Mexico says won't pay for Trump's 'terrible' border wall

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

ca.news.yahoo.com

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - There is no way Mexico would fund Donald Trump's "terrible" plan to build a wall along its border with the United States if the Republican front-runner wins the U.S. presidential election, the Mexican finance minister said.

Trump, the New York billionaire developer and former reality television star, sparked outrage in Mexico when he vowed to force Latin America's second largest economy to pay for a wall along the southern U.S. border to stem the flow of illegal immigration and drugs.

In a televised interview late on Wednesday, Finance Minister Luis Videgaray categorically rejected the proposal.

"Under no circumstance will Mexico pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing," he said. "Building a wall between Mexico and the United States is a terrible idea. It is an idea based on ignorance and has no foundation in the reality of North American integration."

Trump has accused Mexico of sending rapists and drug runners across the U.S. border and has vowed to increase fees on some Mexican visas and all border crossing cards as part of a broader plan to force Mexico to pay for the wall.

Former conservative Mexican presidents Felipe Calderon and Vicente Fox have compared Trump to Adolf Hitler while fears of a Trump presidency have helped stoke a spike in the numbers of immigrants trying to enter the United States.

(Reporting By Alexandra Alper; Editing by Simon Gardner and Bill Trott)

COMMENTS

Cruz and Rubio Eligibility Lawsuit Set for 11 AM, Friday March 4th in Florida

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Jim Hoft Feb 28th, 2016 11:48 pm 90 Comments

Guest post by Sarah Johnson

Although Florida media reported that Senator Marco Rubio’s parents were not US citizens when he was born, national media has largely avoided the topic.   Senator Ted Cruz’s status as a natural born Canadian and a number of related eligibility lawsuits were underreported nationally, until news hit that an IL judge was hearing one of the cases.  

Cruz’s lawsuits were filed in Florida,Vermont, Texas, Utah, Illinois, Arkansas,Alabama, New York, and Pennsylvania, and individuals who raised a ballot challenge in Indiana are weighing whether they’ll file suit.  

Cruz has a new IL court date March 1^st – Super Tuesday, a filing deadline on March 2^nd for the AR case after his requested extension was granted, and a joint court date with one Senator Marco Rubio on March 4^th in Rubio’s home state of Florida. Rubio’s pending lawsuits, court dates, and questionable defenses to the actions have been missing from the national discussion.

The initial narrative had Rubio’s parents fleeing Cuba’s Castro in 1959.   It was later revealed they’d arrived in America in 1956 instead.   Rubio’s parents did not become US citizens until nearly twenty years later, several years after Rubio’s 1971 birth.   Their status as Cuban citizens, not US citizens, at the time of Marco’s birth prompted his inclusion in the Florida,Vermont, Arkansas and Indiana suits and challenges above.

Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional and international law at Fordham Law School, explained a portion of the Originalist view of natural born citizenship, namely jus soli and jus sanguinis. As Mario Apuzzo elucidates:

“The historical and legal record demonstrates that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth alone, one must be born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth.  Indeed, a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.”

The motions filed in defense of Cruz and Rubio in Florida are available to the public through the Broward County Courtwebsite due to the state’s sunshine laws, Case # CACE15022044.   Each one stakes their claim on only one half of the historical natural born requirements. Rubio argues the only thing that matters is he “was born in the United States”, while Cruz argues the only thing that matters is his mother’s citizenship, although the bulk of both rely on attempts to stop the case from moving forward on technicalities vs merits. Stunningly, while both crisscross the country appealing to voters, both have now argued that voters have no recourse to challenge a candidate over ineligibility, that courts have no authority to rule on this Constitutional matter. Instead, both argue it must wait until they are elected as President/Vice President and then the legislative body where they’re employed at the will of The People, Congress, would determine whether they’re eligible and if not, choose their replacement. That does not sound like a Conservative, accountable to voters, Separation of Powers viewpoint. What’s worse is both US Senators are pursuing and defending their own ambitions for the Executive Branch in a way that undermines the Constitution and Founders’ Intent.

