sweep the board Nov. 3.

As with the census, this suggests that battles over Trumps initiatives wont necessarily end if or when he leaves office.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Write to him via email at: carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com.

Read the original post:
Carl P. Leubsdorf: Hedging their bets, Trump allies look to cement gains - The Spokesman-Review

For more than five decades now, fear of migration from Bangladesh (and earlier Pakistans East Bengal province) has influenced the politics of Assam. To justify this, very high estimates of numbers of Bangladeshi migrants have been put out in the public domain in India.

In 1997, Union Home Minister Indrajit Gupta stated in Parliament that there were 10 million illegal Bangladeshi migrants residing in India. In 2016, the Modi government declared in Parliament that there were as many as 20 million Bangladeshis living in India illegally (which would mean nearly 2% of Indias population was actually Bangladeshi).

Indias Supreme Court, which has been a strong driver of nativist sentiment on this issue, went on to assume that the number of illegal migrants runs into millions and is in fact an aggression on the State of Assam.

One part of this nativist sentiment is ethnic with Assamese nationalists opposing the migration of both Hindus and Muslims from Bangladesh. The other part of this is communal with Hindu nationalist parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party painting this as an influx of Muslims.

Adding to this is the pan-Indian stereotype of Bangladesh being much poorer than India, which drives Bangladeshis to across the border to find work.

This politics led to the Supreme Court in 2014 to mandate that the National Register of Citizens a list of bonafide Indian citizens be updated for the state of Assam. The process for verifying citizenship invented by the court was strict. Based on documents often generations-old, it had never used in any other part of the world.

While the push to update the NRC was powered by high estimates of illegal migrant numbers, the final result published in 2019 ironically ended up disproving them. The number of people who were found not to be verifiable Indian citizens was around 1.9 million more than ten times lower than the figure put out by the Modi government in 2016.

This gap between the estimates and final NRC figures caused shock in Assam. We are disappointed as the figure of 1.9 million exclusion is nowhere close to earlier figures of illegal immigrants, the All Assam Students Associations Samujjal Bhattacharya admitted.

In addition, the NRCs final list seemed to belie another enduring myth: that of mass Muslim migration from Bangladesh. While there is no official religious breakup in the list (and will probably never will be), senior BJP leaders from Assam have admitted that in reality Bengali-speaking Hindus and not Muslims had been the community most prominent in the NRCs final list of exclusions.

As a consequence, from being a strong supporter of the NRC, the BJP morphed overnight into a trenchant critic, even going so far as to petition the Supreme Court to re-verify the final list. The other side of the coin is that Assams Muslims of Bengali-origin largely support the current NRC and oppose plans to redo the process.

What explains this massive gap between projections and actuals when it comes to the magnitude and nature of migration?

Part of the answer might lie in a new economic projection put out by the International Monetary Fund on October 13 that shows Indias per capita gross domestic product will slip below Bangladeshs for 2020. In other words, Bangladeshis will soon be, on an average, (marginally) richer than Indians.

If this is the Bangladesh-India comparison, its not too difficult to work out what it would be with Assam, one of the Indian Unions poorest states. Currently Bangladeshs per capita GDP is around 1.5 times that of Assam. Moreover, it has been significantly higher since 1971 the year Bangladesh became independent as well as the cut-off year for the NRC.

Living standards diverge even further if measured using human development indicators. The average life expectancy of a Bangladeshi is nearly a decade more than that of a resident of Assam. At 41, Assams infant mortality rate the number of infants who die before the age of one per 1,000 births is 1.5 times that of Bangladeshs (26). In Bangladesh, the maternal mortality rate the number of mothers who die for every 1 lakh childbirths is 173 but jumps to 215 in Assam.

It is thus hardly surprising that the politically-driven estimates of massive economic migration were not borne out by the actual NRC figures.

Instead, what is often elided in this discussion is that one of the main drivers of migration from Bangladesh has been religious persecution. It is well established that the 1971 Liberation War was the peak period of migration from Bangladesh. Much of this was driven by the fact that the Pakistan Army specifically targeted Bangladeshi Hindus. As many as 90% of refugees who fled Bangladesh during the war were Hindu.

And 1971 wasnt the only instance of religious persecution within Bangladesh driving outmigration. Many of the other triggers for migration from Bangladesh post 1971 were also communally charged, such as the assassination of Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 (after which Bangladesh declared itself an Islamic state), riots in the early 1990s related to the Babri Masjid in India and communal violence after the right-wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party took power in 2001.

This history means that the proportion of Hindus in Bangladesh has decreased by more than half from 20% in 1970 to a little above 8% today. Rana Dasgupta, general secretary of the Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council, a Bangladeshi human rights group, says that this precipitous fall is explained by the mass migration of Bangladeshi Hindus to India.

Bangladeshs political trajectory and the quantum of Hindu outmigration since 1971 thus might explain the NRCs religious breakup. It would also help make sense of why the three Muslim-majority border district of Assam have actually seen an NRC-exclusion rate less than the state average even as that of the Hindu-majority border district of Cachar is higher.

This modern Bangladeshi history is often unknown or skipped when Indians talk of illegal immigration so much so that Scroll.in had to publish a factual rebuttal to the widespread myth that the Assam NRC is anti-Muslim after the final list was published in 2019.

Nativist politics that targets immigrants is a regular feature of rich, developed Western countries such as the United States or Great Britain. However, this is much rarer in a poor country of Indias income level. Assams politics, where there are fears of mass economic migration from a richer country, might thus be unique.

The final NRC data has thrown the BJP into a tizzy with the party now scrambling to change the final list. To add to that, with Bangladesh now approximately as rich as India and growing much faster Indian politicians might find the narrative of a massive influx of economic refugees more difficult to push.

See the article here:
Has Bangladeshs economic rise taken the wind out of the NRC narrative? - Scroll.in

Using data from data.census.gov, a new CIS Backgrounder examines growth in the nation's immigrant population. That data, from the American Community Survey (ACS), shows that in the first two years of the Trump administration (2017 to 2019), growth in the immigrant population (legal and illegal) averaged only about 200,000 a year, in contrast to 650,000 a year from 2010 to 2017. (See Figure 1.) That Backgrounder also estimated that net migration the difference between the number of immigrants coming vs. leaving averaged 953,000 from 2010 to 2017, but 525,000 from 2017 to 2019. The Census Bureau has now released the public-use file of the ACS, allowing researchers to do more detailed analysis, including estimating in- and out-migration separately. Our analysis of the public-use data indicates that the falloff in net migration was caused by a substantial increase in out-migration in the first part of the Trump administration, as well as a more modest reduction in new arrivals. (All figures are through July 2019 and pre-date the impact of Covid-19.)

Source: American Community Survey 2010 to 2019 from data.census.gov.

The green bars in Figure 2 report the number of immigrants arriving each year based on the 2001 to 2019 ACS. As the ACS reflects the population on July 1 of each year, it is only possible to know how many people arrived during an entire calendar year once the following year's data is released. So, for example, the number of immigrants who arrived in all of 2018 is based on the 2019 ACS and the number arriving for all of 2017 is based on the 2018 ACS and so on. (The arrival numbers are all based on the year of arrival question in the survey.) The half-year arrival numbers shown in the blue bars are based on the survey for the year in which it is shown.

Source: 2001 to 2019 public-use files of the American Community Survey (ACS).

Figure 2 shows that the number of immigrants arriving fell during the Great Recession and then rebounded, peaking at 1.7 million in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration. But in 2017, 1.4 million immigrants arrived and 1.3 million arrived in 2018. Figures for the first half of 2019 indicate that the number of arrivals in 2019 is likely to be similar to 2017 and 2018. Clearly, the slowdown in growth partly reflects a decline in newcomers. It should be pointed out that Figure 2 shows that the unemployment rate of immigrants continued to improve between 2017 and 2018, and yet the number coming fell. As we discussed in our Backgrounder on this data, the decline in immigration almost certainly reflects policy changes, not the economy.

