Friday, December 03, 2021

Biden officially RESTARTS Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy that he once called 'inhumane'

Joe Biden was forced on Thursday to resume the Trump-era Remain in Mexico policy as migrants head north for the border and GOP lawmakers introduce legislation to stop the White House from paying out migrant families separated under the previous administration.

The Department of Homeland Security said Thursday it is acting to comply with a court order in reimplementing the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which requires asylum-seekers who made it to the border by way of Mexico to remain in the country as they await U.S. court proceedings related to their claim.

DHS said that Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas believes the policy 'has endemic flaws, imposed unjustifiable human costs, pulled resources and personnel away from other priority efforts, and failed to address the root causes of irregular migration.'

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki described the program on Thursday as 'Deeply flawed.' 'We're working to implement [it] under the court order,' she added.

Trump praised the move, saying on Fox & Friends Thursday morning: 'They should have never ended it.'

'If Joe Biden would have come in and just gone to the beach, he would have been successful in many ways because all of this stuff - the border was the best it ever was, and getting better, drugs coming in was getting at a level that we've never seen before, meaning in a positive way.'

Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky introduced legislation Thursday to stop Biden from doling out fat $450,000 checks for each illegal immigrant separated under the Trump administration.

Reports emerged last month that the president was considering massive payments to migrants who were part of a family unit and are suing the government after they were separated when being taken into custody while Trump was president.

Since the payments would be per person, according to the report, some illegal migrant families could see payments in the millions if it were carried out.

Biden called the reports 'garbage' when asked about them in November, but later defended the planned payments while still disputed the $450,000 figure.

The Protect American Taxpayer Dollars from Illegal Immigration Act declares 'no Federal funds… may be expended for any legal settlement to any individual who violated section 275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act if the claims giving rise to such settlement are based on the lawful detention of such individual as part of a family unit after entry at a port of entry or between ports of entry along the southern border of the United States after January 20, 2017.'

This would include any use of money from the Judgment Fund, which pays for court judgments and lawsuit settlements against the federal government.

Tillis wrote in a statement regarding the bill: 'Our southern border is a disaster, and President Biden's failed policies have continued to fuel this ongoing crisis. We are seeing the most illegal immigration this year alone than ever recorded, and now President Biden wants to give illegal immigrants a payout, further rewarding lawlessness and chaos.'

'These $450,000 settlements are an insult to all hardworking Americans who will subsequently be funding these large settlements with their hard-earned tax dollars,' he added.

'I am proud to work with my colleagues to make sure this doesn't happen.'

Biden is being forced to restart the Trump-era Remain in Mexico asylum policy. This forces migrants who come from South and Central American countries to the U.S. border by way of Mexico to remain there while awaiting results of their asylum claims.

The Biden administration reluctantly announced plans Thursday to accept the policy and agreed to Mexico´s conditions for resuming it.

Biden scrapped the Remain in Mexico policy, but a lawsuit by Texas and Missouri forced him to put it back into effect, subject to Mexico's acceptance.

Under Biden's new policy migrants will once again be sent back to Mexico as they await immigration hearings.

The major difference is that they will be offered a COVID vaccination, but they cannot be forced to accept it. Biden's policy is likely to anger progressive members of his party - including the so-called 'Squad' of four outspoken female representatives, but it could play well with more centrist Democrats who have concerns about uncontrolled immigration into the US.


Gov. Noem Pushes Back on Argument that Pro-Lifers are Anti-Woman, Calls Pro-Abortion Advocates ‘Hypocritical’

This week, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) issued remarks pushing back against the Democratic narrative that pro-life supporters do not care about women or babies. In her remarks, Noem also took aim at telemedicine abortions, claiming that this method has made pro-abortion advocates change their narrative on abortion being a decision between a woman and her doctor.

The remarks, which were reportedly made during an online press briefing with pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), came ahead of Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which surrounds the constitutionality of a Mississippi law in that bans abortions at 15 weeks gestation.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments for Dobbs, which has the potential to overturn landmark abortion cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which occured in 1973 and 1992, respectively.

