California Already a Sanctuary State - What Else is New!

California (and America)--Wake Up: No Sanctuary States!

3/23/2017 - Arthur Schaper Townhall.com

The rule of law should be a no-brainer: cities are for citizens. The very concept of “politics” is based on the word “polis”, and that means “citizen”. “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution refers to citizens, men and women who recognize their rights, which come from God.

What’s one way to take power away from “We the People”? Erode the meaning and privilege of citizenship. And that’s what California’s Democratic Party is doing.  Just when I thought that the Democrats in California (and apparently Colorado, too) had already gone too far, now they add another layer to the rampant perversity.

Kevin De Leon, anchor baby turned State Senate President (whose family members are illegals, relying on fraudulent documents to “survive”) is going to steal every resource from California taxpayers to fund his illegal alien paradise. Who says illegals are discriminated against? They are running the government of California … into the ground! Two pieces of legislation are on the horizon. If you’re not careful, they could be coming to a state near you.

Senate Bill 6 will transfer tax dollars to provide legal counsel to illegal aliens facing contentious court hearings as they await deportation. Check this out: we have spiking crime rates throughout the state of California. Even in my nice and calm South Bay home, property crimes are rising, especially property crime. Sandra Duran was just killed in a hit and run in the North Hills section of Los Angeles by an illegal alien.

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and a sanctuary state will not guarantee safety for anyone.  Except, of course, the politicians who want to score points with La Raza, LULAC, and other Hispandering special interest groups who will keep their Brown Power puppets in power for as long as possible. This is the essence of corruption: a set of laws for one group of people, and a set of laws for everyone else. This is beyond shameful. This is beyond intolerable.

And once again, immigration remains an untouchable third rail in California. Deal with it, Republicans and Democrats alike. Stand up for the rule of law, dammit! Governor Pete Wilson was right to champion Prop 187 in 1994. I wish he had continued to champion that initiative. Even then, California was not a Lily Wasp-like state. That means men and women of every color are all Americans and they just want what’s best for their kids and their future.

Guess what? 70% of Californians oppose sanctuary cities, and that includes 60% of Democrats! Even the registered Democratic voters—in California, mind you—are waking up to how their own party is leaving them behind.

One would think that the growing list of dead Californians would finally wake up the voters to the dangers implicit in sanctuary cities. One life killed by an illegal alien is one too many, but here are 8 lives lost forever:

• 1.     Kate Steinle
• 2.     Drew Rosenberg
• 3.     Ruben Morfin
• 4.     Jamiel Shaw Jr.
• 5.     Dominic Durden
• 6.     Marilyn Pharis
• 7.     Tierra Stansberry
• 8.     DeAndre Mitchell

California was a not a sanctuary for these individuals.

Statistics have outlined that at least 25 people a DAY are killed by illegal aliens in this country.

California Democrats want to turn the Golden State into a Sanctuary state? How about deporting illegal aliens and putting Americans first? Here’s another great idea: let law enforcement enforce our laws.

Yes, I know this bid for sanity is a bit complicated for liberals, but the basic tenet of any government is this: protect our rights. And the California Democratic supermajority is not on board with even this, but rather protecting the privileges of a well-connected minority of elitists and La Raza activists.

There is hope, however. The Democrats cannot lose one vote in the state senate to maintain their very slim supermajority. Three years ago, four state senators were arrested, convicted, and/or sentenced for various felonies (voter fraud, gun-running, whatever). Some current Democrat members are feeling the heat like they never have before. I already visited my state assemblyman (a Democrat who had voted against the misguided California (Mis)Trust Act of 2013).

But bigger guns, literally and figuratively, have raised their voices against SB 54’s collective immorality. In spite of a long list of proponents for this awful bill, two key organizations have not compromised, but are fully opposed:

•        California Peace Officers’ Association
•        California State Sheriffs’ Association

The opposition from these two groups was enough to stave off emergency passage.

Four Southern California county sheriffs oppose SB 54, including the somewhat squishy Jim McDonnell of Los Angeles. Why do I target the former police chief of Long Beach? Yes, he’s my sheriff. More importantly, though, not even two months ago, he was on record supporting the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ decision to provide legal aid to the county’s illegal alien population, and McDonnell affirmed he had no intention in going after illegals living in LA solely because of their immigration status.

But now he opposes the entire state taking on LA County’s proposals. What gives? In his view, preventing communication of any kind between ICE officials and state law enforcement would lead to ICE officials sweeping through neighborhoods and arrest more illegals, not just the violent ones in LA County jails.

