New Mexico Mayor Reveals An Immigration Fact That Is Causing Outrage


Not only has nearly every illegal immigrant held at a temporary detention facility in Artesia, New Mexico, been released, they have also been given a bus or plane ticket to a location of their choosing, says the town’s mayor.

The temporary facility in Artesia was opened by the Department of Homeland Security in June to hold people who travel across the southern border illegally from Mexico and Central America. But Philip Burch, the Mayor of Artesia, said on Newsmax TV’s America’s Forum Thursday, “We have ceased calling it a detention center because there’s not very much detention going on.”

Burch said 513 detainees have been released into the United States, while only 35 were deported, citing figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Associated Press (AP) reported Tuesday the Artesia facility will close by the end of December, making way for a new facility in Dilley, Texas. There is also one in Pennsylvania.

In a separate interview with KSVP radio in Artesia last week, Burch said, “I keep thinking of [Department of Homeland Security] Secretary [Jeh] Johnson’s comments when he visited here in July, when it was first starting to get going. He described Artesia as going to be a ‘rapid deportation’ site.”

But Burch asserted on America’s Forum that illegal immigrants were being released into the United States.

“What we are seeing is immigrants being detained and brought to this site when they cross the border only to be housed, fed, clothed, 24 hour a day medical services, and even schooling, and then be released into the United States. If that is going to be the ultimate outcome, it seems like we should just let them go at the border.”

Burch also told Newsmax TV the detainees are taken to a bus stop or the airport to go to a destination of their choosing, typically out of state.

He added, “If the result is going to be that 95 percent end up being released rather than deported, it makes little sense to me to spend the millions of dollars to [detain] them for a short period of time, only to release them into the general public.”


h/t Breitbart

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Reform Immigration By Encouraging High-Skill Immigrants


“When the facts change, I change my mind,” economist John Maynard Keynes said when charged with inconsistency. “What do you do, sir?”

As President Obama threatens to stretch his power to faithfully execute the law to a breaking point by effectively legalizing some 5 million illegal immigrants, perhaps I owe readers an explanation of my own changes of mind on immigration.

I tended to support the so-called comprehensive immigration bills passed by the Senate in 2006 and then rejected by the Senate in 2007, due to missteps by new Majority Leader Harry Reid. But I think the similar bill the Senate passed in 2013, which never came forward in the House, is a wrongheaded approach.

Why? Because the facts changed.

When the 2006-07 bills were drawn up, just about everyone assumed that the surge of both legal and illegal immigration from Latin America, mostly from Mexico, would continue indefinitely. With low unemployment, it seemed there was demand for the mostly low-skill workers that would keep arriving.

Economists skeptical of immigration could point to only small downward pressure on low-skill wages in the United States as a result. Otherwise, the economy benefited. The need, then, was to regulate this flow by securing the border and improving workplace enforcement. Technological advances seemed to make this possible.

But even as Reid was killing a bill that could have passed the House and was supported by President George W. Bush, the facts started changing. Housing prices peaked and started falling. Mortgage foreclosures climbed, and a vastly disproportionate number of them struck Hispanics.

The surge of Latin immigration, which had grown in the 25 years from 1982 to 2007 — the same span of time as the huge surge of internal migration of Southern blacks to the North from 1940 to 1965 — suddenly ended. Net migration from Mexico to the United States between 2007 and 2012 was zero, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States fell.

The economy dived into a recession, followed by years of agonizingly sluggish economic growth. Most Americans think the recession is still on. The demand for low-skill workers has plummeted. The need for high-skill workers with the potential to increase overall productivity has increased.

With the midterm elections over, Obama is itching to effectively legalize millions of mostly low-skill illegals — one aspect of the 2006-07 and 2013 bills that the nation clearly doesn’t need in 2014.

Back in 2006-07, I argued that providing a path to legalization for illegal immigrants would not incentivize further illegal immigration because the surge of Latin immigration would continue one way or the other. But the surge is over. Last summer we saw how the prospect of legalization — Obama’s 2012 “Dreamers” executive order — incentivized a surge of illegal Central Americans across the Rio Grande. The facts changed, undermining my own argument.