“This is an issue that those who are pro-choice try to dehumanize,” Noem said, according to Fox News.

“They [pro-choice advocates] try to make an argument that we [pro-life supporters] don’t care about women, that we don’t care about these babies,” she added. “That’s just a false narrative that we have to push aggressively back against.”

On the issue of telemedicine abortions, Noem added that this method of abortion is more dangerous for woman, which shows that pro-abortion advocates are “hypocritical” because it allows women to make an “impromptu” and “not well-informed” decision.

“For years and years, we’ve heard liberals talk about this decision on abortion being between a woman and her doctor,” she explained. “Now, they’re changing their complete argument to now this can be a decision between a woman and virtually any stranger over the phone – that she doesn’t even have to prove it’s a doctor…or an informed decision.”

In September, as Landon covered, Noem signed an Executive Order banning telemedicine abortions in the state. The order requires that abortion-inducting drugs, such as mifepristone and misoprostol, be picked up in-person rather than transported via mail. The Order requires that abortion-inducing drugs can only be provided by a physician licensed in South Dakota after an in-person examination.

After signing the Order. Noem appeared in an interview with Fox News where she noted that she is ardently pro-life and appointed someone in her office to work as a pro-life advocate. Additionally, she noted that she has been in touch with lawmakers in Texas to look at how South Dakota could create legislation similar to S.B. 8.

“Everybody knows that I’m pro-life and do not support any kind of abortions,” Noem said in the interview. “But, here what the Biden administration is doing is trying to put forward abortion on demand. And we’re going to stop them and make sure that that’s not available in our state.”

Noem, who has three children and a granddaughter, also reportedly argued that women do not need to choose between career success and having children. She and more than 200 other women signed an amicus brief challenging Casey’s contention that abortion has allowed women to participate equally in “the economic and social life” of the United States.

“It may be possible to claim anecdotally that a particular woman’s abortion seemed to preserve her opportunity to pursue a particular job or degree. But it is impossible to claim that abortion access is specially responsible for the progress that American women have made,” the brief states. “The Casey plurality claimed that the ability of women to participate in the economic and social life of the nation depended on their access to abortion. Yet historical review of the half-century preceding Roe demonstrates a steady expansion of social, economic, and political opportunities for women—all without legal access to abortion.”


The Left’s Own Words Explain Why We Believe the Worst

Some refrains are so common, grassroots Patriots are tired of hearing them. One of the most common is that we should not be assuming the worst about the Left, especially regarding a lengthy list of abuses of power. One of the persistent questions that also emerges is why we’re willing to believe the worst.

There is a simple response: Have many in the media heard how leftists talk about us? When we rebutted David French’s false claims that some on the Right were lying about left-wing hatred, your Patriot Post team compiled lots of evidence. You can see more just by watching MSNBC on a semi-regular basis.

When you hear how they have talked about those who don’t immediately sign on to their agenda, it’s not such a stretch to think they might act on it. Sadly, the Republican and conservative establishments have done little to address left-wing hate speech — and what comes from it, like bulk-mail ballots, violent attacks on events and during campaigns, and even other measures to “fortify” democracy — all of it done to save America’s soul from Donald Trump.

After seeing all this, among other things, many grassroots Patriots perceive a discomforting pattern and connection. If words have consequences, something the Left asserts from January 6 and Trump’s use of a certain phrase to describe COVID, then there is a logical question to ask in response.

That question is: What, then, is to be said about the many hateful words and false accusations of racism and other evils the Left has dropped over the years, targeting, among others, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, and others?

This isn’t an academic question. The year before The Patriot Post launched in 1996, John Lewis compared Republicans trying to fix a broken welfare system to Nazis. That’s two decades before Trump took the escalator ride to announce his first run for president. But more importantly, it means that this rhetoric has been going on for more than a quarter-century. What can we conclude?

At the very least, the Left is engaged in yet another double standard when it comes to its own conduct across many domains, including recounts/audits. That is being charitable, but there comes a time when common sense must overrule that.

The fact of the matter is that the Left’s words have consequences. One of those consequences is that the Left no longer will get the benefit of the doubt when something questionable takes place, and there is a lot of stuff that is being questioned. We also have the right to make assumptions about how leftists view us — as being unworthy of the full panoply of rights.

How else to explain the effort to shut down conservative media, the expansion of Silicon Valley’s censorship, or the way that the threat of a mob is wielded? Leftists have nobody but themselves to blame for this skepticism, nor can any reasonable person deny that the most convincing evidence is the words from leftists’ own mouths.


That Time Government Destroyed the Supply Chain

Part of the modern American presidency is theater to show what great effects policies are having. Yesterday was no different, as Biden was flanked by Food Lion president Meg Ham (a delightful name for the head of a grocery chain) and Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, who both praised the president for, as the White House headline put it, “His Administration’s Work to Move Goods to Shelves.”

Biden introduced them by saying, “I want to hear your ideas on how the federal government can continue partnering with you all to keep shelves stocked so American consumers can get what they need.”

Translation: Tell me what a great job I’m doing.

The federal government can get out of the way. State governments can get out of the way. The free market will figure out how to get goods on shelves without government “help” because, well, selling stuff is the whole point of the market.

Instead, governments at various levels completely upended the economy last year in response to a virus. Yes, that virus has been deadly — more than 777,000 Americans have died of or with COVID. But the vast majority of people are at far less risk. After all, there have been 48.1 million documented COVID cases in the U.S. How many more were so mild as to not even be confirmed?

Hindsight is 20/20, but the better response in March last year would have been to more selectively protect at-risk individuals while allowing the economy to continue operating as normally as possible. With few exceptions, that is not what government officials did.

Government policy knee-capped a roaring economy. One-size-fits-all lockdowns cost tens of millions of Americans their jobs. Biden disingenuously boasted yesterday that “4.5 million more Americans than last year had the dignity of a job.” That is some serious cherry-picking worthy of a “fact-check” smackdown that the Leftmedia will never bring. The truth is that, compared to February 2020, there are nearly five million fewer Americans with the dignity of a job. According to National Review, “The labor-force participation rate was 61.6 percent in October, down from 63.3 percent in February 2020.” Government did that.

So when CEOs of giant companies show up to glad-hand with the president over all the supposedly fabulous work he’s doing on supply chains, just remember that it was government policies that broke the supply chain in the first place.

Here were are, at the end of November 2021, dealing with the consequences of decisions made in March 2020. The employment picture has completely changed, because people were either laid off or began working from home. Millions still work from home or don’t work at all because they’ve been paid more to not work. Job hopping is a prevalent phenomenon — August and September saw some nine million people quit their jobs, presumably to take something else. Biden’s vaccine mandates are part of that equation. That’s an awful lot of economic upheaval.

Ham said herself that the upheaval extended to “how customers do their grocery shopping and what customers are buying when they do do their grocery shopping.” Not just groceries, but everything. How many fast food restaurants near you don’t allow dine-in because they don’t have enough workers? How many retail stores still have “Help Wanted” signs up? How many small businesses are operating shorter hours because they can’t compete with huge retailers offering big signing bonuses?

We haven’t even hit all those container ships sitting in the Pacific Ocean waiting for union workers to unload them. When they’re unloaded, there are too few truckers to drive those goods where they need to go.

The market needs time now to sort out all the changes brought about by government policies. It will, but it’ll take a lot longer if Biden keeps meddling with more government policies.

Just yesterday, in fact, Biden’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director Lisa Y. Henderson ordered a new election at a Bessemer, Alabama, Amazon facility, despite workers there overwhelmingly rejecting unionization back in April by a 71-29 margin. Henderson’s rationale was based entirely upon the unbelievably flimsy excuse that local Amazon managers installed a new mailbox before the election. The real reason is that the union wants to keep voting until it wins.

But you can depend on Joe Biden to “fix” the economy




No comments: