Immigration

Brigitte Gabriel: Elect Trump To Save Western Civilization

Brigitte Gabriel, the head of the grassroots anti-Muslim group ACT for America, was the guest on televangelist Jim Bakker’s program for two days last week, where she focused in particular on her efforts to stop the resettlement of Muslim refugees in the U.S.

Gabriel attacked the charities, many of them faith-based, that work with the government to resettle refugees, claiming that “it’s all about money” for them.

Bakker agreed, announcing, “Listen, write it on the screen, Mr. Director, or the editors, or who whoever works on this show, ‘The love of money is the root of all evil.’” He speculated that these religious charities don’t “understand the infiltration that’s already taken place” with refugees.

“I think if this election doesn’t change things, I don’t see America surviving as we knew it for much longer,” Bakker said. “It is not, anyway. Christian America is no longer, of course, Christian America.”

“This election is an election about survival,” Gabriel, a Trump supporter, agreed. “And not just the survival of the United States, but the survival of western civilization, because America is the superpower of western civilization. And this is why this is our chance to make sure we put someone in the White House who understands how to protect the country.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Democrats Rely On Votes Of 'Them Who Have No Regard For The Law,' 'People That Can’t Speak English'

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins interviewed Rep. Louie Gohmert yesterday about reports, which turned out to be erroneous, that the man who shot five people in a Washington state mall last weekend had voted three times despite not being a citizen. Gohmert was positively jubilant about the false report, saying that it was “the perfect evidence” to contradict “liberal judges” who say that there is no widespread voting by noncitizens.

Gohmert, a Texas Republican, then linked the story to efforts to pass criminal justice reform legislation, claiming that Democrats are relying on the votes of “felons,” “people that can't speak English”—who he claimed are unable to follow the news—and undocumented immigrants in order to win elections.

“But, you know, what does it say about your party if you want felons to vote and you want people who don’t speak English to vote and you want people that are here illegally to vote?” he asked. “If your platform will only get voted into office by those people—felons, people that can’t speak English and haven’t been able to follow personally what’s actually going on in politics without getting an interpretation, and those who are illegally here, show no regard for the law—I would think you’d need to think about changing your platform.”

The congressman added that the Washington shooter “seems to be a big fan of Hillary Clinton,” which shows who “the Democrat drones” are.

Perkins responded that the Obama administration is “trying to basically flood the zone” with “Syrian refugees and others” in order to help Democrats.

“Exactly,” Gohmert replied. “And they know which party will be most helpful to them who have no regard for the law.”

People who have served time for felonies are in fact allowed to vote in many states, thanks to bipartisan efforts to restore their voting rights. While most naturalized citizens are required to pass an English test, in many cases election materials are translated for those with less English proficiency. However, Democrats are not allowing undocumented immigrants to vote without obtaining citizenship, as Gohmert asserts.

Trump Wasn't 'Endorsed By ICE,' But He Was Backed By Group That Attacked DACA

At last night's presidential debate, Hillary Clinton apparently got under Donald Trump's skin when she brought up a letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts who said that Trump would be "the most reckless President in American history." Trump responded:

I do want to say that I was just endorsed—and more are coming next week—it will be over 200 admirals, many of them here—admirals and generals endorsed me to lead this country. That just happened, and many more are coming. And I’m very proud of it.

In addition, I was just endorsed by ICE. They’ve never endorsed anybody before on immigration. I was just endorsed by ICE. I was just recently endorsed—16,500 Border Patrol agents.

Trump's boast of military endorsers seems to be a reference to a letter in support of his candidacy signed by 88 retired generals and admirals. The list contained no "major names," but did include such activists asJerry Boykin. Boykin, who was repeatedly criticized by President George W. Bush for giving speeches framing the fight against terrorism as a holy war between Christianity and Islam, now has a platform for his vicious anti-gay and anti-Muslim rhetoric as a top official at the Family Research Council.

The immigration allies Trump mentioned are similarly troubling. Trump was clearly not, as he claimed, endorsed by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is a federal agency that cannot endorse candidates. He was probably referring instead to his endorsement that morning from the National ICE Council, a union the represents somewhere between 5,000 and 7,600 of the agency's 20,000 employees. The other endorsement he boasted of was that of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), a union for border patrol officers.

As the Center for New Community has documented, both the National ICE Council and the NBPC have close ties to the organized anti-immigrant movement. “Instead of fulfilling organized labor’s traditional role of advocating for respectable wages and working conditions, leaders of these particular unions appear more focused on coordinating with special interest groups in the Beltway to advance anti-immigrant policy goals,” the Center wrote in a recent report.