Unbelievable! I would like to believe that McDonnell really does care about enforcing our immigration laws, and simply does not want the rising spike of various crimes against Angelenos. Unlike LAPD Chief of Police Charlie Beck (who stands with the illegals, rather than the legal residents) McDonnell is elected by the people in the county.  More deaths like Sandra Duran’s might have cut his re-election chances in half.

No American should allow this. Sanctuary cities are dangerous, racist, and outright wrong. I have written before that California was already a “sanctuary state”. SB 54 will make that designation seriously official, cutting off all communication between state and federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens in California.

When Will This Insanity Stop?

Liberals Prefer Illegal Aliens Over Your Kids

3/23/2017 - Derek Hunter Townhall.com

A few weeks ago in this space I asked a simple question: How many victims of illegal alien crime will be enough to make Democrats and the media care about illegal alien crime?

The answer was simple – there is no number. They’ll never care because they’ve hitched their fate to the prospect of legalizing illegals and winning their votes. But the problem they back-burner for political gain still smolders, and last week it claimed another victim…all in the name of “progress.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one of the richest counties in the country. It’s also an extremely left-wing progressive county that prides itself on being “welcoming,” which is liberal code for a sanctuary county. The sanctuary status is not official, according to county leaders. They pretend they aren’t fully on board with sanctuary policies because they don’t want to lose federal money, but they are.

That unofficial status pushed the city of Rockville to out-liberal its county and push to put their sanctuary status on the books, taking steps in that direction just two weeks ago.  A new horrific crime may put that dream on hold.

Last Thursday, a 14-year-old student Rockville High School allegedly was forced into the boys’ bathroom and violently raped by two of her fellow freshman students. Those student were not typical students, they were grown men – ages 17 and 18.

Why were two men old enough to join the military in the 9th grade? Because they were assigned freshman status by the “welcoming” schools, no questions asked.  At least one of the men, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez, is in the country illegally. As for the other, 17-year-old Jose Montano, officials won’t comment on his status because he’s underage.

This 14-year-old girl had to share her classroom with two grown men who had no business being in the country, let alone the school, in the name of tolerance.

That tolerance, as is always the case with leftists, is a one-way street.

After Donald Trump won the election, Montgomery County students staged a walkout protest against the incoming president. The Washington Post reported students were chanting, “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here.” Where do you suppose they got the ideas behind that?

In February, the Montgomery County Council sought to reassure residents – liberals and illegals alike – they would protect those here illegally, particularly when it came to the schools. “We cannot allow people to be so fearful that they keep their children away from school because they’re afraid their children will be taken,” Council President Roger Berliner said. He also said, “Bad things happen.”

Isn’t that nice?

Since the alleged attack, many politicians went silent. Weird, right?

Yes, statements were released, but that’s been about it. The superintendent, Jack Smith, assured parents the alleged horrors committed “do not represent the positive values of our students and school communities.”

Smith concluded, “The safety and security of every student in our district is our top priority and a responsibility that we do not take lightly.”

Nothing on why men old enough to graduate – who don’t even speak English, according to reports – were put in classes with 13- and 14-year-old girls.

School principal Billie-Jean Bensen sent a letter to parents that read, in part, “Ensuring a safe, secure and welcoming learning environment for all of our students is our top priority.”

Again, the safety of students cannot be a “top priority” when you’re putting grown men, whose background could not have been checked for criminal history, in classrooms with children. Principal Bensen’s priority is exposed in the “welcoming” part. Why else mention it under such awful circumstances?

When politicians and activists put the comfort of illegal aliens ahead of the security of Americans students, something is fundamentally wrong.

Principal Bensen concluded her letter by adding, “Please remind your child that if they believe they are a victim of an assault or see something inappropriate, they should immediately tell a staff member.” It’s clear the Montgomery County power structure is circling their wagons to cover their own asses. And that grammar is not a priority.

If they were serious about protecting kids, administrators wouldn’t put adults in with freshmen and wouldn’t allow illegal aliens, whose backgrounds and history cannot be verified or even checked, anywhere near children.

Montgomery County recently hiked property taxes by 8.7 percent in part to address the extremely high cost of educating illegal alien students who don’t speak English. Sanctuary already had a cost. Last week, that cost went higher than the civilized mind can comprehend. For progressive liberal Democrats, there is no cost too high. If your children suffer horrendous, unspeakable acts in the name of “tolerance,” so be it.

You can’t make a progressive Utopia without ruining a few lives…

There Is A Profound Difference

Deterrence and Human Nature

3/16/2017 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Deterrence is the strategy of persuading someone in advance not to do something, often by raising the likelihood of punishment.

But in the 21st century, we apparently think deterrence is Neanderthal and appeals to the worst aspects of our natures. The alternative view insists that innately nice people respond better to discussion and outreach.

History is largely the story of the tensions between, and the combination of, these two very different views of human nature -- one tragic and one therapeutic.

The recent presidential election results favor a more pessimistic view of humans: that without enforceable rules, humans are likely to run amok -- quite in contrast to the prior therapeutic mindset of the Obama administration.

Take illegal immigration. The Trump administration believed the answer was to persuade people not to come illegally into the United States, and to convince those who are already residing here illegally and who have broken American laws to go home. So his proposed wall on the border with Mexico and beefed-up patrols are a sort of insurance policy in case immigrants do not heed appeals to follow the law. Deportation and even the threat of deportation also serve as deterrents to persuade others not to enter the U.S. illegally, given the likelihood of being sent back home promptly.

The early result of that proposed deterrent policy is that in just two months, attempted illegal entries into the U.S. have fallen dramatically.

Past approaches to illegal immigration were largely therapeutic. Bilateral talks with Mexico, sanctuary cities, de facto amnesties and non-enforcement of immigration laws supposedly would ensure that immigration was orderly and a positive experience for both hosts and guests. Instead, the border effectively became wide open and chaos ensued.

Currently, there are no real repercussions on campus for students who disrupt public discourse or prevent invited speakers from presenting lectures. Universities in theory claim this is a bad thing -- a violation of the constitutional rights of free expression and assembly. But campuses rarely punish students for violating the rules. They seldom ask local law enforcement to apply the full force of local and state laws to (often violent) student lawbreakers.

If the intent of universities was to persuade students to respect free speech, then their therapeutic policies seem an utter failure. University laxity is seen by protestors as weakness to be held in contempt rather than magnanimity to be appreciated.

The tragic view would hold that had the University of California expelled students for recently disrupting free speech -- and had it encouraged law enforcement to arrest miscreants for destroying property and using violence against others -- such deterrence would have prevented such unrest in the future.

Such a precedent at Berkeley might have dissuaded Middlebury College students from trying to shout down and even injure the political and social scientist Charles Murray when he was invited to deliver a lecture. The students who charged Murray, apparently intending to physically force him off campus, might not have been so bold had they known in advance that they would be brought up on charges for any such violence.

Middlebury is an elite school where mostly rich kids fear that a criminal record would be fatal to the sort of high-power resumes they hope to compile for the good life to follow graduation.

The same tragic/therapeutic tension characterizes approaches to radical Islamic terrorism. Does vetting incoming refugees from the Middle East deter potential terrorists from entering the country, or does such scrutiny turn off people, radicalize them and encourage terrorism?

Did the Obama administration's euphemistic effort to eradicate the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" -- along with Obama's apology tour and therapeutic Cairo speech -- win hearts and minds in the Middle East? Or did such outreach convince radicals that the U.S. was hardly to be feared, thus encouraging anti-American sentiment?

In the past eight years, the U.S. has backed off the red lines and deadlines it issued to Syria, Russia and Iran. Did such equivocation earn America appreciation and respect for circumspection -- or contempt for empty rhetoric?

There is no clear-cut divide between deterrence and therapy. Each at times has its place in warning or wooing people and nations. But in general, anytime a government errs on the side of therapy and communicates to individuals and foreign powers that laws are flexible, that punishment is iffy and that consequences are negotiable, it gets less of what it wants.

It is unfortunate but true that North Korea is deterred more by U.S. military strength than by United Nations resolutions.

In much the same way, radical campus lawbreakers probably respect (and fear) the local district attorney a lot more than the college president.

In other words, the more we feel we have entered a 21st-century therapeutic utopia, the more tragic that human nature seems not to have changed all that much from the Stone Age.

DACA/DAPA Remains Lawlessness

DACA: Granting Amnesty to Dreamers Committing Crimes While Abandoning Their Victims

By Ronald W. Mortensen, CIS.org, March 10, 2017

The Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provides amnesty from serious job-related felonies and other crimes committed by DACA-eligible illegal aliens (often called Dreamers) and their employers while providing no assistance to the American citizen victims of their crimes.

