Skip to content

Migrants

Hungary: Secretary of state Trashes the EU “We will not open our doors to illegal immigrants”

Poland, Hungary and Slovakia don’t want Immigration policy imposed on their countries by Merkel.
Every country has the right to defend itself by closing its borders and deporting illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

Most of the immigrants who arrive in Europe are not refugees, they are illegal immigrants from the Middle East, Asia and Africa who want to start a “new life” in Europe.

The Hungarian economy can not provide welfare payments and free housing for millions of illegal immigrants from the Middle East.

Hungary should close its borders and deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

The German government expects to spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the refugee crisis.
Its the impact on housing, healthcare, the rising costs of welfare, schools that are brought under horrific burdens trying to teach an influx of children who don’t speak the Language yet fill up the classrooms and competing for already scarce jobs with workers who are willing to take less money for the same job – these are the day to day burgeoning effects of mass immigration.

Populism has ONLY arisen because the elites of Europe have neglected their duty towards the very people that put them in power.

Instead of serving the people they have falsely assumed mastery over them and the people will simply not stand for it.
The only solution to the immigration crisis is to close the borders and deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

Most of the immigrants who arrived in Germany are not refugees from Syria. They are Muslim immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who exploited the flow of immigrants from Syria to invade Europe as “refugees.”
Multiculturalism has failed in Europe.

Most people are unaware of the consequences of the illegal mass immigration into Europe that lead to the changing face of Europe.

There are Western countries that do not even acknowledge that there is a lack of integration within the immigrant communities.

The Western world must close the borders before it is too late.

 

Poland, Hungary and Slovakia don’t want Immigration policy imposed on their countries by Merkel.

Posted by ‎Support Israel – תמיכה בישראל‎ on Wednesday, April 11, 2018

 

 

*************

 

Israel deports illegal immigrants – Muslims and leftists are going crazy all over the social networks!!!!

 

 

Israel has the right to say who enters it borders, how, when and why just like any sovereign nation including the UK, US, Australia and Canada.
Why is the world so angry every time it comes to Israel?
This happens in many countries around the world and nobody batters an eyelid, but when it comes to Israel, the world gets angry.
The problem isn’t Israel, but the people going their ILLEGALLY.
If this was your own country, you wouldn’t cry about it, you would be happy.
So how does this makes it any different?
People angry at this are the real bigots.
Israel is even offering them $3,500 and airfares to leave voluntarily!! And leftists are complaining? This is crazy.

 

 

The German government expects to spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the refugee crisis.


The only solution to the immigration crisis is to close the borders and deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from.


Most of the immigrants who arrived in Germany are not refugees from Syria. They are Muslim immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who exploited the flow of immigrants from Syria to invade Europe as “refugees.”


Multiculturalism has failed in Europe.
Most people are unaware of the consequences of the illegal mass immigration into Europe that lead to the changing face of Europe.


The British have become a minority in their Own capital city.

In Sweden the situation is even worse, Swedish majority will live long enough to see themselves becoming a minority in their own country.


More and more countries are taking steps against the immigrants’ culture.
France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria have banned the burqa.


Switzerland passed an anti-mosque law which bans preaching in Arabic and mosque’s minarets.
Austrian passed a law which restricts foreign funding for Austrian mosques and Islamic communities
All these measures were taken by these countries to force immigrants to integrate into Western society.


But there are Western countries that do not even acknowledge that there is a lack of integration within the immigrant communities.


The Western world must close the borders before it is too late.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Israel has the right to defend itself and deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

Posted by ‎Support Israel – תמיכה בישראל‎ on Sunday, April 1, 2018

 

 

 

 

Sean Hannity shows why sharia law should be banned in America – Muslims cry “Islamophobia”

 

 

 

 

 

Hungary’s PM says free immigration poses a threat to Europe’s Christian identity

 

hungarypms0258avc345

 

Hungary’s Prime Minister says he doesn’t want his country to become like Western Europe: “We must defend our Christian identity and our culture”.


Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban critisised UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ proposals about a global agreement on migration as being “dangerous” and “unacceptable,” at a panel discussion in Budapest.


Every country has the right to defend itself by closing its borders and deporting illegal immigrants back to where they came from.


No country has the right to force Hungary to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees and illegal immigrants from the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever wondered why there are no terrorist attacks in Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary?


When an immigration crisis broke out in Europe, these countries immediately closed their borders with security fences and walls to completely stop the mass illegal immigration.


Hungary announced that it would not accept Muslim immigrants to preserve the “Christian” culture and identity of Hungary.


Slovakia declared that it would accept only Christian refugees on the grounds that the state had no mosques.


Austria Poland and Czech Republic did the same thing.


EU members Poland and Hungary didn’t accept one refugee according to the legally binding agreement they made in 2015 to take in 160,000 refugees across the bloc.
The Czech Republic only took in 12 refugees since 2016.


The EU threatensPoland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary With
But look what happened to countries that have opened their borders and have received hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees.economic sanctions for not accepting Muslim refugees.

Here are only few examples:

 

 

3 June 2017 – London: Eight people were killed when three Muslim terrorists drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge.


22 May 2017 – Manchester: Suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a bomb at Manchester Arena as fans were leaving an Ariana Grande concert, killing himself and 22 others.


7 April 2017 – Stockholm: Muslim terrorist drove stolen truck into a crowd in the Swedish capital, killing four people and wounding 15 others.


19 December 2016 – Berlin: Muslim terrorist drove a truck into a crowded Christmas market in central Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 56 others.


Hundreds of innocent people have been killed in terrorist attacks in France, Germany, Britain, Finland and even Sweden.


After Millions of illegal immigrants and refugees have infiltrated into Europe thanks to the EU’s open borders policy.


The European Union should adopt the immigration policy of the Eastern European countries.


It’s time for the Western world to wake up!

 

 

This is how Hungary treats illegal migrants – Police backed by the army deport all the migrants!

 

 

Hungary deployed the army to fight against the illegal immigration from the Middle East.
Hungary is now close to completing a second fence to close its borders to refugees.


The new one is a continuation of the fence with Serbia, and runs along Hungary’s border with Croatia.


Western countries must defend themselves by closing their borders and expelling illegal immigrants back to where they came from.


Every country has the right to defend itself.
Multiculturalism has failed in Europe.


Most people are unaware of the consequences of the illegal mass immigration into Europe that lead to the changing face of Europe.

 

 

Here is why Western countries should adopt Trump’s Travel Ban:


Trump, as a candidate, called in 2015 for a ban on refugees from terror-laden countries.
Trump is correct, Just look at what has been happening to Europe in recent years since the beginning of the immigration crisis.


Here are only few examples:


3 June 2017 – London: Eight people were killed when three Muslim terrorists drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge.


22 May 2017 – Manchester: Suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a bomb at Manchester Arena as fans were leaving an Ariana Grande concert, killing himself and 22 others.


7 April 2017 – Stockholm: Muslim terrorist drove stolen truck into a crowd in the Swedish capital, killing four people and wounding 15 others.

 

 

19 December 2016 – Berlin: Muslim terrorist drove a truck into a crowded Christmas market in central Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 56 others.


Hundreds of innocent people have been killed in terrorist attacks in France, Germany, Britain, Finland and even Sweden.


After Millions of illegal immigrants and refugees have infiltrated into Europe thanks to the EU’s open borders policy.


According to British media, London is now more dangerous than New York City. According to crime statistics, crime across the U.K. was up 13%, with much of it in London.


Rape, robbery, Acid attacks, honor killings and violent offenses have surged dramatically. Figures like these have risen in many European countries, with Sweden becoming “Europe’s rape capital,” Germany’s steep rise in violent and crimes, and Paris’s frequent terror attacks.
EU, Australia, US, UK, and even Canada must close their borders.