American immigration law is an accretion of old statutes. Latin and Mexican immigration surged despite low quotas in the 1965 act because of the family reunification provisions carried over from an earlier 1924 law. But America’s economy doesn’t need more low-skill collateral family members now.

High-skill immigration is channeled through H-1B visas established in earlier law. These tend to tie high-skill immigrants to particular employers. The high-tech lobby pushed relentlessly for more H-1B’s in the 2006-07 and 2013 legislation. Comprehensive immigration bills are a deal among lobbyists: legalization for the Hispanic lobby, H-1B’s for the high-tech lobby, other provisions for other lobbies.

A better idea is to start all over again rather than patching immigration acts that are now 90, 49, and 28 years old. The United States should follow the successful examples of our Anglosphere cousins, Canada and Australia. They reserve most immigration slots for high-skill applicants who qualify under their point systems. The result: They have more immigration than we do as a share of their populations, and they also have higher test scores and more economic growth. Conservatives might note that both have conservative governments.

America always needs high-skill immigrants. And we don’t need to tie them to specific employers. Let them make their way in what is still, despite over-taxation and over-regulation, our free enterprise system. The country will be richer for it.

There is something in a high-skill immigration system for both political parties. Republicans could talk about whom they’d let in, not whom they’d keep out. Democrats could finally endorse a policy that would produce economic growth.

All high-skill immigration policy lacks is a lobby. Maybe some members of Congress will step forward and fill the gap.



Photo Credit:

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Top US Military Commander Just Gave This Prediction For How Long ISIS War Will Last


Facing serious challenges for funding the many conflicts the U.S. is now involved in around the globe, America’s top military commander says the fight against ISIS will need more money and resources than are now committed in the Pentagon’s 2015 budget.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, says the U.S.-led effort to destroy Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria will likely last beyond Barack Obama’s presidency — taking up to four years.

Via the website, here’s what else Gen. Dempsey said about that 4-year timeline for the ISIS fight:

The general pushed back against criticism that the administration doesn’t have a strategy for the mission, known as Operation Inherent Resolve.

“But here’s what I’ll tell you about the strategy – it’s going to change,” he said. “The objective is not going to change … I’m not obsessing so much about what’s in the middle.”

Just as Dempsey was issuing his forecast for the U.S. war against the Islamic State, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the American people must prepare for a long and difficult struggle against the forces of ISIS.

As noted on, Hagel made that statement in testimony before Congress:

The testimony of Hagel and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the top U.S. military officer, comes just days after President Barack Obama asked Congress for a new $5.6 billion plan to expand the U.S. mission in Iraq and send up to 1,500 more American troops to the war-torn nation, the Associated Press reports.

Hagel has also offered his eye-opening opinion of the strength and resolve of the terror fighters who have repeatedly dedicated themselves to prolonged attacks on Western nations.

A post on, Hagel said that the Defense Secretary says that he:

“…has never seen anything like ISIS before. It is very organized and its members are highly trained. It is well-funded, well-planned and, it is savage and merciless.”

Earlier this week, Western Journalism reported on President Obama’s admitting that he would change his mind and break his pledge of no U.S. combat “boots on the ground” in Iraq if ISIS were known to have acquired a nuclear weapon.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Once Again, Obama Playing With Constitutional Fire By Inviting Illegals

Photo credit: The Speaker (Flickr)

Earlier this week, President Obama made it clear that he will soon offer some form of limited amnesty to about five million foreign nationals who are currently living illegally in the United States. He will do so by issuing an executive order to federal officials who oversee immigration directing them to undertake a course of action that, if complied with individually by all persons whom he designates as eligible, will cause the federal government to remove the threat of deportation from those who meet the standards he will lay down.

Can he legally do that?

To address that question, we need to start with the principle that a presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional. The president has the legal power to defer deportations. The power is called prosecutorial discretion. This is a power traditionally recognized as inherent in the presidency that enables him to defer or modify all federal law enforcement.