Under President Trump's executive order on immigration enforcement, many Dreamers currently protected by or eligible for DACA would be eligible for deportation because of the crimes that they have committed or are committing. In addition, President Trump's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office (VOICE) will help the victims of illegal alien crimes by facilitating "engagement with the victims and their families to ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that they are provided information about the offender, including the offender's immigration status and custody status, and that their questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement efforts are addressed."

Many Deamers Have Committed Felonies and Other Crimes

DACA applies to individuals up to age 31 (as of June 2012, so 35 now) — hardly children; consequently, many Dreamers have long-since terminated their studies and most have committed multiple felonies in order to get jobs — Social Security fraud, forgery, perjury on I-9 forms, falsification of green cards and drivers' licenses, identity theft, etc. Dreamers continue to commit these job-related crimes right up to the day their DACA status is approved and they obtain work permits and their own genuine Social Security numbers.

In addition, many illegal aliens qualifying for DACA status have previously been arrested and convicted of multiple misdemeanors and some have previously been or continue to be associated with violent gangs, as evidenced by a report in the Seattle Times that states that over 1,500 Dreamers have had their DACA status revoked since 2012 due to their involvement with criminal gangs.

DACA Grants Dreamers Amnesty for Felonies and Other Serious Crimes

In spite of this widespread criminal behavior by Dreamers, the current DACA guidelines only exclude individuals who have been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors as long as they do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Thus, the DACA guidelines give illegal aliens committing multiple felonies and significant misdemeanors a total pass as long as they have not been convicted of their criminal activity. This means that Dreamer gang-bangers, Dreamer identity thieves, Dreamer sexual predators, Dreamers who haven't paid income taxes, and Dreamers committing a wide range of other crimes all qualify for DACA status as long as they haven't been convicted of their crimes.

These guidelines conflict with President Trump's Executive Order 13768 on immigration enforcement, which makes other illegal aliens committing the same crimes eligible for deportation even if they have not been convicted of their crimes.

It is also important to note that the United States government currently instructs illegal aliens and their employers to hide their criminal activity and/or promises not to hold them accountable for their violations of U.S. and state laws.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) guidance provided in their "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" tells illegal alien Dreamers to exclude their fraudulently obtained/used Social Security numbers in item 9 of Form I-765 even though this item specifically asks for a list of Social Security Numbers previously used (my explanations are in brackets):

Q73: How should I fill out question 9 on Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization?
A73. When you are filing a Form I-765 as part of a DACA request, question 9 is asking you to list those Social Security numbers that were officially issued to you by the Social Security Administration [not numbers you illegally obtained and used].

USCIS further promises employers that any information about illegal employment practices that they disclose in support of a Dreamer's DACA application will not be used against them:

Q. If I provide my employee with information regarding his or her employment to support a request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals, will that information be used for immigration enforcement purposes against me and/or my company?
A. You may, as you determine appropriate, provide individuals requesting deferred action for childhood arrivals with documentation which verifies their employment. This information will not be shared with ICE for civil immigration enforcement purposes pursuant to INA section 274A unless there is evidence of egregious violations of criminal statutes or widespread abuses.

USCIS also instructs employers to ignore Dreamers' job-related felonies committed when the Dreamers entered fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers on their original I-9 forms under penalty of perjury. In addition, employers are not required to end the employment of Dreamers committing felony Social Security fraud, perjury, and identity theft. Rather, they are instructed to replace the Dreamers' original I-9 forms with new ones containing the Dreamers' newly issued Social Security numbers. This rewards illegal aliens for their felonies and leaves the Americans who are victims of their identity theft and other criminal actions holding the bag.

GUIDANCE FOR EMPLOYERS OF EXISTING EMPLOYEES.
Employers must have a properly completed Form I-9 on file for every employee hired after November 6, 1986. Deferred action recipients who are currently working [illegally] may provide updated documentation to their employers. An employer receiving updated documentation from an employee should review the employee's previously [fraudulently] completed Form I-9 [under penalty of perjury] and….complete a new I-9 form when any of the following information has changed in Section 1 of the previously completed Form I-9: The employee's name, Date of birth, [perjured] Attestation, [illegally obtained] Social Security number, if a [illegally obtained] social security number was provided on the previously completed Form I-9.

