I may or may not find time in near future to discuss the many current problems of illegal and quasi-legal US immigration. However, I did find this interesting nugget from May 2023, supporting claims that some very interesting people are allied to the plots to increase America's immigrant ranks by hook or by crook. The article comes courtesy of Patch Media, a newsorg which coordinates news items from various venues across the country. At this point I have not seen evidence that the org is politically aligned though the article itself is highly critical of George Soros.
A portion of the report:
As troubling as Biden’s and Mayorkas’ contempt for immigration law is, a recent news story may be more worrisome. The story revealed that a nongovernmental organization (NGO), Welcome.US, is expanding its scope. Originally created in partnership with American Express Global Business Travel (AEGBT), the NGO helped relocate Afghans to the U.S. during 2021 and 2022. Now working in tandem with Miles4Migrants while retaining its association with AEGBT, the NGO is committed to funding flights into the U.S. interior for migrants, likely unvetted, from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Ukraine and Nicaragua.
The Afghan endeavor, with ties to billionaire George Soros, also had corporate backing from Walmart, Airbnb, The New York Times, the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Starbucks, The Washington Post, Goldman Sachs, Goodwill Industries, Microsoft and Chobani. Soros’ Open Society Foundations has placed several of its members on the Welcome.US “National Welcome Council.”
The Welcome.US website identifies as Honorary Co-Chairs Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Laura and George Bush, and Michelle and Barack Obama. These influential first families are the most elite among the elite. They have the power of persuasion and vast wealth. The Carters, net worth about $10 million, are the group’s paupers. Then come the Bushes – Laura and George W., with a net worth of $120 million; the Obamas, $135 million; and the Clintons, $250 million. During their terms, the four ex-presidents encouraged, with some success, more immigration.
Carter signed the Refugee Act of 1980. Bush pushed hard for amnesty from Day One of his administration, and two years ago, he wrote a book extolling the benefits of immigration. In 1998, Clinton signed the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act that increased the cap on H-1B visas from the then-current 65,000 level to 115,000 for FY 1999, 115,000 in FY 2000 and 107,500 in FY 2001. Obama issued several pro-immigration executive orders.
______
What I find interesting is that Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton all claimed to be tough on open borders when they were in office, but now that they're out of office, they believe it ethical to encourage illegal and quasi-legal immigration when it's a problem for a Republican government.
Note: one source used by the reporter is Breitbart, which is conservative in alignment.
I will enjoy your future thoughts on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious and inevitable political-opportunism by almost all parties of the deportation of illegals aside, the issue reminds me again of my derivation of the old adage about not learning lessons from history; my coinage is, "Those who ignore history often repeat the belief that the world is getting essentially worse."
A superficial search using Google AI returns the following:
OBAMA's terms of office:
"During the Obama administration (2009–2017), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) oversaw a period of record-high deportations, which drew criticism from immigrant rights groups regarding the tactics used and the impact on families. While major, violent confrontations often associated with later administrations were less frequently reported, the Obama-era enforcement involved several controversial and intense incidents.
Key Incidents and Areas of Conflict (2009-2016):
January 2016 Family Raids: The Obama administration initiated raids targeting Central American families, including women and children who had arrived after January 1, 2014, and had been ordered deported. These raids, primarily occurring in Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina, led to the detention of over 100 people and intense criticism from lawmakers and advocates who cited the panic and trauma inflicted on vulnerable communities.
Expansion of 'Secure Communities': The administration expanded the 'Secure Communities' program, which made it mandatory for local police to share fingerprints with federal immigration authorities. This program was heavily criticized for resulting in the detention and deportation of individuals with no criminal record or only minor traffic violations, rather than just serious criminals.
Fatalities and Substandard Care in Detention: A report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups highlighted that 56 individuals died in ICE custody during the Obama administration, with a focus on "egregious violations of medical standards" that contributed to at least eight deaths between 2010 and 2012.
"Collateral" Arrests: Reports and lawsuits alleged that ICE agents engaged in "collateral" arrests during raids, where individuals not targeted by the original warrant—sometimes U.S. citizens or legal residents—were detained, sometimes after agents drew weapons in homes.
Protests Against Detentions: Throughout the administration, particularly toward the end of his second term, immigrant advocacy groups held numerous protests and vigils against the administration's deportation records, often labeling the enforcement as inhuman and calling for the closure of specific detention facilities.
Contextual Factors:
Highest Deportations: The Obama administration deported more individuals—roughly 3 million—than any previous administration, a policy that was sometimes termed "the harshest and largest immigration enforcement regime in American history".
Focus on Criminals vs. Families: While the administration officially prioritized the removal of criminals, records showed a high percentage of deportees had only minor or no convictions, which led to high-profile complaints about the human cost of the enforcement. "
(see my subsequent comment)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBIDEN's term of office:
ReplyDelete"During the Biden administration prior to 2024, violent incidents involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were statistically significantly lower compared to subsequent periods. Reported incidents primarily consisted of deaths in custody related to medical issues, a limited number of gun-related use-of-force events, and one accidental officer death.
Deaths in ICE Custody (2021–2023)
Between fiscal years 2021 and 2023, 12 deaths were reported in ICE detention, asignificant decrease from the 38 reported between 2018 and 2020.
FY 2021: Five deaths were reported, including Felipe Montes (Jan. 30, 2021) from COVID-19 complications and Jesse Dean (Feb. 5, 2021) following a medical emergency.
FY 2022: Reported deaths included Melvin Ariel Calero Mendoza (Oct. 13, 2022).
FY 2023: Seven deaths occurred, including Ernesto Rocha-Cuadra (June 23, 2023), Cristian Dumitrascu (March 5, 2023), and Frankline Okpu (Dec. 6, 2023).
ICE Use of Force and Shootings
Data on ICE-specific shootings and use of force during this period remained relatively low:
FY 2023 Use of Force: ICE agents were involved in five gun-related use-of-force incidents in fiscal year 2023.
Fallen Officers: Special Agent James Dale Holdman Jr. died on July 25, 2021, due to an accidental discharge of his service weapon while on duty in Springfield, Missouri.
Assaults on Agents: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recorded only 19 reported assaults against ICE law enforcement from January 21 to November 21, 2024, using this as a baseline to highlight a massive surge (over 1,150%) that began in 2025.
Certainly can be argued that violent incidents and alleged civil-rights violations have significantly increased during the current deportation enforcement (although, the difference in capability for witnesses and observers to record events now compared to that capability during at least Obama's first term may affect reporting), it's erroneous that the current violence and alleged civil-rights violations are novel to the Trump administration.
As US citizens, most of us, regrettably, have short and selective memories, and are indeed ignorant regarding even recent history; and apparently, blissfully naive, disinclined, inept, or perhaps too lazy to objectively research history.
Those journalistically implying the violence and civil-rights violations are novel are ignorant of history, misrepresentative, manipulative, biased, and/or outright lying.
Excellent info; I was sure that the MSM was probably guilty of papering over the more uncomfortable aspects of immigration control under Obama and Biden (probably Clinton too). On the Rubin Report the host reported a study claiming that Dubya and his people might have popularized the concept of bringing in more illegals to enhance political affiliations, and that the Dems just copied that idea. However, I haven't been able to find further support for this theory. I want to address the phenomenal emotional attachment that Liberals have conceived for their "neighbors," but I haven't found the right angle yet.
ReplyDeleteConcluding that, as sapients, we humans can consciously "override" our instincts to large extent and therefore our choices, actions, and reactions are not simplistically "beyond our control" (and well-aware of the "misogynist!" denunciation risked), I'm always hesitant to express this , but...
ReplyDeleteMy present hypothesis concludes the societally-wide embrasure of that "phenomenal emotional attachment" is the inevitable outcome of the Western ascendance of Feminism.
Women's instincts of nurture, group-acceptance, agreeability, immediate elimination and avoidance of discomfort and pain, "world-as-ubiquitously-threatening"; with their innate wiring for prioritizing emotions and immediate conequences over objective perceptions and long-term consequences; tends women to an idealistic "no one ought to ever feel want nor pain of any kind, everyone ought to get a first-place trophy regardless of merit, personal effort, or differences of abilities, all viewpoints ought to be valued equally and no one ever left out, the group ought to provision and protect everyone indiscriminately."
The imbalance I've observed develop during my seventy years, represented in the misandrist slogan "Toxic masculinity!", serves, fuels, and empowers that neo-Liberal distortion (and consequent Leftist strategic utilization) of "love my neighbor as myself".
The Good Samaritan ethic that's so central to Judeo-Christian life-philosophy may indeed from a generalized feminine tendency to nurture. Offhand I can't think of anything in the New Testament that counsels one as to how to deal with someone who observes that you're turning the other cheek, and sees that as a demonstration of weakness, whether out of contempt or with an eye to taking advantage of the giving person. There might be a little more sense of the realities of human nature in the Old Testament. Nurturing mothers want to believe that showing kindness to a "troubled child" will reform the child.
ReplyDeleteWith male culture the concept of equal treatment stems more from a sense that the afflicted person or group deserves such treatment AFTER he/they have proven the desire to value what the culture, as a whole, values. Kipling's famous poem "The Ballad of East and West" catches some of this sense that equality stems from mutual respect.
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of the earth!
However, I'll readily admit that a lot of Liberal male culture has come to accept the notion that the victimized (or supposedly victimized) doesn't have to prove good intent. Victimization becomes an endless set of blank checks that the victim can keep using, over and over. Though a lot of feminists drew upon Marx, I have the sense that Marx was isolated from any contemporary manifestations of feminism. Various bits and pieces suggest that he just wanted an endless free ride and had no desire to nurture anyone.