US SENATE OATH OF OFFICE

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The biggest bombshell in Rubio’s motion is its globalist, open borders tone, as he tries to distance himself from his previous amnesty push on the campaign trail.   Just like Obama, the Leftist media, and the Gang of 8, he chooses to ignore the difference between illegal aliens and legal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of the government, referring instead just to “immigrants” interchangeably with “foreign parents” and “noncitizen parents”, arguing wrongly that immigration status has nothing to do with it; any child born here is not only a US citizen, but also a Natural Born Citizen, capable of becoming President of the United States: “A natural-born citizen is one who is born in the United States regardless of their parents’ ancestry,” Rubio’s motion states.   Understand, he cannot argue illegal “dreamers” can become President and believe they are anything other than already US citizens with the right to vote and full government benefits.   This would also preclude deportation. Perhaps Florida’s familiarity with Marco, his eligibility issues and his affinity for amnesty after promising otherwise explain why he is twenty points behind the frontrunner in his own home state.

The hearing for the Cruz/Rubio eligibility lawsuit in Florida is set for 11 AM, Friday March 4^th

EXCLUSIVE - Mom Whose Son Was Tortured to Death by Illegal Endorses Trump, Says 'Pope Doesn’t Care About Me' - Breitbart

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.breitbart.com

In an exclusive telephone interview with Breitbart News, Laura Wilkerson, whose son was tortured to death by an illegal alien, explained why she cast her early ballot today for GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump.

“Trump will get in there and do something about [immigration]. I believe him. I want someone in there who has said they’ll do it and will do it… So many people stay home because it doesn’t affect them,” Wilkerson said. “And I understand that. I was the same way until [my son] Josh was murdered. But at some point, we have to close the door and deal with who we have here before anyone else comes.”

By contrast to her support for Trump, Wilkerson said that she “gave no consideration to voting Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)… I do not trust him for one second… He does not speak to the victims [of illegal alien crime],” Wilkerson explained. “Obviously, Rubio wants more immigration, no borders. That’s what his backers want and that’s the way he’s going to vote.”

Wilkerson, who described herself as a deeply religious person, defended Trump from the attacks by Pope Francis.

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard the Pope say one thing about our families [families who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal immigrants]. I’m not sure he understands the loss we have felt. Is he just ignoring that? It rubbed me the wrong way,” Wilkerson told Breitbart.

Wilkerson’s 18-year-old son Joshua was tortured to death by a so-called DREAMER — i.e. an illegal immigrant who allegedly came to the country as a minor. Wilkerson said:

I follow Jesus Christ. I still sin sometimes, but I follow Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, and I have sympathy for everyone. I think God asks me to love everyone. He created us all equal, but I do not think God is asking me to help a whole country. I don’t think I can do that. I do not think he wants us to give up our family– because that’s what has happened. It tore my family to shreds. I had a solid, 25-year marriage, and we lost our last child. I had a take-your-kids-to-church-small-bussiness-obeyed-by-all-the-rules family. And this tore it to shreds. There’s nothing about me that’s racist or non-sympathetic. I don’t care who you are, I want to help you, but not at the expense of my own family.

Wilkerson explained that wanting to defend America’s sovereignty and close the border does not make her “not Christian:”

I am a Christian… I know I’ll go to heaven when I die, just like Josh did when he died. The Pope’s comments rubbed me the wrong way. Everyone in religion knows that no one can judge what’s in a man’s heart. That’s one of the very first things you learn in your faith. No man can judge another man. That’s why the Pope’s comments rubbed me the wrong way. I did not like that… I believe we need to do what we can for other people, but not at your own family’s expense. God doesn’t call us to ignore our families. God doesn’t call us to take care of other families first, or help other families at the direct expense of our own… I believe in God, family, country.

Earlier today, Wilkerson says, “I voted for Trump. It was a long, hard decision for me, but I came to the conclusion that it was really the best way for me to go. I usually vote more with religion. It was a hard vote between Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), but I just feel like Donald Trump can get in there and do the things that need to be done quickly.”

Wilkerson made a point of noting that “Cruz was so kind to me when I testified about Josh’s death.” However, Wilkerson proceeded to explain that given her adamant desire to have a federal immigration policy that puts the interests of the American people first, she felt she had to vote Trump: “I realized that, having gotten into the fray of illegal immigration, this [voting for Trump] has to be my stance. It’s such chaos and I just believe that Mr. Trump will get in there and get it done quickly.”

Wilkerson said that she appreciated Trump’s full-throated support for law enforcement and American police officers, Wilkerson said: “I think everybody is starting to hear Trump [talk about immigration]. We know he’s recognizing problems that no one else will say. And I think the police — with the Black Lives Matter movement — feel undervalued, when they should be so overvalued. Our teachers, our policemen, the people who care for our children and our safety should be valued. There’s not one person who won’t call policemen when you need help. [When Josh was murdered], the policemen couldn’t have been any better to us. It was a terrible situation, but they could not have been any better to us.”

In stark contrast to her support for Trump, Wilkerson said she gave no consideration whatsoever to voting for Marco Rubio, pointing out that despite introducing multiple immigration expansion bills, he has not talked to the victims of illegal alien crime.

I gave no consideration to voting Marco Rubio. He was a Tea Party darling, who flipped and did the exact opposite of what he promised to do get elected. I do not trust him for one second. He never said one word to me, even after I testified. He does not speak to the victims [of illegal alien crime].

Wilkerson further explained that she was not surprised that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) — who has pushed to give citizenship to DREAMers like the illegal immigrant who murdered Wilkerson’s son — endorsed Rubio. She said, “I know why he threw his vote behind Rubio. Gowdy knows that Rubio is going to get in and do what he wants to do– which is open borders. Obviously Rubio wants more immigration, no borders. That’s what his backers want and that’s the way he’s going to vote.”

Wilkerson put forth a challenge to Gowdy and Rubio, who both have pushed for open border immigration policies: “I would tell Trey Gowdy and Marco Rubio, ‘Open your front door to anyone who wants to walk in and out. Open your front door.’”

COMMENTS

BORDER AGENTS TOLD TO STAND DOWN

Border agent: 'We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether'

www.washingtonexaminer.com

In a shocking reversal of policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are being told to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings, essentially a license to stay in the United States, a key agent testified Thursday.

What's more, the stand down order includes a requirement that the whereabouts of illegals released are not to be tracked.

"We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether,"suggested agent Brandon Judd,president of the National Border Patrol Council.

Testifying on the two-year border surge of immigrant youths, Judd said the policy shift was prompted by Obama administration "embarrassment" that just over half of illegals ordered to appear in court actually do.

"The willful failure to show up for court appearances by persons that were arrested and released by the Border Patrol has become an extreme embarrassment for the Department of Homeland Security. It has been so embarrassing that DHS and the U.S. Attorney's office has come up with a new policy," he testified before the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

The biggest change: Undocumented immigrants are no longer given a "notice to appear" order, because they simply ignore them. Judd said that Border agents jokingly refer to the NTAs as "notices to disappear."

He said the the new policy "makes mandatory the release, without an NTA, of any person arrested by the Border Patrol for being in the country illegally, as long as they do not have a previous felony arrest conviction and as long as they claim to have been continuously in the United States since January of 2014. The operative word in this policy is 'claim.' The policy does not require the person to prove they have been here which is the same burden placed on them during deportation proceedings. Instead, it simply requires them to claim to have been here since January of 2014."

But even then, he added, the agency has been told not to track the illegals.

"Not only do we release these individuals that by law are subject to removal proceedings, we do it without any means of tracking their whereabouts. Agents believe this exploitable policy was set in place because DHS was embarrassed at the sheer number of those who choose not to follow the law by showing up for their court appearances. In essence, we pull these persons out of the shadows and into the light just to release them right back to those same shadows from whence they came," he said.

The go free policy, he said, has prompted thousands of Latinos to cross the border, and among them are hundreds of criminal foot soldiers, according to other testimony.

"Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions. There are little or no consequences for

breaking the laws and that fact is well known in other countries. If government agencies like

DHS or CBP are allowed to bypass Congress by legislating through policy, we might as well

abolish our immigration laws altogether," Judd concluded.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted atpbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

COMMENTS

La Opinión: Marco Rubio Is a ‘Republican Obama’

La Opinión

by JULIA HAHN3 Feb 20161,629

Wednesday’s cover ofLa Opinión, the nation’s largest daily Spanish-language newspaper, prominently portrays donor-class favoriteSen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) with the infamous “hope and change” imagery that defined Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

The cover of the Spanish-language paper writes: “The Republican Obama? The surge of the Latino Senator in the presidential campaign has made him a target of criticism on the subject of immigration.”

Marco Rubio and Barack Obama share many of the same policy goals, such as Obamatrade and military intervention in Libya, but their most striking similarities are on the subject of immigration. Both men support citizenship for illegal aliens, expanded refugee resettlement, more green cards, more H-1B visas, and large permanent expansions to the rate of immigration and foreign worker importation.

Marco Rubio was the co-author of the 2013 Obama-backed immigration bill. Rubio’s immigration bill was endorsed by La Raza, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Mark Zuckerberg, and George Soros. Rubio has not renounced his support for a single policy item outlined in the Gang of Eight bill—including his desire to triple green card issuances, double foreign worker visas, and grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.

Rubio has even borrowed much of the language of the Obama’s campaign—prompting Joe Scarborough to mock the young Senator. Following the Iowa caucus, “Morning Joe” replayed Obama’s 2008 acceptance speech celebrating his victory at the Iowa caucus and juxtaposed that with Rubio’s strikingly similar Iowa speech celebrating his campaign’s ability to inch up to third place.

“You know, I have said for a year that he is the Republican Obama,” Scarborough said. “He is the Republican Obama and he just stole the speech… In my opinion having somebody with little experience before they become president has not actually been great.”

However, there is one important distinction between Rubio and Obama. Obama represented the core views of his most ardent base, and presented a vehicle for turning his base’s dreams into reality. By contrast, the Republican base is overwhelmingly opposed to large-scale immigration, amnesty and refugee resettlement—the pillars of Rubio’s campaign. It is the GOP’s donor base, not its voter base, that supports these policies.

In that sense, Rubio is the “Obama” for Republican donors, but not the Republican Party’s actual voters. Indeed, whereas Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lacked the Obama-esque tools to pass mass immigration for the donors in 2007, Rubio was able to bypass conservatism opposition and pass a bill with far more foreign workers through the Senate in 2013—using the affection of conservatives to neutralize opposition to a top donor class priority.

That may explain Rush Limbaugh’s prediction that, with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)as Speaker and Marco Rubio as president, in the “first 12-to-18 months, the donor-class agenda [will be] implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they want.” Ironically, underscoring just how potent a tool Rubio can be for the donors, Rush—usually a voice of donor opposition—seemingly forgot his own warning and warmly embraced Rubio on his show. Rush’s earlier embrace of Rubio in 2013 may have helped give the Gang of Eight the boost of momentum it needed to pass the Senate.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Illegal Immigrants, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, immigration, Obama,Syrian refugees, Amnesty, Obamatrade,Republican Party, gang of eight,Establishment GOP, Iowa caucus, foreign workers, H-1b visas, Latino Voters, Hispanic vote, Donor Class, La Opinión