The Center explains how the leadership of the National ICE Council collaborated with leading anti-immigrant groups to challenge President Obama’s DACA order in the courts and speak out against it in public:

In August 2012, shortly after the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) was announced, but before it was enacted, ten ICE agents filed a lawsuit against then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and the directors of ICE and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit was Christopher Crane, President of the National ICE Council. In anticipation of President Obama announcing the DACA program, the leaders of the anti-immigrant movement began exploring ways to counter the program by falsely arguing that DACA represented an unconstitutional act of executive overreach. In order to mount a legal challenge against the program, however, the leaders of that movement needed to recruit a plaintiff who could credibly claim injury and be granted legal standing in a court of law.

Chris Crane was their man.

Crane v. Napolitano was initially dismissed on a legal technicality, and then in a separate ruling on April 7, 2015 the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals once again dismissed Crane and his colleagues’ case. Despite this, the lawsuit allowed anti-immigrant groups like NumbersUSA to construct a platform from which Crane could act as a prominent spokesperson, helping to advance the anti-immigrant movement’s targeting of DACA. NumbersUSA announced that it would cover all legal fees incurred for the duration of the suit, and the anti-immigrant movement’s most prominent attorney, Kris Kobach, was recruited to represent Crane and his colleagues. …

In announcing the National ICE Council’s endorsement of Trump, Crane cited the Republican candidate’s support for “the canceling of executive amnesty and non-enforcement directives”—in other words, DACA and DAPA.

The border patrol officers’ group has had similar collaboration with anti-immigrant groups. That includes, according to the Center for New Community, a California official with the union helping to tip off the extremist anti-immigrant activists who in the summer of 2014 physically blocked busses of Central Americans fleeing violence who were being brought to a border patrol facility.

Jim Simpson: Liberals Bringing In Refugees Who Don't 'Share Our Culture And Values' In Order To Seize Power

Jim Simpson, a conservative writer who works closely with the Center for Security Policy, told the Center’s Jim Hanson in an interview yesterday that refugee resettlement to the U.S. must be stopped because liberals are using it as a ploy to bring in “people from all over the world that do not share our culture and our values” because they know that the “beliefs that we as Americans hold stand directly in the way of them gaining power.”

Hanson, who was guest hosting the group’s “Secure Freedom Radio” program, asked Simpson about a discredited poll his organization produced that purported to show a high prevalence of extremist beliefs among American Muslims, a poll that Donald Trump cited in his call for a ban on Muslim immigration last year.

Trump’s more recent proposal to ban immigration from what he called “terror nations,” Hanson said, “seems like a common-sense solution to me.”

Simpson agreed that “it’s absolutely a common-sense solution” but said that more can be done, such as an effort to “curtail if not halt entirely the refugee resettlement program.” The refugee program, he said, is “so out of control” and is “driven by very malevolent motives” from resettlement contractors (many of which are religious groups), which he said just want to make money, and from the “radical left.”

“[T]he radical left and the Democratic Party, primarily if not exclusively, benefit directly from bringing in people from all over the world that do not share our culture and our values,” he said. “Gradually, our unique culture, our unique values that have made us the envy of the world for 200 years are being watered down and diluted to the point of irrelevance because we are bringing in people from all over the world that do not share those values. And that is and has been a long-term goal of the radical left in this country, because the left knows that those cultures, those traditions, those beliefs that we as Americans hold stand directly in the way of them gaining power.”

Dan Stein: Let Public Schools Charge Tuition To Undocumented Kids

Dan Stein, the president of the anti-immigrant group Federation for American Immigration Reform, urged Congress yesterday to challenge Plyer v. Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that states can’t withhold public school funding for educating undocumented immigrant children, saying that states should instead “be able to charge tuition” to those children.

Stein’s group recently released a report griping about the cost of educating the children of both documented and undocumented immigrants, especially those who are learning English.

Virginia talk radio host Rob Schilling asked Stein yesterday what policy proposals he recommend that could combat the cost of educating the children of immigrants, and Stein said that one solution would be to re-litigate Plyer so that “at a minimum” states could charge tuition to undocumented kids.

“Public education should not be viewed as some hallowed ground,” he said. “It doesn’t create an entitlement for the child to be here by enrolling them in school. It basically says, if you’re going to be here, well, yeah, you ought to be in school, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be subject to deportation when the time comes.”

“So it would be great if Congress would pass a statute, pass Plyer again and re-litigate it to the Supreme Court,” he added, “because if you go back and look at that case there’s ample reason to argue that the situation now has radically changed and that at a minimum states should be able to charge tuition if you have no right to be in the country. Obviously, that would face a blowback from MALDEF and the Democratic Party, but that’s something that could be done.”

Steve King Is A Walking Late Night Joke

On his program on Monday night, comedian Jimmy Fallon reacted to Hillary Clinton’s comment that a number of Trump supporters fall into a “basket of deplorables” by joking, “So, if you're keeping track, Trump supporters are deplorable, and Hillary supporters are deportable.”

Fallon’s “deportable” remark could have been a reference to Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King’s characterization of Michelle Obama’s guest at last year’s State of the Union Address as “a deportable.” 

King, however, did not see any criticism in Fallon’s joke and instead was thrilled when Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson played him a clip of Fallon’s monologue in an interview yesterday.

