It's starting, the radical left wanting to abolish ICE and stop all interior enforcement of America's immigration laws and allowing illegal alien violent criminals like MS-13 to roam our neighborhood streets. The current ongoing negotiations being conducted in Congress by the "Gang of 17" on funding the Department of Homeland Security that has to be completed with in a week to prevent another Democrat shutdown of the government, well the Democrats have barred ICE from participating in the talks. Scuttlebutt is with confirmation from the The Washington Times that the Democrats might authorise some funding for the wall to keep America safe if ICE stopped enforcing the law and stopped apprehending really bad hombres who murder and rape and even kill cops. Source: NumbersUSA newsletter With one-week left, some fence funding looking likely amid danger of cuts in interior enforcement FRI, FEB 8th Congress has until next Friday to agree on spending for the Department of Homeland Security to avoid another partial government shutdown. No agreement has been reached, but there's growing optimism that one can be reached before the deadline. The group of 17 lawmakers who are negotiating the terms will need to reach an agreement by the end of this weekend to leave enough time to pass legislation by the Feb. 15 deadline. There are already rumors of another short-term extension to give them more time. There's been no word from the White House as to whether Pres. Trump would sign a deal if it doesn't include his border fencing request, but Chairman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), met with the President yesterday and called the progress "positive." One thing is certain, the final deal will not include all of Pres. Trump's $5.7 billion request for new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats, who have said they won't support any additional funds for a border fence, are now acknowledging that there will be money for more barriers. The questions that remain are: 1) how much funding will be included, 2) what limitations (if any) will be put on what kind of barriers and where, and 3) at what cost in terms of reductions in other kinds of enforcement? The third question could be key. There's a chance that Democrats could support funding for additional fencing at the expense of less funding for interior enforcement. The Washington Timesreports that a representative from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been blocked from the negotiations, while a representative from Border Patrol briefed the negotiators this week. That means ICE is not present to defend against the Democratic proposals to cut the number of detention beds, or to counter newly-elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) who held a rally on the Capitol steps just yesterday calling for abolishing ICE. Source of the newsletter:
The article I chose to use was quoting the Washington Times who has more credibility than the WaPo or NYT. Supposedly the Washington Times source was ICE who confirmed that the Democrats refused to allow ICE to participate in the discussions. The Democrats are now in charge of the House and there are more than a few Democrats who are on record of defunding and abolishing ICE . That once an illegal alien has made it into the interior there will be no law enforcement agency enforcing America's immigration laws.
What scares me more, what does more damage than an illegal alien, is a dual citizen holding high office in government. At that point, the barbarians have clearly made it into the interior, inside the gates.
1/4 of California's state legislature are able to vote in Mexico's elections. Mexico's Constitution recognizes all children of Mexican citizens who were born on American soil (anchor babies) as being Mexican citizens.
I have no objection to the notion of dual citizenship. I once considered getting it myself. If I wanted to go through the paperwork, I could have Irish citizenship, but I don't. My objection comes when a dual citizen holds elective or appointive office in the government. I like the way the Australians do it--dual citizenship is fine, but if a person runs for office he must renounce the foreign citizenship and go only with Australian citizenship. Very obvious common sense in that approach. If a dual citizen in office is faced with a decision (hypothetical), with which nation does he align or favor?
COUNTRIES THAT ALLOW DUAL CITIZENSHIP . & COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT ALLOW DUAL CITIZENSHIP https://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/04/25/countries-allow-dual-citizenship/