The theory is that the president needs the ability to allocate resources as the changing times, emergent events, and public needs may require. Thus, he can, for example, defer prosecuting bank robbers and aggressively pursue drug dealers. That wouldn’t mean that all bank robbers would go free; it would mean that either state prosecutors would pursue them, or they’d wait for trials until the drug kingpins were caught and convicted. But he could set some free if he wished.

The check on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is gross abuse, which is typically demonstrated by either improper executive motive or effective nullification of law. I don’t know what the president’s motive is. If it is political, I suspect his efforts will backfire. He cannot grant citizenship or the right to vote.

If his motive is humanitarian or moral, I understand him. Under the natural law, people have the right to travel and live wherever they wish. The existence of our natural rights is not conditioned upon the place where our mothers were at the times of our births. And from a free market and historical perspective, immigrants have enhanced the economy as they move up the demographic ladder.

But the president’s behavior has serious constitutional dimensions that go far beyond the motives in his heart; and his oath is to the Constitution, not to his heart.

If the president nullifies deportations on such a grand scale that the effect is the nullification of federal laws, then he has violated his oath “faithfully” to execute his presidential obligations. The Framers required that every president swear to do his job “faithfully” to serve as a reminder to him that his job requires fidelity to the enforcement of laws with which he may disagree. The American people, Congress, and the courts need to know we have a president who will enforce the laws, whether he agrees with them in his heart or not. Without presidential fidelity to the rule of law, we have a king, not a president.

By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion constitutionally nullify a federal statute? No. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion effectively rewrite a federal statute? No.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them — particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has deferred some deportations. President Reagan deferred deportations for about 100,000 families of foreign nationals in 1987 under his reading of the congressionally authorized 1986 amnesty law, and President George H.W. Bush did so in 1990 for about 350,000 foreign nationals under his reading of the same law. Each of these was based on a principled public presidential reading of the words and purposes of a federal statute. Obama does not purport to read and interpret the current immigration law; rather, he effectively rewrites it.

What can Congress do? Congress can pass legislation to invalidate Obama’s executive actions. Yet even if it did so and overrode his certain veto, it has no assurances that Obama would be bound by the new legislation. He refuses to enforce the plain language of well-established and never judicially altered federal statutes. What assurances does Congress have that he would follow any new statutes that he has vetoed and that regulate his behavior?

Is the blanket refusal to enforce federal laws that profoundly affect five million persons — and in the process severely straining the social services of all 50 states — an impeachable offense? The president is playing with constitutional fire; and impeachment is the only constitutional remedy available, short of 25 months of a constitutional conflagration that he has ignited.


Photo credit: The Speaker (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Rand Paul And Other Republicans Are Preparing To Hold The Fed Accountable


Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate will soon be pushing for the “Audit the Fed” bill to pass. Representative Thomas Massie (R.-Ky.) will introduce the bill in the House, and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will introduce the bill in the Senate. Paul said in an interview this week that he intends to introduce the bill in January.

With Mitch McConnell’s ascent to the majority leader position in the Senate, there is a stronger chance for the bill to be passed by both houses of Congress.

Represenative Massie said:

“I think our odds keep improving. His [Rand Paul’s] profile will be raised as he runs for president, which bodes well for this bill, and his relationship with Sen. McConnell I think bodes well for this bill in the Senate.”

The bill was originally designed by Ron Paul, Rand Paul’s father. It passed the House 333-92 in September.

McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said in an email that McConnel “supports the bill, he’s a co-sponsor.”

Fed chairman Janet Yellen strongly opposes the bill and thinks it would threaten the central bank’s independence and make it subject to “political pressures.”

Paul Broun, who introduced the bill in the last Congress, takes a dramatically different position:

“It’s absolutely imperative that we get a transparent, full audit of the Fed so the American public can know what is going on with this entity. Members of Congress are more and more beginning to see how critical it is.”

What do you think? Should “Audit the Fed” be passed? Does it expose a little-known-about public-private institution? Or does it threaten the Fed’s ability to conduct monetary policy? Let us hear your thoughts.


h/t Politico

Photo Credit:

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom