The only word that describes the Biden administration is “absurd.” We have a “Government of the Absurd.”

The U.S. government spins its every statement in the hope citizens believe what is not true. Its political language is doublespeak. Words used by politicians no longer have meaning. There is no longer any communication between us and those running our government.

With 338 million people in the U.S., we elected a man described as “Sleepy Joe Biden.” He is gaffe-prone— decades of gaffes insulting blacks, Indians, women, disabled, to name a few. He also has a lifetime of plagiarism starting with law school papers and continuing onto the Senate floor and presidential campaigns. He refuses to answer questions from the press so he does not embarrass himself. Worse, when he finishes whatever he has to say, he turns his back not only on reporters but the American people as he leaves the room. When he does answer questions on policy matters, e.g., the infrastructure deal with Congress, his staff makes later announcements to “clarify,” i.e., “reverse” his “statements.”

These are his good days. On his bad days, he gets lost walking around the White House. And worse days may come as Russia builds its military forces on the Ukrainian border and China develops a hypersonic missile capable of surprise attack on the U.S.  And, while China patiently waits for the winter Olympics to be over, experts predict it will soon take over Taiwan.

The only person saving Biden from the Constitution’s 25^th Amendment (inability to discharge duties of the Office) is his vice president who seems even less “with it” than he. Recent polls find her approval rating at 28%, which is lower than Dick Cheney’s when he was waging war with the world. Even Democrat’s do not support her to run for president in 2024 or ever. Fortunately, for “Cackling Kamala,” she follows Mark Twain’s sage advice, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”

A few of Biden’s policies illustrate his befuddlement in addressing human events.

Afghanistan

Biden secretly withdraws our troops protecting Bagram Air Base without telling the Afghans or our allies, surrenders Afghanistan to the Taliban, and orders the withdrawal of military troops before removing the civilians they are protecting. Biden’s secret withdrawal leaves thousands of Americans and our allies at the mercy of the Taliban. After a public outcry, a day later, he sends troops back to Afghanistan to airlift Americans and Afghan supporters out of the country. The airlift is chaotic, taking anyone the Taliban would let into the airport, not necessarily those who helped us. Biden’s goal is a press release puffing his feat as the biggest airlift in history.

In the middle of the chaos, the Washington Post reports the Taliban offered the U.S. control of the city of Kabul until the Americans left. This offer would have allowed U.S. soldiers to evacuate all Americans and Afghans who wanted out. General McKenzie, with orders from Biden to secure only the airport, refuses the offer and secures only the airport.

These actions are all in addition to leaving tens of billions in equipment for the Taliban; thirteen fallen heroes and several hundred Afghans dead at the airport.

Tony Blair, former prime minister of Great Britain, termed Biden’s withdrawal, “imbecilic.”. Even the Democrat propagandist, The Washington Post, called “This a moral disaster…”

Immigration policy

According to the US Department of State, “the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined.” The U.S. has thousands of pages of policy on how citizens from other countries can legally enter the U.S. Rather than following U.S. law, the Biden administration abandons all legal procedures and encourages chaotic, illegal, immigration at the southern border.  Biden also puts the entire $53 billion per year cost of food, shelter, health care for up to two million illegals on the American people.

The open border allows immigrants to self-select who will enter the U.S. and empowers drug cartels to determine who they will help immigrate to the U.S.  Also contrary to U.S. criminal law concerning the illegal distribution of drugs in the U.S., the open southern border is a green light for drug smugglers, resulting in a 233% increase in illegal drugs from Mexico, Central America, and China.

Surrenders’ energy dominance

At the end of the Trump administration, the U.S. was the dominant energy producer in the world. Trump embraced expanding the nation’s production of fossil fuels, oil and gas exports to our allies, lower energy prices, drilling on federal lands, and imposed sanctions on Russia’s proposed Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany, thereby preventing Russia from selling its oil in Europe.

In Biden’s first days in office, he terminates the Keystone pipeline, and drilling on federal lands, while removing Trump’s sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. Biden so greatly restricts the production of U.S. oil and gas he is forced to beg Saudi Arabia and OPEC to increase production to avoid serious economic disruption. Biden’s cuts in oil and gas production increased the price of gasoline by 40% in seven months. Worse, sanctions on the Russian pipeline allow Russia to enter the European market. If Biden cannot make U.S. energy policy more aburd, he is now, in the middle of high energy prices and less production, considering shutting down the pipeline from Michigan to Canada, which will also directly impact supplies in  Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, as well as Canada, this winter.

Masks— To wear or not to wear, that is the question!

Biden’s Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) tells us masks are not needed. Then it recommends we all wear masks. Then tells us if we are fully vaccinated, we do not need to wear masks. Then abruptly recommends vaccinated, unvaccinated people, and school children need to wear masks. Finally, Biden orders all federal employees, except postal workers, and employees of large businesses are vaccinated or be fired.

The constantly changing CDC guidance and mask mandates leaves the public confused, irritated and some rebellious, while our great Democrat leaders, who imposed the mask mandates, hit the birthday dinner circuit (Gov. Newsom)’ Obama’s birthday bash;  a $29,000 per person campaign dinner (Speaker Pelosi); a hair salon (Speaker Pelosi); White House events (Speaker Pelosi), and participate in large protests  (Chicago Mayor Lightfoot), all without wearing masks. Most telling is AOC in her white gown, people lifting her dress up a staircase, at the Met Ball, which should be referred to as the Hypocrites Dance. She is not wearing a mask but all the staff and waiters are masked so as not to harm the “dignitaries.” It Seems the government mandates are for us commoners, not the “Big guys” Who always have an excuse for not wearing a mask.

Biden proves his contempt for our dead heroes.

During the solemn ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base where the bodies of the fallen heroes were repatriated, Biden is photographed checking his watch as each body is taken off the plane. A father of one of the heroes stated “In reference to the checking of his watch, that didn’t happen just once. That happened on every single one that came out of that airplane. It happened on every single one of them. They’d release the salute, and he’d look down at his watch – on all 13 he’d look down at his watch.’

When stupidity turns into absurdity!

“The National Archives Records Administration has placed a ‘harmful language alert’ (trigger warnings) on records in the website’s catalog concerning the nation’s founding documents (i.e., the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence).”

The NARA statement warns readers our founding documents contain “…some content that may be harmful or difficult to view.”  The language “… may reflect outdated, biased, offensive and possible violent views and opinions.”

When the Constitution of the United States becomes an offensive document to the President of the United States, the person constitutionally responsible for executing the laws of the nation, we certainly have a government of the absurd.

When absurdity turns to killing civilians!

After the wacky surrender in Afghanistan, our fearless commander-in-chief needed to prove his manhood by proving he could take on terrorists. So, from “over the horizon” he launches a drone attack on high-level “state terrorists.” He brags for days how he “took action.” A week later it turns out  Mighty Joe Biden killed at least “10 Afghan civilians, including seven children—but not an Islamic State terrorist.”

The Biden administration is full of surreal characters whose worthless purpose in life is to foster their illusions of self-importance to America.  The beliefs of the president and his advisors, do not correspond to life experienced by Americans.  The Biden administration is a staged event. Nothing about it is real. There is no president. There is only some unknown person behind the screen, huffing and puffing to create the perception America has a president.

Perhaps the Biden administration is not a Government of the Absurd, it is the real Theatre of the Absurd and we have three years more of drama.

Image: Gage Skidmore (modifications by TLR).

The post The Government of the Absurd appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Recently, Senators from across the political spectrum introduced the America’s CHILDREN Act, a bill that allows kids who came to America legally with their parents to permanently stay here after they graduate college. 

If you thought this was basically the law already, you wouldn’t be alone. “Why don’t you apply for citizenship,” is a frequent question these kids have been getting their whole lives. The answer is that they can’t—even though they’re here legally. Our system currently causes their legal status to expire the day they reach adulthood. They can remain compliant with the law either by “self-deporting” to their birth country or by switching to a student visa, in which case they may still be forced to leave after graduating. 

How exactly did this happen? There are two ways that people wind up in this predicament. One has to do with the fact that many temporary visas make it effectively impossible to apply for a green card. Visas for business investors and professionals from NAFTA countries, for example, require the applicant to promise that they don’t intend to stay in America permanently. The issue is that if they are running a successful business or remain gainfully employed, they can keep renewing their visas when they expire every few years. The kids they brought with them, however, can’t because their visa automatically expires when they turn 21. This was originally meant to prevent people from bringing over their “adult children.” 

The more common way, however, for children to “age out” of their visas is due to the crisis level backlogs in the green card system. Due to a bizarre legal provision that caps the number of green cards allotted to applicants of each country by 7% of the total available each year, Indians, which have constituted the vast majority of employment green card applicants, are now literally waiting decades in line. Because most of these green card applicants are already in the country on the H-1B visa for temporary skilled workers, businesses who wanted to keep their employees weren’t able to as the green card backlogs for Indians grew. 

Congress tried to address this problem in 2000 by allowing people to extend their H-1B past the 6-year limit if they have a pending green card. But this reform happened at a time when the backlogs still appeared manageable. But now, these applicants are waiting a lifetime, and because the children they brought with them are still on the same visas, they get kicked out of the green card line they were waiting in with their parents. 

There are roughly 200,000 children of temporary visa holders in the U.S. According to an informal survey from the advocacy group Improve the Dream, their average age of arrival was five years old, and they’ve been in the country an average of 15 years. Many of them have no memory of their birth country, which puts them in a similar situation as Dreamers. The only difference is that they have documented status. As such, they refer to themselves as “Documented Dreamers.”

While the group was largely ignored by Congress, advocacy from Improve the Dream finally gave Documented Dreamers a seat at the table. Their problem has attracted an unlikely assembly of support, with libertarian-leaning Rand Paul (R-KY) and progressive Alex Padilla (D-CA) leading the effort. The two are joined by moderates Susan Collins (R-ME) and Chris Coons (D-DE). 

If passed, the bill would prevent the aging out of children brought by their parents on temporary visas. When the child turns 16, they’ll also be eligible to work, something that current law doesn’t allow for them. Additionally, the bill will allow Documented Dreamers to apply for their own green cards after graduating college.

This bill is projected to be a net surplus for the U.S. by allowing firms to better retain highly skilled workers and their families. Opponents of the bill will decry this bill as a windfall for “cheap labor,” even though temporary visa holders earn 29% higher salaries than Americans of the same occupation, education, and experience level. Research has also revealed that fewer temporary visas have even caused U.S. firms to offshore more jobs to China, India, and Canada so they can maintain access to the talent they need. 

This is a sensible bill that should earn any reasonable person’s support. In fact, most people probably already think it’s law.

Image: Gage Skidmore (Rand Paul)

The post Rand Paul and Alex Padilla Bridge the Divide to Help “Documented Dreamers” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Beck described the perilous journey of an unnamed 23-year-old Cuban mechanic who braved the trip from Cuba to the U.S. to escape Communism twice, only to be deported and back on Cuban soil four days after risking life and limb trying to make it to America.

“I want you to think about that; how hard is it for you to leave your friends, your family, and your job for something that you know. You’re moving to Denver; you’re moving someplace else. Think about the pressure that is on you, think about the butterflies that you have in your stomach. About finding new doctors, a new school for your kids, a new job, new friends. I don’t want to leave my friends—my family is all here. Now imagine you’re going to a place where you can never go back. You’re not going to see your parents and your friends,” Beck told his listeners.

Glenn called out the Biden administration and the Left for allowing immigrants to flood the country with no discrimination while refusing to allow Cubans in the country who are attempting to flee the country’s Communist regime.

He quoted the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, saying that he understood its true meaning. Beck suggested that one day Leftists might claim the monument was a symbol of hate.

Beck also called on Republicans to fly to Miami and to invite Democrats to come along to stand arm-in-arm with the Cuban people who love America.

“This might piss a bunch of people off, but what do I have to lose? I’d leave this country in a heartbeat. I’d renounce my citizenship in a heartbeat. I’d take down my American flag in a heartbeat. If you could come up with something better. If you had someplace or something, some idea that had a better mission statement than the Declaration of Independence and you had a better Constitution than this one, and you had people who were like our pilgrims and many of our founders— they were in it for people and freedom. I’d go, but so far that offer hasn’t come up.” Glenn said Monday.

Listen to Glenn’s full monologue here below:

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post Glenn Beck Says He’d Leave America If There Was Something Better appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Border Officials Release Photos And Video Of Migrant Processing Centers appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Following her viral rise, she created a Twitter account to post photos and updates for her followers.

As of Friday November 6th, Kiara has resigned from the Border Patrol citing harassment from within the agency. She took to Twitter stating:

“I have resigned from my duties. Like I said. Don’t stay anywhere you aren’t valued, appreciated, or respected. On to bigger and better things.”

Her resignation letter addressed to the Port Director at the Laredo, Texas Port of Entry reads:

I, Kiara De Leon, have been in Federal service as a Customs and Border protection officer at the Laredo Port of entry for almost 5 years. During my time at the Port of Laredo, I have been sexually and emotionally harassed, demoted from a temporary duty assignment, and cyberbullied. Up to today none of my concerns have been resolved. I have gone through several departments from in house management, JIC, and OIG. My concerns still go unanswered as if I never voiced them or been heard. I am writing this memo to be transparent as to what led me to leave a federal career during a pandemic. I am also writing this memo to advise the port of Laredo in how management failed miserably in addressing all these sensitive and serious issues. I am very disappointed to how these incidents were handled, and wish you all could have handled this in a professional manner and in a fair way regardless of my sex or your own opinion towards myself.

Since 2019, I have felt I have been a target at the Port of Laredo. From management to my fellow coworkers, they have expressed vulgar comments and looked down on me which reflects on my performance by not teaching me or explain my daily duties. From 2019 to the end of 2020, I have experienced the following:

On May of 2019, I was sexually harassed by APD [redacted]. I was assigned [redacted] at Gate Way of the Americas Bridge 1[redacted]. APD [redacted] approached me and asked me in his own words if I had work done and pointed to my chest area. I was in a state of shock when he continued and asked me to stand up and tighten my shirt so he could see, because he couldn’t tell. That same day, I shared my shock and discomfort with a fellow officer which advised me to report it, but I felt mortified and did not report it that same day. Within that same week, I went to my union and told them what happened with APD [redacted]. The Union President advised me to report it but at that point in time I had just returned to full duty and I felt embarrassed in reporting the encounter, being that this individual was high up in management. Once I got the courage to report the incident, management questioned as to why I was reporting at that point in time. Management also suggested if we had a previous friendly relationship that would have led him to feel comfortable in asking. I expressed my concerns to upper management and investigative departments that I did not want this to happen to another female officer and it is hard to come out and voice something that happened in a safe work environment in a male dominant occupation.

On July of 2019, I was stationed in McAllen, TX on a [redacted] to help out Border Patrol with the [redacted]. Vice President Pence was visiting the station and the media filmed the sight. Within the same week, a video clip of me in the background of Vice President Pence went viral on the internet and I was being called “Ice Bae.” My superiors addressed the issue and asked me to sign a cease and desist in which I was to “stop whatever I was doing.” In conclusion, DHS decided to forcibly remove me from my temporary duty assignment against protocol. They gave no explanation and did not take responsibility for their breaking of policy.

On August of 2020, I was being harassed by my fellow officers on social media and at the work place. Two male officers kept on posting “meme” on a social media platform and saying comments out loud in a work environment regarding my business aspect that I approached. Every day or other day they would post derogatory images with phrases that was targeted towards me. After weeks of harassment, I contacted the union regarding these issues but they stated without actually saying my name, it is not a claimed harassment. I was to the point that I broke composure and I responded on one of the images that an officer posted on social media. The male officer complained to management and Work Liaison Unit called me in and told me to cease and desist my actions against him and that I was being investigated for my actions. When I expressed my concerns regarding how the male officers were treating me, WLU stated “you are better than that.” Which made me believe that a male can say whatever they like but when a female voices out, it is called harassment. I attempted to file EEO against my port for gender discrimination but decided it was for my well interest to just remove myself from the situation entirely due to my past experiences and ultimately to resign.

During my line of duty, I have expressed excellence, integrity, and protected the United States from terrorists. I am requesting to leave 1 to 2 years from Custom Border Protection as an officer to re-evaluate my mental and physical health regarding the last two years, from sexual harassment to being cyberbullied by my colleagues. I would also like to request [redacted]. I am grateful this agency has given me an insight of immigration to custom enforcement and I am thankful for the opportunity. I hope if I do decide to return and I am granted the opportunity, that my future years as a Custom and Border protection officer are different.

Best Regards,

CBPO Kiara De Leon

The Libertarian Republic reached out to Kiara regarding her resignation. Due to the sensitive nature of her resignation she cannot elaborate further at this time. However she told The Libertarian Republic:

“The fact I spoke out against all this and they did absolutely nothing upsets me.”

It is indeed difficult to imagine even a friendly relationship being an excuse for a superior to request a visual breast examination of a subordinate.

The business approach she was harassed by officers for, outlined in her resignation letter, appears to be an Only Fans account under the handle icebae. This account began after she went viral.

The subscription to her account is free, and a review of the account reveals a handful of photos and videos free to view, but a number of photo sets require a one time purchase to view. She is also very upfront about her photo sets not containing any nudity.

The post “ICE Bae” Resigns From Border Patrol Citing Harassment appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Jason Hopkins 

• Chicago has emerged successful in its lawsuit against the Trump administration for attempting to withhold federal grant funds from sanctuary cities. 
• The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the administration’s threat to withhold public safety grants based on federal immigration policy was an overstep in its authority. 
• Chicago, a city that refuses to cooperate with federal immigration agents, sued the administration in 2017 when it first tried to make the funds contingent on adhering to immigration policy. 

The Trump administration cannot withhold grant money from cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

President Donald Trump’s threat to withhold public safety grants from jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), otherwise known as “sanctuary cities,” violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers provisions, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. The decision was the latest in the ongoing court battle between the Trump administration and the city of Chicago.

The executive branch’s authority on immigration policy does not include withholding funds from cities that were allocated from the legislative branch, the appeals court found.

“Such a concentration of power would allow tyranny to flourish, and our system of government is wisely set up by the Founders to foreclose such a danger,” wrote Judge Ilana Rovner, writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, in a 95-page ruling.

“The separation of powers is a foundation of our government, not a formality to be swept aside on the path to achieving goals that the executive branch deems worthy,” Rovner continued. “Rather than an exercise of authority granted to it by the legislature, the conditions imposed here are an executive usurpation of the power of the purse.”

The court battle dates back to 2017, when the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to withhold Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants from Chicago — a city that for years has refused to honor ICE detainer requests, share information, or otherwise cooperate with immigration agents. Then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel sued the DOJ in response.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Rahm’s successor and another major opponent of Trump’s immigration agenda, celebrated the court’s decision.

“When I got the news from our corporation counsel earlier this morning, I let out a cheer,” Lightfoot said, according to CBS Chicago. “This is a great victory, not only for Chicago, but for our immigrant and refugee communities everywhere in the country.”

The grant money at stake was a mere fraction of 1% of Chicago’s budget, but the drawn-out court fight indicated that the lawsuit was much more for Chicago leaders than receiving federal funds.

The Justice Department has the option of appealing the decision to the Supreme Court, where the administration has enjoyed more success with challenges to its immigration agenda, but it’s not clear yet how the DOJ will proceed.

Lightfoot is proud of Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city, and her administration has specifically instructed local law enforcement not to work with ICE agents in many circumstances. The city does not honor ICE detainer requests, and has even allowed illegal aliens charged of heinous crimes to walk free without notifying the agency — which has led to some gruesome consequences.

Chicago authorities, for example, refused to honor an ICE detainer request on an illegal alien in June 2019, and instead released him back into the public. That individual went on to allegedly sexually assault a toddler in a public bathroom.

In response to public backlash over the alleged assault, Lightfoot put blame back on ICE.

“They’re critical because we have said very clearly we are a welcoming city, a sanctuary city,” she said in February in response to accusations that her government could’ve prevented the crime. “Chicago Police Department will not cooperate with ICE on any immigration-related business.”

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Trump Loses Sanctuary City Fight With Chicago appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Jason Hopkins 

The Trump administration has expanded the “Remain in Mexico” program to include Brazilian nationals, the first non-Spanish speaking people placed under the program.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Wednesday that it expanded the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” to include Brazilian nationals. The directive has primarily focused on Spanish-speaking Central Americans; however, the number of Brazilians showing up at the U.S. southern border, DHS noted, has tripled in the last year.

The Remain in Mexico program, which the Trump administration rolled out in January 2019, requires foreign nationals seeking U.S. asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico for the entire duration of their court proceedings. This policy largely eliminates the possibility of “catch and release,” where migrants claim asylum in the U.S and authorities release them into the interior of the country on the premise that they will return for their court date.