Thus, these USCIS instructions, both independently and taken together, put an agency of the United States government in the position of advising Dreamers to hide their criminal acts and telling employers that if they have (1) employed illegal aliens and (2) if they fail to report Dreamers' criminal activities that neither they nor the Dreamers will be held accountable.

Therefore, the Obama administration's DACA program puts the U.S. government in the position of rewarding Dreamers and their employers for their illegal actions while at the same time turning its back on the American citizen and legal resident victims of the illegal alien Dreamers' crimes.

DACA Must be Ended or Significantly Restructured

As currently structured, DACA is seriously flawed and needs to be either ended or significantly restructured to ensure that Dreamers are not granted amnesty from serious crimes and that their American citizen and legal resident victims are not left holding the bag. In addition, the United States government must stop advising illegal aliens to hide their criminal activities and granting amnesty to employers who have unlawfully hired the illegal alien Dreamers.

Deep State Are The Subversives

The Beltway Conspiracy to Break Trump

3/7/2017 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

At Mar-a-Lago this weekend President Donald Trump was filled "with fury" says The Washington Post, "mad -- steaming, raging, mad."

Early Saturday the fuming president exploded with this tweet: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

The president has reason to be enraged. For what is afoot is a loose but broad conspiracy to break and bring him down, abort his populist agenda, and overturn the results of the 2016 election.

At its heart is the "deep state" -- agents of the intel community, their media collaborators, and their amen corner in a Democratic party whose control of our permanent government is all but total.

At the heart of the case against Trump is what appears to be a Big Lie.

It is that Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta's email account, then colluded with Trump's friends or associates to systematically sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Therefore, Trump stole the election and is an illegitimate president. In this city, Trump is looked upon as a border-jumper, an illegal alien.

Yet let us consider the constituent components of the charge.

For months, we have heard that U.S. intel agencies agree that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign, and gave the fruits of their cybertheft to WikiLeaks, because Putin wanted Trump to win.

For months, this storyline has been investigated by the FBI and the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress.

Yet where is the body of evidence that the Russians did this?

More critically, where is the evidence Trump's people played an active role in the operation? Why is it taking the FBI the better part of a year to come up with a single indictment in this Trump-Putin plot?

Is this all smoke and mirrors?

In late February, The New York Times reported that Trump officials had been in regular touch with Russian intelligence officers.

The smoking gun had been found! Yet, almost immediately after that report, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News "the top levels of the intelligence community" had assured him that the allegations of campaign contacts with Russia were "not only grossly overstated, but also wrong."

If what Reince says is true, the real crime here is U.S. security officials enlisting their Fourth Estate collaborators, who enjoy First Amendment privileges against having to testify under oath or being prosecuted, to undermine the elected commander in chief.

Now we expect Russia to seek to steal our secrets as we steal theirs. After all, our NSA wiretapped Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Our National Endowment for Democracy pushes "color revolutions" to bring about regime change in the near abroad of Putin's Russian Federation.

Our NGOs are being restricted, shut down, expelled from Russia, China, Israel and Egypt, because they have been caught interfering in the internal affairs of those countries. There is talk that Putin use the pilfered emails as payback for Clinton's urging demonstrators to take to the streets of Moscow to protest a narrow victory by his United Russia party in 2011.

As for the alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower, President Obama has denied ordering any such thing and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assures us nothing of the sort was ever done.

Yet, there are other reports that intelligence officials got a warrant to surveil Trump campaign officials or the Trump Tower, and, though failing to succeed in the FISA court that authorizes such surveillance in June, they did succeed in October.

If true, this is a far more explosive matter than whether a Trump aide may have told the Russians, "You're doing a great job!" when WikiLeaks blew DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of her job for tilting the playing field against Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

What needs to be done now? The White House should tell the Justice Department to tell the FBI to expedite its investigation and file a report on what was done by the Russians. And if any Trump campaign official criminally colluded with the Russians, send the recommendation to indict to Justice.

The acting attorney general should instruct Director James Comey to run down, remove and recommend for prosecution any FBI or intel agent who has leaked the fruits of their investigation, or fake news, to the media. If Comey cannot find the source of the leaks, or lies, coming out of this investigation, a housecleaning may be needed at the bureau.

While President Obama may not have ordered any surveillance of Trump or his advisors, the real question is whether he or Attorney General Loretta Lynch were aware of or approved of any surveillance of Trump and his staff during the campaign.

Russian hacking of the DNC is a problem, not a scandal. The scandal is this: Who inside the government of the United States is trying to discredit, damage or destroy the President of the United States? For these are the real subversives.

ICE Upholding & Restoring Moral Order

ICE Agents Prefer Deporting Illegals to Changing Their Diapers

3/2/2017 - Ilana Mercer Townhall.com

There were a few tense hours before President Trump's First Address to Congress. All news outlets were claiming the president would call for an immigration bill in which both sides would be asked to compromise.

Was this Fake News? Or, was the president sending up a trial balloon to test the reaction? Was Donald Trump, who has both Houses, planning to give away the store (and a shot at a second term)? I hope I speak for Deplorables when I say this: The only time you want the president to reach across the aisle on matters immigration is to grab a Democrat or an errant Republican by the throat.

Like many legal immigrants, I'm an immigration restrictionist. As soon as open-border enthusiasts discover this; they tell me to go back whence I came (Canada and before that South-Africa), the idea being that I'm not suited to join "the nation of immigrants." Agreed. I'll save them the effort. Americans have little use for a scribe with a love of the English idiom and an oddball, annoying attachment to the American ideas of limited government and self-governance. You wouldn't want to import too many such subversives, who'll agitate for the values that made us great and will MAGA.

The only TV personality to have vigorously stood up for the high-value immigrant minority is Tucker Carlson. In 2013, before it was safe for mainstream to speak of any immigration vetting whatsoever—and as his neoconservative Fox News co-panelists (Charles Krauthammer, Bret Bair) noodled on about their Latino philosophical soul-mates—Mr. Carlson blurted this out:

"What is missing in this conversation is the fact that not all immigrants are the same. Immigrants from certain countries go on welfare overwhelmingly. Many Latin American countries send us immigrants who go on welfare. The question is, does the United States need massive new numbers of the low-skilled immigrants in a post-industrial economy? Is that good for the United States? Is it not mindless to say all immigrants are good? They are not. Some are, some aren't. ... the Republican Party ought to be courageous enough to draw the distinction between people who add to the sum total of the American economy, who buy into the culture, who improve the country, and those who don't. And there is a difference. Sorry."

Thank you, Tucker Carlson, for being, I believe, the first famous pundit to doff the proverbial hat to those high-value immigrants who not only talk the American creed, but live it; the kind who subsidize the largess Republican turncoats seem so eager to dispense.

Thankfully, the patriotic president said nothing, in his Address, about a "compromise" immigration bill. Rather, Trump rededicated himself to The Wall and to a merit-based point system à la Canada. (Been there, done that. Canada is tougher and smarter than America.)

Judging by the mirth among good people and the misery among the bad, the president has already made progress. It's just over a month into his presidency and the deportations of illegal immigrants are proceeding swimmingly. The morale among Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has never been higher. Their jobs are becoming "fun, again," lamented a New York Times reporter, whose job has become a living hell. Joy!

Some anonymous informants for the newspaper-of-record within ICE say they miss the days of doing diaper duty. In 2012, following Barack Obama's reelection, the men of ICE were forced to babysit Central American minors who rushed the South-Western border, "for the DREAM Act." (All you need to know about the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act is that it culminates in Green Cards and citizenship for millions of Democrats.) ICE was charged with minding the minors before escorting them in style to their destinations in the interior.

Most agents are, however, over the moon about enforcement. ICE agents "are predominantly male, and have often served in the military, with a police department or both." While working without women could predispose them to happiness, the agents are likely just overjoyed because President Trump has let them do their job!

By upholding the moral order, President Trump is also restoring the natural order, inverted by his predecessors. The feminist order of Obama had humiliated thousands of American men-of-action by turning them into wet-nurses. Obama messed with their biology. Men who think of themselves as protectors resent looking like child minders.

Dead ringer "W," currently being rehabilitated by certain conservatives, was more "manly" in the way he emasculated these men. In 2005, George Bush indicted and viciously prosecuted two border-patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Their crime: Shooting a drug dealer in the derriere, in the process of defending their countrymen.

So, look forward to epic images of heavy equipment barreling toward the Southern border. The sight of a gold-plated structure going up, as sections of the borderland along Mexico start to resemble Liberace’s backyard: This is sure to warm the cockles of your heart, and make America's monomaniacal media go berserk. (Let Milo design The Wall. If conservatives can rehabilitate the unrepentant Bush; they can forgive Milo for saying stupid stuff.)

Of course, ordinary concrete would do just fine.