While the arrival data shows a clear decline, the really big change seems to have been in out-migration. Simply put, out-migration is the number of immigrants leaving each year. It is possible to roughly calculate this number by taking new arrivals and subtracting growth and deaths. Performing this calculation indicates that between 2010 and 2017 about 467,000 immigrants left each year on average. But between 2017 and 2019, 975,000 left each year on average.1

While these numbers reflect our best preliminary estimates based on the data, there are some important caveats about them. First, there are margins of error around each of the numbers used for these calculations, whereas our calculations take the point estimates as givens. (See Table 2 for confidence intervals.) Sampling variability can result in significant year-to-year fluctuations. However, calculating outmigration over multiple years should provide more statistically robust estimates. Second, out-migration is calculated for the entire period 2010 to 2017, and there may have been substantial variation during those years. Third, our method for estimating half-year migration for the second half of 2010 and the second half of 2017 are somewhat crude. Even with these caveats, it appears that annual out-migration in the first part of the Trump administration (2017 to 2019) was substantially higher than the average annual rate 2010 to 2017.

While the out-migration figures seem quite high, mathematically out-migration must have increased dramatically. It is the only way to account for the numbers in Figures 1 and 2. The number of deaths does not change much year to year, so the very modest growth (Figure 1) in the face of many new immigrants arriving (Figure 2) can only be explained by high out-migration. The only other possible explanation is some kind of problem with the data. This might take the form of a coding error or perhaps immigrants, or some subpopulation of them, have become less willing to identify themselves in the ACS. But at this point there is no indication this is the case.

Figure 3 reports the number of new immigrants settling in the United States by sending region.2 Table 1 (download as an Excel file, here) reports regions with more detail, and some countries. Figure 3 and Table 1 indicate that immigration declined after 2016 from just about every region and country. The only exception seems to be Central America and to some extent South America.

Source: 2001 to 2019 public-use files of the American Community Survey (ACS).

The biggest takeaway from these numbers, and our larger Backgrounder, is that immigration has slowed even as the economy expanded. We discuss at length in our Backgrounder, some of the policy changes under the Trump administration that seem to have had an impact on immigration levels both in- and out-migration. The new data demonstrates that the notion that immigration operates outside the control of governmental policy is clearly wrong. Even relatively modest policy changes seem to have made a significant difference.

Source: Source: 2001 to 2019 public-use files of the American CommunitySurvey (ACS) and the 2000 decennial census.

Confidence intervals were calculated using parameter estimates usingACS Source and Accuracy statements.

1 To estimate out-migration, we use the following formula: new arrivals (growth + deaths) = out-migration. To estimate new arrivals, we can use the year of arrival information from Figure 2 and Table 1. However, arrival data in the ACS is by calendar year and so does not match growth in the total immigrant population year over year in the ACS. The total population is for July 1 of each year. To make the arrival numbers match the growth figures for 2010 to 2017, we take half of the arrivals from 2010 (to reflect the number coming in the second half of that year) and add it to the number who come 2011 through 2016. We add to this the number who came in the first half of 2017, shown in the blue bar for that year in Figure 2. This sums to 9.942 million arrivals mid-2010 to mid-2017. We perform the same calculation for 2017 to 2019, taking half of the arrivals from 2017, and using the figures for the first half of 2019. Total arrivals mid-2017 to mid-2019 equals 2.999 million. Based on the race, age, and gender of the immigrant population we estimate 2.102 million deaths among the immigrant population 2010 to 2017 and 643,000 2017 to 2019. Finally, growth 2010 to 2017 was 4.57 million and growth 2017 to 2019 was 407,000. Plugging in the numbers for the 2010 to 2017 period, we get: 9.942 million (4.570 million + 2.102 million) = 3.27 million or average out-migration of 467,000 a year. For the period 2017 to 2019, we get: 3 million (.407 million + .643 million) = 1.949 million or average out-migration of 975,000 a year.

2 Regions are defined in the following manner: East Asia: China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan), Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Other South Central Asia, Other Asia not specified; South Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka; Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Bermuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies, Caribbean not Specified, Americas not Specified; Central America: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Other Central America; South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Other South America; Middle East: Afghanistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Sudan; Europe: United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Other Northern Europe, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Other Western Europe, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Armenia, Other Southern Europe, Other Eastern Europe, Europe not specified; Sub-Saharan Africa: Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, Western Africa not Specified, Other Africa not Specified, Eastern Africa not Specified; Oceania/Elsewhere: Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, Other U.S. Island Areas, Oceania not Specified, or at Sea, American Samoa. Latin America Other than Mexico includes the regions of Caribbean, Central America and South America.

Read this article:
New Census Bureau Data Indicates There Was a Large Increase in Out-Migration in the First Part of the Trump Administration - Immigration Blog