“Did I say that or did he say that?” King asked, to which Mickelson replied: "Fallon is stealing your lines now.”

“Well, that’s okay,” King said, “I’m happy if he can just repeat them over and over again. I recall making a statement that the first lady invited a deportable in to sit next to her during the president’s State of the Union address and I can’t think of any way to undermine the rule of law any more effectively than to do that.”

Michele Bachmann: Vote Trump Or Lose America To Totalitarianism And Socialist Immigrants

In a Friday interview with Virginia-based radio host Rob Schilling, former Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann expanded on her recent comments that if Donald Trump loses in November, it will be the “last election” in America because Hillary Clinton will “change the demographics of the United States so that no Republican will ever win again.”

Bachmann told Schilling in an interview at the Washington, D.C., Values Voter Summit that while Republicans are focusing on “the fine points of somebody’s tax plan,” Democrats are simply trying to get enough votes to win the election “because they’re about power and they’re about money.”

What Republicans have to realize, she said, is that “the Democrats had a plan since 1965 to change the demographics of this country. They wanted to bring people into this country from socialist countries who agree with socialism. They didn’t want to have constitutional Republicans in this country. And so they decided to change the demographics.”

Bachmann said she agreed with Ann Coulter’s analysis that this is a demographic “tipping point” for the country, saying that “this is our last chance for Republicans to field a candidate that can win.”

President Obama, she said, “has an open border right now” in what amounts to “a taxpayer subsidized Democrat voter registration drive.” If Clinton becomes president, she added, she will grant “amnesty to all these people here illegally in the United States” who will then “receive substantial government supports in the form of food stamps and housing and free health care and free education and police and fire and all the other amenities that we provide in this country.”

“They aren’t paying their own way,” she said. “So it is a situation where this is the last election where a Republican with constitutional values will be competitive. Four years from now, we might field a Republican but they won’t be competitive because the math, it’s a math problem, the numbers will be so overwhelming for people who demand socialism because people vote their paycheck. If their paycheck is coming from the federal government or their food stamps or their health insurance, that’s what they’re going to vote for.”

When Schilling lamented that Americans are no longer “too proud to accept charity,” Bachmann agreed. “Now it’s demanding,” she said. “Now it’s demanding, ‘It’s my right. It’s my right to have health care, it’s my right to have housing, it’s my right to make you pay for my college.’ Next thing we’ll hear is, ‘You’ve got to buy me a house, not just Section 8, you’ve got to buy me a house, you’ve got to pay for my retirement.’ It’s like ridiculous.”

Bernie Sanders was so successful in the Democratic presidential primary, she said, because public schools have moved to a “full-throated embrace of socialism.” Only Trump, she said, has promised to abolish the Common Core curriculum standards and thereby “get rid of the left’s stranglehold on this country” through the schools.

Bachmann went on to warn evangelical voters that if they choose to sit out the election, they will be turning the nation over to totalitarianism forever.

“So if we get a number of believers who think it’s the morally correct thing not to choose either Hillary or Donald Trump, then we lose and you have got for the rest of time a totalitarian nation where we’ve got economic Marxism,” she declared.

Michele Bachmann: 'We Are So Blessed' By Trump, Who Will 'Call Out The Haters'

Former Minnesota Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann spoke to “Breitbart News Daily” at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, declaring that America is “so blessed” to have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate because “he’s willing to call out the haters that hate the United States of America” and gets that many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. “don’t understand what it means to become an American.”

“After 9/11, we’ve allowed in 2 million Muslims into the United States, many of whom don’t embrace American ideals, they continue to embrace Islamic Sharia law ideals, and they intend to foist them on the rest of us in the United States,” Bachmann said, attributing her statistics to Ann Coulter. “They don’t understand what it means to become an American and to embrace American values because Islamic Sharia laws are antithetical to American values. This is something that Donald Trump gets. He gets the border, he gets American values, he’s not ashamed to stand for American values and he’s willing to call out the haters that hate the United States of America. We are so blessed that we have this man as our candidate this time around.”

She also brought up her ongoing campaign against Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, saying “it makes total sense” to ask where Abedin’s “allegiances lie and what her influence has been on the woman who could be the next commander in chief of the United States.”

“It’s very serious,” she added. “We’ve had a president now in Barack Obama who has embraced Iran and advancing Iran’s ideals. Now we have Hillary Clinton, whose chief aide advances the interests in Saudi Arabia. We have in Donald Trump someone who wants to advance the interests of the United States. Wouldn’t it be nice to have somebody who’s more interested in advancing our interests as a country rather than Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s?”

Trump: 'This Will Be The Last Election If I Don't Win'

In an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network today, Donald Trump warned that there will be no more competitive elections if he is defeated in November because under a Clinton presidency, “you’re going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they’re going to be legalized and they’re going to be able to vote and once that all happens you can forget it.”

“You’re not going to have one Republican vote,” he said. “And it’s already a hard number. Already the path is much more difficult for the Republicans. You just have to look at the maps.”

Trump: I think it’s going to be the last election that the Republicans can win. If we don’t win this election, you’ll never see another Republican and you’ll have a whole different church structure. You’re going to have a whole different Supreme Court structure. That has to do a lot with what we’re doing because the Supreme Court, as you know with Justice Scalia gone, I think you could probably have four to five judges picked by the next president. Probably a record number, David, probably a record number of judges. If they pick the super-liberals, probably to a certain extent, people that would make Bernie Sanders happy, you will never have a Supreme Court, we’re going to end up with another Venezuela, large scale version. It would be a disaster for the country.

Brody: Just so I understand, when you say last election are you referring to what Michele Bachmann was talking about with citizenship because Hillary is talking about potentially providing citizenship for many of these illegals. Florida and Texas could be gone.

Trump: I think this will be the last election if I don’t win. I think this will be the last election that the Republicans have a chance of winning because you’re going to have people flowing across the borders, you’re going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they’re going to be legalized and they’re going to be able to vote and once that all happens you can forget it. I guarantee you, you’re not going to have one Republican vote. And it’s already a very hard number. Already the path is much more difficult for the Republicans. You just have to look at the maps and the path is much more difficult.

Brigitte Gabriel: Stop Refugee Resettlement Because 'More Than 20 Percent Of Muslims Are Radicals'

The anti-Muslim group ACT for America is holding its annual conference in Washington, D.C., this week, where a major priority of the activists is to convince Congress to halt funding to the refugee resettlement program. In a speech to the conference yesterday, ACT’s founder and president, Brigitte Gabriel, said that this is critical because “more than 20 percent of Muslims are radicals” so allowing any Muslims to immigrate to the country, including through refugee resettlement, is like allowing the immigration of people who have a 20 percent likelihood of carrying a disease that is “fatal on contact.”

“Most experts agree that more than 20 percent of Muslims are radicals,” she asserted. “It is practically impossible to identify this group from the 75 or 80 percent who are not radicals. Impossible!” (In fact, “most experts” do not agree with this number.)

“So I’m going to give you an example,” she said. “Let’s say 20 percent of Chinese people are infected with a disease that is fatal on contact. Fatal on contact! Would we just continue to allow Chinese to enter America rather than be called ‘Chinaphobic’ or would we take the sensible approach of holding Chinese entering the country until we can figure out some way to know who was the carrier of the disease that was fatal on contact, such as suicide bombers or terrorists when it comes to the refugee population?“

“And we would want to check also the Chinese people who are already in the country to make sure they are not carriers of the disease,” she added. “That would be the sensible thing to do to protect the country and protect Americans. That’s why Trump’s approach makes sense. He cares about protecting Americans more than being called names. Let’s start being sensible and stop this political correctness that’s going to kill us.”

She urged ACT members, who headed to Capitol Hill today to lobby their members of Congress, to speak up against funding the refugee resettlement programs and “let these supposed nonprofit organizations who are religious charities, let them fund it out of their own pocket if they are so driven to bring refugees into the country.”

How Phyllis Schlafly Paved The Way For Donald Trump

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who died yesterday at the age of 92, was an early and ardent supporter of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, one of the few Religious Right leaders who embraced the thrice-married, brash business mogul before they were left with no other option.

Schlafly’s love of Trump was hardly surprising: For decades, she has fought to build a Republican Party that rejects immigrants, stirs up fears of communists (and now Muslims), condemns “globalism,” eschews “political correctness,” and does it all with the veneer of protecting the “traditional family.” Trump was the candidate she had been waiting for.

Schlafly got her start as an anti-communist activist in the 1950s and 1960s, defending Sen. Joe McCarthy’s notorious communist hunt until the end and canceling her subscription to The National Review when it denounced the conspiratorial anti-communist John Birch Society. In 1964, she self-published a book called “A Choice Not An Echo,” urging the GOP to reject moderation and back Sen. Barry Goldwater’s presidential run; that year, Goldwater lost the presidential election in a landslide but made an indelible impact on the Republican Party.

But Schlafly really made a name for herself as the nation’s most famous anti-feminist, leading the successful fight to stop the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. Throughout her career, Schlafly denounced “the feminists” and their goals, even as she became a successful career woman in her own right. (Schlafly’s niece later admitted that even as the activist exulted stay-at-home mothering as the natural role of women, she hired domestic help to help her manage balancing her career and childrearing.)

Through her group Eagle Forum, Schlafly remained active in a long list of conservative causes after the ERA was defeated.

Later in her career, Schlafly denounced equal pay legislation, saying that the “so-called pay gap” should actually be increased to help women find husbands who earn more than them. In 2007, she said that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife because “by getting married, the woman has consented to sex.” A staunch opponent of abortion rights, Schlafly founded the Republican National Coalition for Life to ensure that the GOP remained an anti-choice party.

Hand-in-hand with Schlafly’s anti-feminism was her staunch opposition to LGBT rights. One of her primary arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment was that it would eventually lead to marriage equality and other rights for LGBT people. Her views on the issue didn’t waver even after her son John, who remains active in Eagle Forum, was outed as gay.

In recent years, Schlafly turned much of her attention to fighting immigration, and particularly to fighting efforts within the GOP to be more welcoming to immigrants. After the Republican National Committee responded to Mitt Romney’s loss in the 2012 presidential election by issuing an “autopsy” report that urged the party to stop alienating Latinos, partially by considering immigration reform, Schlafly lashed out, saying that there was no hope for the GOP to win Latinos. Latinos, she said, don’t “have any Republican inclinations at all” because “they’re running an illegitimacy rate that’s just about the same as the blacks are.” She added that Latinos “come from a country where they have no experience with limited government. And the types of rights we have in the Bill of Rights, they don’t understand that at all, you can’t even talk to them about what the Republican principle is.”

Schlafly attacked President Obama for bringing in “foreign ideas and diseases and people who don’t believe in self-government” and repeatedly declared that current levels of immigration are destroying America. In response to people skeptical of Trump’s plan to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, Schlafly scoffed. “In my mind’s eye,” she said, “I see those railroad cars full of illegals going south. That’s what they ought to do.” Schlafly made clear that her objection was not to immigration in general, but to the fact that many immigrants were coming from Latin America, saying last year that while it is “quite true that America was built by hard-working people from all over the world,” today’s immigrants are “not the same sort” as the mostly European immigrants who flocked to the country in the early 20th century.

She tried to square this anti-immigrant sentiment with her Christian beliefs by claiming that the Bible’s demands of “kindness and compassion” to strangers do not apply to the government’s treatment of immigrants.

It’s no wonder that Schlafly loved Trump, who offered to deliver the Religious Right’s policy priorities while putting his heart into fighting immigration and stirring up fears of the supposed radical Muslim infiltration of America. Schlafly stuck with Trump, whom she introduced at a St. Louis campaign rally, even as her support for his candidacy helped to tear apart both her organization and her family. In the month's before Schlafly's death, her daughter joined other Eagle Forum officials in a lawsuit that seeking the ouster of Schalfly’s handpicked, pro-Trump successor. Fittingly, Schlafly’s final book was released today. It’s called “The Conservative Case for Trump.”

Trump may seem like something new in the political system, but he’s exactly the kind of candidate Schlafly spent her life priming the GOP to accept.

Michele Bachmann: Trump's Immigration Policies Will Turn America Back To God

Former congresswoman and current Donald Trump adviser Michele Bachmann hailed Trump’s recent speech on immigration yesterday, saying that she was cheering on her feet while watching his address.

Bachmann told Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins on his “Washington Watch” program that Trump “hit a total grand slam,” explaining that his policies of mass deportation, building a border wall and curtailing legal immigration will stop America from turning “against God.”

Bachmann explained that in order to turn the country back to God, we must abandon immigration policies that “prefer those who do not hold to a Christian worldview”:

We saw President Trump last night, very clearly. It was extremely presidential. But what he did was hit a total grand slam on what I believe is the most important public policy issue facing the nation. I think for your audience, for you and I, we recognize the number one issue facing this nation is a nation that has been turning its way against God, that’s number one, but number two in public policy would be immigration.

And why is that true? Because we have historically been a Judeo-Christian nation decidedly built on a biblical worldview and since 1965 America’s stated immigration policies have been to prefer those who do not hold to a Christian worldview and that’s had a profound impact on the United States.

FAIR: Educating Immigrant Children An 'Ongoing Assault' On America

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that has not only criticized the rights of undocumented immigrants but has also attacked U.S. policies on legal immigration, has found a new villain in its war on immigration: immigrant children who are learning English.

In a fundraising email today with the subject line “The dirty secret government doesn’t want you to know...," FAIR’s Dan Stein promotes an upcoming report from his group on “what every parent and taxpayer must know about immigration and the public education crisis,” which apparently will blame troubles in the public education system on the need to help immigrant children who are not yet proficient in English.

“You've probably read about the looming threats of attack from terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda,” Stein writes. “But government doesn't want you to find out about the ongoing assault right here at home on our public education system by skyrocketing immigration costs.”

Stein specifically objects to “unfunded mandates that require states to educate illegal aliens and their children” but also says that the money spent educating all immigrant children who are working to learn English “is diminishing the quality of education for all students”:

You've probably read about the looming threats of attack from terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. But government doesn't want you to find out about the ongoing assault right here at home on our public education system by skyrocketing immigration costs.

Currently, American tax payers pay $59.8 billion to educate Limited English Proficiency (LEP) public school students and an additional $43.8 billion to educate illegal aliens and their children. If we continue on this path, by 2018 we will need 82,408 more LEP teachers at a projected cost of an additional $6.3 billion.