A country without borders is a country without security.


If you support Travel Ban, Share this post!

 

 

****************************

 

Continued Here

 

Canadian PM really believes Canadians are racists and "Islamophobes" who should be ashamed of themselves

 

 

An embarrassing moment of the Canadian prime minister who condemned a fake hate crime.
He is so blind by the myth of “Islamophobia” that he is not even interested in facts.
He could wait for the police investigation, but he was quick to embrace Islam and treat Muslims as victims.
A Toronto police investigation has concluded that the incident reported by an 11-year-old girl who claimed her hijab was cut by a scissors-wielding man as she walked to school did not happen.
Many Canadians on the social networks expressed outrage, they are fed up with this group of people who play the victims all the time.
Justin Trudeau happily lashes out at the Canadian people because he really believes the Canadians are racists and “Islamophobes” who should be ashamed of themselves.
No Justin, you should be ashamed of yourselves because you are the one who discriminates against Muslims, you treat them as victims and oppressed.
Canada is a free country with clear laws against hate crimes, Canadians are not racists, they are not afraid of Islam.

 

 

 

Sharia is not only a law, but also a government ruled by Islamic values.


Since the beginning of his term, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been constantly talking about “Islamophobia” which means fear of Islam.


It seems that Justin Trudeau is trying to limit freedom of speech by criminalizing criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, in countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is called “Sharia blasphemy law”.


There are already anti-hate speech laws in Canada, and there is no need to give Islam a special status under Canadian law.


Justin Trudeau is discriminating against Islam by giving it special treatment over other religions.


Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a Western democratic state.
Shari’a laws and blasphemy law are incompatible with Western values.


Trudeau ruled a failed immigration policy in Canada.
Justin Trudeau took 25,000 Syrian immigrants into Canada.


They were not brought out of Syria, they were brought out of a safe place (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan) into Canada.


They are not really “refugees”.

 

 

After Trump announced his “Travel ban”, Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau wrote a post on Twitter and invited the immigrants to invade Canada illegally.
Now Canada is facing an immigration crisis, thanks to Justin Trudeau.
In his foreign policy, the situation is even worse.


Canadian PM Trudeau stabs Israel in the back by funding an Islamic UN agency in Gaza
UNRWA’s education program teaches children to be suicide bombers “in the name of Allah” and wage a war of jihad against the West.


During the 2014 war in Gaza, the UN found rockets and missile launchers hidden inside UNRWA schools.


Canada must stop funding Hamas schools in Gaza.


Every Western country has the right to defend itself, Canada must close its borders and deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

 

 

 

 

Do you agree with her? Yes or No

Posted by ‎Support Israel – תמיכה בישראל‎ on Saturday, March 24, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Did ‘Amnesty’ Become a Dirty Word?

 

By BEN ZIMMER

 

Anti-immigration groups protest in front of the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2013. | Allison Shelley/Getty Images

 

What killed the latest immigration deal on Capitol Hill? One of the deadliest weapons was a single potent word. When President Donald Trump suggested in January that a compromise might actually be possible and he would be open to considering a path to citizenship for the so-called Dreamers, who came to the U.S. as children, Breitbart immediately slammed him as “Amnesty Don.” Immigration hard-liners in the House of Representatives followed suit, with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) saying that Americans would reject “amnesty or anything that looks like amnesty.”

Then, when a bipartisan immigration deal was proposed in the Senate, it was Trump’s turn to wield the A-word to bury it. In a tweet, he said the bill would create “a giant amnesty,” echoing a statement from the Department of Homeland Security that it was nothing more than a “mass amnesty bill for illegal aliens of all ages.” The bipartisan bill and a Trump-backed alternative went down to defeat in the Senate, both tarnished by the mere association with the word “amnesty.”