The Trump administration — including every top immigration official — has touted Remain in Mexico as an essential tool in stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border. Border Patrol apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border have, in fact, dropped precipitously in the past seven months.

The announcement that the administration would subject Brazilians to the program fell on the one-year anniversary of the first individual required to wait in Mexico under Migrant Protection Protocols.

Ken Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary of DHS, hailed the expansion as a “BIG” move.

“Today is the one-year anniversary of the first person actually waiting in Mexico under MPP, aka, the remain in Mexico program. And on today’s 1 year anniversary, the first Brazilians were returned to Mexico to await their U.S. Immigration hearing. Adding Brazilians is BIG!” Cuccinelli tweeted Wednesday.

“Illegal Brazilians coming across our border have tripled in the last year! So having an outlet for them to wait outside the U.S. for their immigration hearings is super-helpful! (thank you Mexico!) This is yet another extension of the many options developed under [President Donald Trump],” he added.

Remain in Mexico has prevented a high rate of inadmissible asylum seekers from entering the U.S.

Officials have placed over 50,000 foreign nationals under the program, and immigration judges have granted a small fraction asylum. The small acceptance rate is a reflection of the high number of asylum seekers who are not actually in need of protected status, but are simply economic migrants hoping to land employment in the U.S.

This is not the only area where Mexico has proven to be an exceptional partner in managing illegal immigration. The Mexican government has gone to great lengths to prevent a migrant caravan from passing though its territory in order to reach the U.S. border, marking a sharp break its past engagements with migrant caravans.

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Trump Administration Begins Placing Brazilians Under ‘Remain In Mexico’ Program appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Jason Hopkins 

Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas, defended his governor’s decision to not accept refugees in 2020, noting that Texas has done more for refugees than any other state.

Paxton, who has served as the top lawyer for Texas since 2015, appeared on Fox News to discuss GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to not accept refugees, becoming the first governor in the country to take up President Donald Trump’s offer. Much like the governor’s own statement, Paxton argued that Texas has taken in more refugees over the years than any other state, and it was time for other states to “step up.”

“I think the message is pretty simple from the governor. Since 2010, in the letter he makes it very clear, we’ve allowed more refugees into our state than any other state. All the time we’ve been believing that Congress would fix our immigration problems, secure the borders. They haven’t done that,” Paxton said Tuesday on “Fox & Friends.”

“So we also have the border issue that we’ve been dealing with lots of immigrants coming in. And I think the governor is saying, ‘Hey, one — Congress, fix this. Two — it’s time for other states to step up and help with this. Texas has been doing their share for a long time,’” the attorney general continued. 

Trump issued an executive order in 2019 that gave authority to state and local governments over whether they would want to accept refugees. So far, roughly 40 states have signaled that they would keep accepting refugees. Abbott on Friday became the first governor to announce that he would put a plug on refugee resettlement.

Texas has accepted more refugees than any other state since fiscal year 2010, and about 10% of all refugees have been placed in the state, Abbott said. The Republican governor went on to argue in his public statement that Texas has had “to deal with the consequences” of a broken immigration system that Congress has failed to fix.

Paxton concurred, noting that other, non-border states are doing the “right thing” by taking refugees in. The decision to accept refugees is done on an annual basis and does not necessarily mean the Texas government will permanently ban them.

“We have done our share for a long time, and we’re going to continue to do our share given the fact that Congress is not reacting to the border crisis,” the attorney general said. “And I am thankful that the president is. We still have an issue on the border. We are still dealing with that every single day in all kinds of ways.”

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post ‘Time For Other States To Step Up’: Texas AG Explains Why The State Isn’t Accepting Refugees appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Jason Hopkins 

–  The New York Times editorial board interviewed Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, discussing a range of issue before the board decides who it will endorse in the 2020 Democratic primary. 

–  The board entered a back-and-forth with Sanders on the topic of illegal immigration, with members pointing out that he once said illegal immigrant labor leads to lower wages for U.S. workers. 

–  Sanders — who supports policies that would lead to large-scale legalization of illegal workers — claimed his previous position was “250 years ago” and that he would help the rights of all workers.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a supporter of border decriminalization and comprehensive immigration reform, acknowledged in an interview that illegal immigrant labor can lead to lower wages.

In an interview for the New York Times’ editorial board, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke about a range of political issues affecting the U.S. The interview — which was released Monday — is part of the editorial board’s decision process for making an endorsement in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. The board pressed the senator on a number of his positions — including immigration.

Sanders, when asked, reaffirmed his support for border decriminalization and his pledge to end all deportations — positions that immigration enforcement officials have said would lead to more illegal immigration. However, the board then reminded the senator that he once said illegal immigrants and guest worker programs lead to lower wages for low-skilled American workers.

“No, that’s what I said on the Lou Dobbs’ show 250 years ago, right?” Sanders answered. “It gets repeated a little bit. But look, I think if you look at the proposal that we have, and I speak as the son of an immigrant. What we are going to do — you asked me what we do in the first hundred days. I’ll tell you what we do on Day 1.”

The senator said, if elected president, he would give legal status to DACA recipients, attempt to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” and undo other Trump administration border policies. Sanders went on to say that he’s seen illegal immigrants get exploited by employers, and that he would work to end such exploitation.

“So, I think you’re raising an issue, though, that we don’t talk about a whole lot when we talk about immigration, and that is the exploitation of undocumented workers. If you don’t have any documentation, I could hire you for five bucks an hour and what recourse do you have?” Sanders said.

“But you don’t think that that exploitation results in lower wages for domestic workers?” Binyamin Appelbaum, a member of the NYT editorial board, then asked the senator.

The Vermont lawmaker answered in the affirmative.

“Sure it does. Right now, we have people who are being exploited. If you’re undocumented, and you’re being paid five bucks an hour, why am I going to pay her $12 an hour?” Sanders said.

This answer led to confusion between Sanders and the editorial board, with Appelbaum pointing out that the senator seemed to be reiterating his past position that the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor leads to lower wages for American workers.

Sanders clarified that he was speaking about how worker exploitation leads to lower wages for everyone, suggesting that the issue was much bigger than just taking advantage of illegal immigrant labor

With the exit of former HUD Secretary Julian Castro earlier this month, Sanders is left as perhaps the most progressive candidate among the 2020 Democratic candidates on the subject of immigration.

The self-described Democratic socialist released his immigration platform in November, pledging to not only end deportations and decriminalize illegal immigration, but also calling for the break up Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. He also wants to accept 50,000 “climate migrants,” provide sweeping amnesty to illegal aliens who’ve committed low-level crimes, and provide a pathway to citizenship for the county’s estimated 11 million illegal aliens.

However, before the onset of President Donald Trump’s administration, Sanders used to hold hawkish views of illegal immigration.

In a 2015 interview with Vox, Sanders referred to “open borders” as a “Koch brothers proposal,” adding that an open borders-level of immigration would lead to the erosion of the nation-state and “make everybody in America poorer.”

This had been a position he had held for many years. In a 2007 interview with then-CNN host Lou Hobbs, Sanders said the following: “I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now.”

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post Bernie Sanders Admits Exploitation Of Illegal Immigrant Labor Can Lead To Lower Wages appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Trade is better. When two people trade, they each benefit, and so that interaction is far more reliable than charity. Trade means each side brings something to the societal table. Trade means people are partners, not wards. It’s the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him to fish.

Open Borders Is a Kind of Trade

What’s true for fishing is true for immigration. So goes the argument of Open Borders: The Ethics and Science of Immigration, the recently released graphic nonfiction book by economist Bryan Caplan and illustrated cartoonist Zach Weinersmith (creator of the popular webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal).

People typically think of immigrants as charity: Letting people in is doing them a favor at our expense, akin to letting a friend crash on our couch or giving a man a fish. Not so. Through a combination of lively illustrations (it’s a literal comic book) and detailed analysis (with 30 pages of notes and citations), Caplan makes the compelling case that immigration isn’t really a form of charity at all. Open borders makes it easier to interact with whomever you wish. It’s a form of free trade.

Open Borders Is About Growth

Immigration restrictions mean that some people, by accident of birth, are trapped in oppressive or dysfunctional countries. A full quarter of American immigrants come from Mexico, with sizable populations coming from other parts of Latin America and East Asia. These countries, especially certain parts of those countries, are typically poor and typically unfree. Some are downright oppressive—immigrants brave the trials and tribulations of migration for a reason.

It’s a mistake to think of such individuals as inherently unproductive. They are merely trapped in unproductive countries. Allowing them to escape terrible circumstances that prevent them from realizing their potential empowers them and enriches the receiving country. Caplan cites research from economist Michael Clemens to estimate that world GDP would roughly double with open borders.

It’s important to not understate that finding. Doubling world GDP would be a tectonic shift in global well-being and would liberate the stifled potential of hundreds of millions. Thinking of immigration as merely doing something nice for others means we’re less likely to do it the moment it’s perceived as even mildly problematic. In economics-speak, too many think of immigration as a zero-sum game where the receiver benefits at the giver’s expense. That erroneous belief amplifies the risk of missing out on something amazing.

Imagine you thought foreign trade was an act of charity. You’d buy domestic goods and only “help” foreigners on occasions you happened to feel magnanimous. But once you realize you’re paying a premium for domestic goods, foreign trade no longer looks like charity. You’d have an incentive to regularly trade with foreigners and that regular interaction would enhance their well-being as well as yours.

Immigration is not charity. Immigration is a positive-sum game and it’s a game with benefits in spades.

The Cost of Open Borders Is Tiny

If the benefits of immigration are huge, what are the costs? The costs turn out to be tiny, and the bulk of Open Borders focuses on showing how minuscule the costs to immigration are. It’s hard to imagine a criticism that Caplan doesn’t put to bed.

“Don’t immigrants amount to a fiscal burden for everyone else?”

No. The vast majority of immigrants are working-age adults, and most government payouts go to senior citizens and kids. Even if immigrants use some government benefits when they arrive, an exhaustive 2016 report by the National Academy of Sciences finds that they more than pay for those government services as they age. Open borders is about the most fiscally sound policy America could adopt.

“Don’t immigrants commit more crimes?”

No. Natives are incarcerated at a higher rate than illegal immigrants (about double). and illegal immigrants are incarcerated at a higher rate than legal immigrants (about 2.5 times). What Caplan doesn’t mention is that this pattern of native rate > illegal rate > legal rate is true across all ethnic backgrounds.

“Don’t immigrants refuse to assimilate?”

No. Immigrants adopt their new country’s attitudes about trust and politics. First-generation immigrants may learn English slowly, but subsequent generations pick it up as easily as any kid learns a language. When immigrants don’t “assimilate,” it’s because market forces encourage them to share their culture: cuisine, clothes, music, film, dance, and so on. They’re a source of cultural cornucopia that natives love to trade with.

“Don’t immigrants’ lower IQs drag the country down?”

No. Even if new citizens cause average productivity to fall, that doesn’t cause current residents to be poorer. Quite the opposite: These first-generation immigrants will be many times more productive than before they moved, enriching whatever country is lucky enough to have them. Lower IQ rates among new immigrants largely stem from poor nutrition, health, and education in their country of origin. Coming to wealthier countries allows their children to grow smart and to prosper—prosperity the whole country benefits from.

Open Borders Brings Prosperity to the World

The costs of open borders are tiny, and the benefits are huge to both the country that accepts immigrants and the immigrants fleeing terror and poverty. It’s clear that open borders would enrich the world. If anything, Caplan understates the benefits of immigration.

People suffering under oppressive or inept governments have a hard time leaving. Entering the United States legally is virtually impossible, and it’s not much different for other wealthy countries. Entering illegally is dangerous, costs thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, and comes with the risk of deportation. With no easy option to flee, it’s no wonder gangs and corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries feel permitted to terrorize and extort locals.

Oppressors would think differently if people could leave at the cost of a plane ticket. Much like how companies serve customers because customers have the ability to shop elsewhere, governments would improve if citizens could fire them by leaving. Like monopoly power, immigration restrictions invite abuse. Imagine the kind of progress that could be made if billions of people weren’t trapped.

Open borders isn’t just about doing the right thing (though the book also makes a compelling ethical case for more immigration). Caplan and Weinersmith’s graphic nonfiction reminds us that we shouldn’t think of would-be immigrants as people to be pitied and coddled. They are untapped potential, and if they could be freed, they would help make the world a much better place. Similar to other freedom-focused ideas such as license-less work, free trade, and school choice, open borders isn’t just humane policy, it’s smart policy.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Image Credit: Macmillan Publishers

The post This Comic Book’s Persuasive Case for Open Borders appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.