Add it all up, and that's over $66.1 billion paid by American taxpayers to educate limited English speaking students by 2018! It's hurting the educational opportunities for all Americans.

With shrinking school budgets, the added intake of refugees, illegal aliens, and new immigrants is only creating more of a drain on limited funds and is diminishing the quality of education for all students.

FAIR is fighting to change this by speaking out against unfunded mandates that require states to educate illegal aliens and their children. At a time when immigration is at the forefront, we can't miss out on this opportunity to tell the untold story of immigration's part in the education crisis. With your contribution, you'll be making an impact on the future of America's education system and its youth.

(Emphases are ours.)

Eagle Forum President: 'You're Not Racist If You Don't Like Mexicans'

Ed Martin, the former chairman of the Missouri GOP who now runs Phyllis Schlafly’s group Eagle Forum, gave some interesting remarks about Mexicans and Muslims to a St. Louis area Tea Party rally over the weekend, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Ed Martin, who ran for Missouri attorney general four years ago and now is the chief spokesman and ally to conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, said at a Tea Party rally in the St. Louis area Sunday:

"You're not racist if you don't like Mexicans. They're from a nation. If you don't think Muslims are vetted enough, because they blow things up, that's not racist."

Martin told the Post-Dispatch in a written statement that his comments regarding Mexicans were aimed only at illegal immigrants.

Regarding his comments on Muslims, he said: "My point is that it is not racist to make clear that some Muslims should not be coming to America. They are not a race but a religion and there are white, black and brown Muslims and we need to make sure that the ones who wish us ill are not allowed to enter America."

Martin has been at the center of an ugly internal feud at Eagle Forum. Longtime board members, including some of Schlafly’s own children, have objected to her choice of Martin to replace her at the group she founded and to her endorsement of Donald Trump for president.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson will be headlining Eagle Forum’s upcoming national conference in St. Louis.

Anti-Immigrant Right Reacts To Trump's 'Softening' With Anger & Denial

Donald Trump confused his supporters and detractors alike this week when, after months of promising to build a “deportation force” to go after every undocumented immigrant in the country, his new campaign manager said that Trump’s stance on mass deportations is “to be determined” and the candidate himself said “there certainly could be a softening” of his immigration position. (Trump, however, continued to insist that he is “not flip-flopping” on the issue.)

This left Trump’s supporters in the anti-immigrant movement, many who have hailed his candidacy as something just short of the Second Coming, confused about how to respond. The reactions have ranged from denial that Trump will actually change his position—a fair assumption given Trump’s track record of saying whatever he thinks his current audience wants to hear—to dire warnings that he got behind “amnesty” to resigned acceptance that whatever Trump does, at least he’ll take a harder line on immigration than Hillary Clinton.

Some activists, like Trump himself, are claiming that he has not changed his position at all. Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson made this argument on CNN today, explaining that the candidate “hasn’t changed his position. He has changed the words he is saying.”

Dan Stein, the head of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform, took a similar tack, telling Newsmax that while Trump probably wouldn’t lose much support from his base if he weakened his hardline immigration stance, given the alternative candidates, he was “very confidant that [Trump’s] positions, in the end, are going to remain substantially intact.”

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian, meanwhile, claimed that Trump never actually meant what he originally said about creating a deportation force, claiming that the “deportation force” he promised was just “symbolic talk” for stricter immigration enforcement.

"The idea we were ever going to deport all 12 million in two years with deportation squads—or whatever [Trump] popped off about—was never a policy,” Krikorian told The Washington Times. “It was an Uncle George spouting off about the latest thing. I think a lot of people took that as symbolic talk, a way of showing he's serious on immigration and, ‘I'm not Jeb Bush.’’

Anti-immigrant flamethrower Ann Coulter similarly tried to downplay Trump’s attempted repositioning on the issue, telling the Washington Examiner in an interview that took place after Trump’s campaign manager’s comments but before the candidate’s own, that the campaign’s change in rhetoric isn’t “a change in policy.” But she also, stunningly, conceded that it may be “in our interest to let some [undocumented immigrants] stay.”

"It mostly worries me rhetorically ... I mean, what to do with the illegals already here was never really a big part of it," she said. "We're getting a wall. We're definitely getting a wall. That's the one thing we know about a Trump presidency."

She said Trump still offers more than any of the other Republicans had.

"I don't think it is a change in policy," she said of Trump. "The policy is anyone who's here illegally is here illegally, does not have the right to be here. We'll decide whether it's in our interest to let them stay or not. Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay."

Coulter hit a similar note in an interview with The Hill after Trump made his “softening” comment and vaguely outlined a policy in which some undocumented immigrants would have a way forward to legal status. “It's just rhetoric but it's still annoying,” she said. "I think he panicked and he had to say [it] ... I don't think he is softening. I mean the big thing is the wall.”