So how did “amnesty”—a word that politicians of both parties once used to invoke generosity and openness—become such a monstrous taboo? Its very invocation has scuttled attempts at immigration reform year after year. Despite its recent weaponization, the usage of the word “amnesty” has actually been rather benign over most of its history. But its more recent shift offers a window into the growing potency of immigration in American politics.

In today’s debate, amnesty has come to carry a sense of getting off scot-free, a kind of unearned forgiveness, but its origins lie in the more benign idea of forgetting. The word originated as “amnestia” in ancient Greek, with the same root as “amnesia.” Even in classical times, this word for not-remembering could also refer more specifically to the pardoning of a crime against the state. The historian Plutarch relates that after the assassination of Julius Caesar, the great Roman statesman Cicero “persuaded the senate to imitate the Athenians and decree an amnesty for the attack upon Caesar.” In English, “amnesty” was borrowed in the 16th century with a similar legal understanding, equated to an “act of oblivion” from the government to forgive someone of past offenses.

“Amnesty” has been present in American politics from the beginning. A search on documents collected by the American Presidency Project, hosted at the University of California, Santa Barbara, finds no less than 346 uses of “amnesty” by presidents from Washington to Trump. The history of the word’s presidential usage offers some insight into how “amnesty” has become so politically fraught.

When George Washington used the word in a 1794 State of the Union address, he spoke of “the proffered terms of amnesty” extended to those in western Pennsylvania who fought against the government in the Whiskey Rebellion. Fifty years later, John Tyler considered a “general amnesty” in a lesser-known uprising, Rhode Island’s Dorr Rebellion.

But it took the Civil War for “amnesty” to become entrenched in American political discourse. Less than a year into the war, in February 1862, President Abraham Lincoln issued an executive order releasing political prisoners in military custody, granting them “an amnesty for any past offenses of treason or disloyalty,” as long as they upheld the conditions of their parole. In December 1863, Lincoln outlined his plan to offer amnesty to former Confederates at the war’s end, a policy that would be carried out by his successor, Andrew Johnson, as part of Reconstruction.

Presidential amnesties were also granted in the 1890s (by Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland) to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints charged with polygamy—laying the groundwork for Utah becoming a state. And in the early years of the 20th century, William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt offered amnesty to rebels in the Philippines who had fought against American troops in the Spanish-American War.

In 1933, a new kind of amnesty was enacted by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his Christmas Amnesty Proclamation, granting clemency to those who had dodged the draft in World War I. Harry Truman followed Roosevelt’s lead in 1946, establishing an “Amnesty Board” to review the cases of conscientious objectors who had refused to serve in World War II. Truman ultimately pardoned only about 1,500 of the 15,000 violators of the Selective Service Act, despite pleas by Eleanor Roosevelt and others for more leniency.

In the U.S. and abroad, “amnesty” continued to be an expression of mercy and compassion for a broad class of people. In 1961, a British lawyer, Peter Benenson, declared an “Appeal for Amnesty” for prisoners of conscience around the world, a campaign that spawned the organization Amnesty International.

It was the cultural clash over the Vietnam War that began to move “amnesty” in a darker direction. Campaigning in 1972, Richard Nixon firmly stated that “when this war is over, there will be no amnesty for draft dodgers or deserters.” His opponent, George McGovern, took a more permissive line, contributing to the “three A’s” that opponents used to attack his campaign: “Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion.”

If it was the draft that started “amnesty” on the road to lightning-rod status, it was immigration that landed it there for good. Jimmy Carter, speaking to reporters in 1977, said he thought that the immigration legislation then working its way through Congress would have to include “some element of amnesty.” Ronald Reagan, too, spoke favorably of amnesty in a 1984 debate against Walter Mondale. “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Reagan said, in a statement that would be anathema to many modern-day Republicans.