Coulter, however, who just happened to be launching her new book “In Trump We Trust” last night with a party hosted by Breitbart News, quickly changed her tune, taking to Twitter to accuse Trump of promoting “amnesty”:

William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC similarly cautioned Trump against supporting “amnesty,” saying, “If Donald Trump significantly diverges from his promise to deport all illegals, he will end his own campaign or his own presidency. His campaign or his presidency will be wounded to the point of self-destruction.”

Krikorian had a similar warning in The National Review today, saying that if Trump loses to Hillary Clinton now, it will be because of his “softening” immigration views.

Krikorian, however, told The Washington Times yesterday that he trusted Trump’s advisers (who include Krikorian) to steer the candidate back to a hardline position. “I don’t trust Trump, but I trust the people working for him. And I trust Hillary to do the wrong thing without exception,” he said. “He could sell us out on everything and he’d still be better than Hillary.”

UPDATE: Coulter, who recently said that her “worship” for Trump is “like the people of North Korea worship their Dear Leader,” told WorldNetDaily on August 25 that unlike “crazed, cult-like Hillary supporters,” she’s happy to provide “helpful criticism to Trump.”

“THAT DOESN’T MEAN I’M ABANDONING HIM,” she told the far-right outlet in all-caps.

“Trump needs to stick like glue to whomever writes his speeches and fire whomever told him Americans are up at night worried about the comfort and well-being of people who broke into our country illegally,” she added.

Trump's Dystopian TV Ad Cites Anti-Immigrant Group's Attack On DACA/DAPA

Donald Trump is out with his first TV ad of the general election, and it’s predictably despicable: an image of “Hillary Clinton’s America” being flooded with refugees and “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes” while “the system stays rigged against Americans.” The ad has drawn comparisons to the infamous anti-immigrant ad that California Gov. Pete Wilson ran in 1994 as he was trying to push through a ballot measure imposing draconian penalties on undocumented immigrants.

The ad, also unsurprisingly, cites the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the group whose reports provide a constant stream of ammunition to anti-immigrant politicians despite its troubling roots in white nationalism and history of skewing the facts.

The CIS citation comes about 10 seconds into the ad, when the narrator warns that in Clinton’s America, “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line.”

The ad’s citation appears to be referring to an April 14 CIS article on the implications of U.S. v. Texas, the Supreme Court case on President Obama’s DAPA and expanded DACA executive actions, which extended temporary deportation relief to some people brought to the country as children and some of their parents. This appears to be where the Trump campaign got the “collecting Social Security benefits” line, which it dishonestly links to its smear of “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes” (the DAPA and DACA programs bar people convicted of most crimes from eligibility). Those who receive eligibility to work under the programs do become eligible for Social Security, which they pay into like nearly every other American worker, under rules that existed long before President Obama took office.

It’s telling that the Trump campaign is getting its arguments about immigration policy from CIS. The group is one of a large network of anti-immigrant organizations started by John Tanton, an activist with white nationalist leanings and a troublingly extreme “population control” agenda including such things as supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.

CIS itself is more conservative in its rhetoric than its founder—allowing it to gain a foothold among members of Congress and others eager for research supporting an anti-immigrant agenda—but the agenda it promotes is one that demonizes immigrants.

As we noted in a recent report on CIS and its fellow Tanton-linked organizations, CIS has been a proponent of the idea “that instead of embracing a moderate position on immigration in order to win back Latinos who favored George W. Bush, the GOP should put its energy and resources into expanding its popularity and increasing turnout among white voters, in part by scapegoating people of color”—a strategy that Trump’s campaign is putting to the test:

CIS spokespeople regularly make this argument, along with another one that has long been popular among white nationalists: that Latino immigrants will never vote Republican because they are inherently liberal. During the debate over the “Gang of Eight” bill, CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian argued that the GOP shouldn’t bother trying to increase its share of the Latino vote because “generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats, and so the idea of importing more of them as a solution to the Republican Party’s problems is kind of silly.” In another interview, Krikorian argued that immigration reform would “destroy the Republican Party” and ultimately “the republic.” The next year, he charged that Democrats were using immigration as “a way of importing voters” and to “create the conditions, such as increased poverty, increased lack of health insurance, that lead even non-immigrant voters to be more receptive to big government solutions.” At one point, Krikorian told Republicans that they should oppose immigration reform simply to deny President Obama a political victory.

Steven Camarota, the research director at CIS, has said that the current level of legal immigration “dooms” conservatives. Stephen Steinlight, a senior policy analyst at CIS, has said that immigration reform would lead to “the unmaking of America” by “destroying the Republican Party” and turning the U.S. into a “tyrannical and corrupt” one-party state. He explained that Latinos aren’t likely to vote Republican because they “don’t exemplify ‘strong family values,’” as illustrated by high rates of “illegitimacy.” More than a year before Donald Trump made national headlines by calling for a ban on all Muslim immigration, Steinlight said that he would like to ban Muslims from coming to the country because they “believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution.”