The tide turned against “amnesty” after Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration and Reform Act, which provided legal status to about 3 million undocumented immigrants who could show that they had resided in the country for more than four years. In retrospect, critics of the “Reagan amnesty” said the measure only encouraged further illegal immigration.

The retrospective blame placed on the 1986 law was largely responsible for a shift in the connotations surrounding “amnesty,” turning it from an expression of forgiveness into something more like an unearned “get out of jail free” card. In 2001, conservative pundit Georgie Anne Geyer sounded an alarm bell in a syndicated column warning George W. Bush against any amnesty plan as part of further reforms to immigration policy. “But what does this word ‘amnesty,’ which sounds so generous, really mean to the United States?” Geyer asked, adding ominously, “In truth, the word spells danger.”

By 2005, the rhetorical battle lines had been drawn. The Los Angeles Daily News reported that proponents of immigration reform, such as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, were at pains to avoid the word “amnesty” in favor of more anodyne terms like “earned legalization,” “earned transition” and “earned adjustment.” “Why don’t the advocates of illegal immigration use ‘amnesty’?” asked Steven Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies. “Because the polls tell them people hate it.”

The following year, “amnesty” became the go-to word among immigration hawks opposed to reforms advocated by the Bush administration. A Senate bill that promised “earned citizenship” was met by its opponents with endless repetitions of the nefarious A-word. Jeff Sessions, then serving in the Senate from Alabama, tossed aside any semantic nuances. “In every sense of what people mean by amnesty, it’s amnesty,” Sessions said, observing paradoxically, “If it’s not amnesty, it’s the same thing as amnesty.” His colleague in the House, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), took the logical next step, alluding to literature’s most famous A-word: “Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter, ‘A’ for amnesty, and they need to pay for it at the ballot box in November.”

Pushing back against his own party in a way that would seem unthinkable now, Bush told the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel in 2007: “This word ‘amnesty’ is often used to create confusion and doubt and anger.” He insisted that the immigration policy he championed was not amnesty, but recognized the power of the critique. “If you want to kill a bill,” he said, “then you just go around America saying, ‘This is amnesty.’” It worked. Soon thereafter, Bush’s immigration plan died in the Senate.

More than a decade later, the word “amnesty” remains the “linguistic third rail” in the immigration debate, as Matt Welch, editor-at-large of Reason, argued in the Washington Post last year. Welch has a bold suggestion for that third rail: “it is well past time that we stomped on it,” by embracing the term rather than running away from it. When it comes to codifying some form of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—the rescinded act that allowed “Dreamers” to stay in the country—politicians won’t make headway until they stop being afraid of the word “amnesty.” That would require rehabilitating the term, bringing it back to its compassionate roots. Why not declare amnesty for “amnesty”?

 

 

 

 

 

Paris used to be called the "city of lights" – today it’s more like a "’sh*thole’

 

 

In recent years France has taken hundreds of thousands of refugees and illegal immigrants from all over the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
This is how these people thank the French people for giving them shelter.
They come as “refugees” and then want to receive free housing, welfare payments, food, money, etc.
The European economy can not provide free housing and welfare benefits to millions of illegal immigrants from all over the world.
Every country has the right to defend itself by closing its borders and deporting illegal immigrants back to where they came from.

 

 

 

Have you ever wondered why there are no terrorist attacks in Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary?


When an immigration crisis broke out in Europe, these countries immediately closed their borders with security fences and walls to completely stop the mass illegal immigration.
Hungary announced that it would not accept Muslim immigrants to preserve the “Christian” culture and identity of Hungary.


Slovakia declared that it would accept only Christian refugees on the grounds that the state had no mosques.


Austria Poland and Czech Republic did the same thing.


EU members Poland and Hungary didn’t accept one refugee according to the legally binding agreement they made in 2015 to take in 160,000 refugees across the bloc.


The Czech Republic only took in 12 refugees since 2016.


The EU threatensPoland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary With
But look what happened to countries that have opened their borders and have received hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees.economic sanctions for not accepting Muslim refugees.


Here are only few examples:

3 June 2017 – London: Eight people were killed when three Muslim terrorists drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge.


22 May 2017 – Manchester: Suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a bomb at Manchester Arena as fans were leaving an Ariana Grande concert, killing himself and 22 others.


7 April 2017 – Stockholm: Muslim terrorist drove stolen truck into a crowd in the Swedish capital, killing four people and wounding 15 others.


19 December 2016 – Berlin: Muslim terrorist drove a truck into a crowded Christmas market in central Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 56 others.


Hundreds of innocent people have been killed in terrorist attacks in France, Germany, Britain, Finland and even Sweden.


After Millions of illegal immigrants and refugees have infiltrated into Europe thanks to the EU’s open borders policy.


The European Union should adopt the immigration policy of the Eastern European countries.


It’s time for the Western world to wake up!

 

 

 

 

Is this what multiculturalism looks like?

Posted by Wake Up America on Saturday, March 24, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another European Country Just Banned The Burqa – Muslims are outraged "It’s a violation of Islam"

 

 

Austria’s new restrictions banning the wearing of the full Islamic veil came into force. The ban also includes other items concealing the face in public places and buildings. Violators could be fined up to 177 US dollars.


Muslims all over the West are furious and cry “Islamophobia.”


Countries that already had such a ban include


– France
– Belgium
– Netherlands
– Bulgaria
What country is adding its name to the list?
– Austria
– Denmark.


In Muslim countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan The Islamic veil symbolizes oppression of women under Sharia laws.


There is no mention of an Islamic veil or burqa in the Koran. There are moderate Muslims who call to ban the burqa in the West.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________

 

Watch: Muslims leave the US and move to Canada because Justin Trudeau respects Islam, unlike Trump

 

 

 

 

Canada is spending so much on immigrants that they can’t afford care and support for Canadian veterans!


Trudeau ruled a failed immigration policy in Canada.
Justin Trudeau took 25,000 Syrian immigrants into Canada.


They were not brought out of Syria, they were brought out of a safe place (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan) into Canada.


They are not really “refugees”.


After Trump announced his “Travel ban”, Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau wrote a post about Twitter and invited the immigrants to invade Canada illegally.


Now Canada is facing an immigration crisis, thanks to Justin Trudeau.

 

 

 

Liberals and leftists in the West use the made up term “Islamophobia” to portray anyone who criticizes Islam as a “racist”.

Radical Muslim terrorists all over the world carry out terror attacks “in the name of Allah”.
They justify their violence by quoting verses from the Quran.

Islamophobia is a made up word created by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically to silence debate.

Liberals and leftists ignore the fact that Islam is an ideology that has nothing to do with race.

Islamophobia is a neologism created to silence any possible debate about the problems Islamic extremism has got with modernity, with the intention of using the collective post-colonial “guilt” to exempt a particular set of beliefs from scrutiny, analysis and criticism.
It’s a buzzword used in an attempt to silence anyone, whenever had legit questions or criticisms about the religion.

Islam is not a race. It’s not a religion. (see above)

 

There is an attempt in the West to impose a sharia-blasphemy law to criminalize criticism of Islam.

It started when Saudi Arabia and Muslim countries tried to pass a UN resolution to force Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam.

The Parliament in Canada passed “Motion M-103” to condemn the so-called “Islamophobia (Fear of Islam)” in a preparation for a blasphemy law in Canada.

According to the sharia blasphemy law anyone who criticizes Islam or the Prophet Muhammad should be killed.

Under Sharia blasphemy law in Saudi Arabia and Iran Muslims are executed if they are accused of blasphemy.

In Pakistan, the situation is even worse, radical Muslims use the blasphemy law to persecute the Christian minority.

Is this the law the liberals in the West want to adopt?

If you think Sharia blasphemy law has no place in the West, share this post!

 

 

Do you agree with her?

Posted by ‎Support Israel – תמיכה בישראל‎ on Tuesday, March 20, 2018

 

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

 

 

 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

 

 

ITALY ELECTS THE ITALIAN DONALD TRUMP…VOWS TO DEPORT 500K IMMIGRANTS


It wasn’t even close. Upstart  Matteo Salvini, who ran on a platform that included deporting half a million migrants absolutely crushed incumbent Silvio Berlusconi. Ironically, Salvini and his party failed to secure an outright majority and will have to form a coalition government with Berlusconi’s party. The Italian presidential election closely mirrored the US presidential election in 2016. Both Trump and Salvini promised to deport immigrants and both focused on jobs for countries that were hurting in that area. Both rejected the open borders policies of the Establishment parties and both won surprising victories.


Salvini’s election is a major blow to the European Union. After Macron and Merkel defeated populists, they believed that Berlusconi would win easily and return stability to the EU after Great Britain voted to leave the European Union. That didn’t pan out and now uncertainty has returned to haunt them. The bottom line is that globalism is the enemy of the people and when push comes to shove, people will usually vote in their own best interests.


From The LA Times

A pair of populist parties that rode a wave of voter anger over jobs and immigration in Italy’s general election on Sunday are now pressing to form governments after the election day collapse of the traditional parties that have dominated Italian politics for years.

Matteo Salvini, head of the far-right, anti-immigrant League party, claimed he had “the right and the duty” to lead a government after taking about 17% of the vote, which put him in pole position in a broader coalition that led voting with 37%.

Salvini was challenged on Monday by Luigi Di Maio, head of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement, who said his party was “the absolute winner” after it drew 32.6% of votes, making it the largest single party.

Europe is holding it’s collective breath waiting to see what steps the Italian government will make after the win by populist Salvini.

White House: Family sponsorship program could cause biggest migration wave in world history if not ended

According to one White House official who spoke to the Washington Examiner, if immigrants eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are allowed to sponsor more than just their spouses and children, it would “trigger the largest immigrant wave ‘in the history of the world.’”


Not Ellis Island Anymore

The official hoped to explain chain migration in his warning, which could allow for an influx of immigrants far beyond what the U.S. can handle.

“Each two immigrants averages seven sponsorships,” the official told the Examiner. “A legalization of 2 million would be a net legalization of something like 9 million total, so two would become nine.”

He continued:

Which would mean that instead of issuing say roughly 10 million green cards over a decade, you end up issuing something like 20 million, which would be the largest increase in immigration not only in the history of our country but probably in the history of the world.

The official’s remarks were offered on a conference call with reporters that was organized by the White House this week to help a bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pass. The bill has two major demands in it: ending the diversity visa lottery and ending chain migration.


DACA recipients, sometimes called Dreamers, were brought to the United States as children by their illegal immigrant parents, but allowed to stay in the U.S. under the program. The Democrats now want to offer these immigrants, who are mostly young adults, citizenship.

Republicans, however, say that’s only feasible if there’s a protection to keep their parents — still living in the U.S. illegally — from applying for citizenship themselves on the basis of the Dreamer’s new status.

Trump’s Four Pillars

The White House has outlined four points that Congress must address in an immigration bill if they want the president’s support, including a wall built on the southern border, a path to citizenship for Dreamers, an end to the visa lottery, and an end to chain migration.

The Senate is debating several bills this week, including one authored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) that would not only offer Dreamers citizenship but would protect illegal immigrant criminals from deportation.


It does not fund the president’s infamous border wall, however, which could mean that even if it passes in the House and Senate, the bill won’t become law.

Only time will tell whether meaningful immigration reform will be passed.

Kit Perez

Kit Perez is a Conservative Institute contributor. She is an intelligence analyst with a dual specialty in counterintelligence and HUMINT. She writes on national security, tech, and privacy issues. Kit has a B.A. in Counterintelligence and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies from American Military University.