Steinlight summed up the argument in 2005, when he said that immigration threatens “the American people as a whole and the future of Western civilization.” More recently, Steinlight told a tea party group in 2014 that the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill amounted to “a plot against America ” because it would turn the U.S. into a Democrat-led “one-party state” where citizens would “lose our liberty” and “social cohesion.” Steinlight has happily fed into some of the more vitriolic tea party hatred of President Obama, saying that the president should not only be impeached for his handling of immigration, but that “ being hung, drawn and quartered is probably too good for him .” On another occasion, Steinlight said that he’d like to attack religious leaders who support immigration reform with “a baseball bat.”

Michael Savage: 'Demonic' Obama Turning America 'Into A Muslim Nation'

Yesterday, conservative talk show host Michael Savage railed against nonprofit groups involved in resettling refugees, claiming that they are only interested in “raking in the money that’s being thrown at them by the federal government under that demon in the White House, Barack Obama, who wants the country fundamentally transformed into a Muslim nation, he wants it looking like Indonesia rather than like America.”

“The man is demonic in his desire to alter the landscape of this country in a way that no one will ever believe happened,” he said, adding that African Americans “are going to be the biggest losers of Obama’s policies.”

Savage said that “the progressive haters of America have sold us the false notion that multiculturalism is a good thing” and “we are being overrun by invaders, not immigrants; they refuse to learn the language, they hate the culture, they spit on the American flag, they don’t know what the Bill of Rights means and they can care less.”

He regretted that immigrants today aren’t like the Sicilian immigrants of prior decades, despite the fact that Sicilian immigrants were once maligned in the same manner that Savage attacks other immigrants and refugees.

GOP Senate Candidate: Trump's Wall Is A 'Euphemism,' Won’t Actually Get Built

Far-right Arizona Senate candidate Kelli Ward acknowledged last month that Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along the border with Mexico — which was recently added to the Republican platform — is merely a “euphemism” for other anti-immigrant policies.

Ward, who is challenging Arizona Sen. John McCain from the right in the upcoming GOP primary, is just the latest anti-immigrant conservative to admit that Trump is unlikely to actually build the wall he has promised his supporters.

In a July 26 interview with Tucson radio host James T. Harris, Ward claimed that when Trump talks about a wall he is actually talking about draconian policies such as ones preventing undocumented children from attending public schools are accessing health care:

Now, I’ll tell you, I’m ready to mix the mortar to fix the border, I’m ready to go in there and join Donald Trump. And when he says we want a wall, I think it’s a euphemism for securing the border. He means we need a barrier, I think we do need a physical barrier in some places, but also that we have to utilize technology, we have to utilize our people, we have to empower our border patrol to stop people from coming in and we have to turn off the goodies — that’s what Dr. Carson used to say when he was on the campaign trail — turn off the jobs, turn off the free education, health care, housing, free money, and let people know there are consequences to coming here illegally rather than rewards.

Louie Gohmert: Democrats Are 'Manipulating African-Americans,' Using Immigrants To 'Ruin' America

Today on “Breitbart News Daily,” GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said that Democratic Party under President Obama “is not that much different from the Democratic Party 50 years ago that was out to manipulate African-Americans.”

“They’re still manipulating them,” Gohmert said.

The Republican congressman also criticized Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is facing a GOP primary challenge from the right, claiming that the immigration reform legislation McCain has championed in the past “will turn Texas blue, and that’s what the Democrats want, it will basically ruin Arizona when you have people that come in that don’t understand what it takes to maintain a republic.”

Former GOP Congressman: Learning Spanish Is 'Cultural Surrender'

J.D. Hayworth, a former Republican congressman from Arizona who now hosts a program on the conservative Newsmax network, said on his program yesterday that it is “cultural surrender” for Americans to learn Spanish.

Hayworth, discussing the Democratic National Convention with anti-immigrant leader Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, played a clip of Dreamer activist Astrid Silva speaking at the convention, where she warned that Donald Trump’s immigration plan amounts to “ripping families apart.”

“Hey, Dan, there’s just one thing about family reunification,” Hayworth said. “Families can stay together when they go back to their country of origin, can’t they?

“J.D., think about how offensive this is to the American people,” Stein responded. “The people who have crashed our borders come illegally, now have the temerity to interfere with our political system. Between the illegal aliens going out and get out the vote campaign for president Obama and the Mexican government using its consulates in this country to actually organize people to work on candidates, you have a gross interference in our political process.”

“We don’t owe this young lady anything as a nation,” Stein continued. “What we owe her is a certain amount of respect, which implies, one, addressing her in the English language, as she has to us. When politicians talk in Spanish to any constituency, they’re demeaning them by saying, ‘Oh, you can’t learn English.’”

“You know, it’s worse than that, Dan,” Hayworth said. “When I had some friends taking Spanish — and of course there’s a Spanish population in Arizona — I’d say to them, ‘Oh, you boys gonna go take your class in surrender?’ Because it’s a cultural surrender, part of the mindset.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious