Under What Conditions Should the USA Send More Money to Ukraine?

President Joe Biden asked Congress to pass a supplemental spending bill costing US taxpayers $106 billion. Out of that amount, $61 billion would go to Ukraine, about $30 billion to Israel, and the remaining $15 going to secure the southern US border.

Republicans in both the Senate and the House of Representatives are standing united against passing the bill, and they have a couple of reasons for doing so. Chris Enloe wrote the following in his article published in The Blaze. 

First, they have asked for more resources to address the border crisis, which is, after all, a domestic issue that directly impacts Americans. Second, they have asked the Biden administration to provide a clear strategic plan that outlines how Ukraine will defeat Russia and explain why taxpayers should fund that campaign.

Enloe reported that Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that he has been asking the White House for clarity since he became Speaker of the House.

We need clear articulation of the strategy to allow Ukraine to win. Thus far, their responses have been insufficient. They have not provided us the clarity and the details that we requested over and over.

What the Biden administration seems to be asking for is billions of additional dollars with no appropriate oversight, no clear strategy to win, and none of the answers that I think the American people are owed.

Apparently, Biden or someone in his administration called for help because Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was campaigning on Capitol Hill this week to make his case for more funding for Ukraine. According to Enloe, Zelensky claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin will win the war if the US does not give him more money.

Rob Bleury published in his article at The Daily Signal that Congressional conservatives in both the Senate and the House are trying to attach the Secure the Border Act (HR 2) to Biden’s requested funding. Conservatives want to address the worsening crisis at the southern border. Bleury reported that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said, “We cannot turn a blind eye to the perilous invitation the Biden White House continues to freely give out to break our immigration laws.

To confront the border crisis, conservatives in the House have HR2 “Secure the Border Act.” On his part, “Cruz introduced an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that mirrors the Secure the Border Act.” Cruz said that HR2 is the “most comprehensive border security legislation in decades.” All but two Republicans voted in favor of HR2 when the bill passed the House with a vote of 219-213.

You can be sure that the Biden administration opposes the Secure the Border Act, saying in May that the bill would make “elements of our immigration system worse.” According to Bleury, Cruz said that his amendment “would provide physical and technological border improvements, manpower assistance to Border Patrol and ICE Enforcement Removal Operations, and protection to families seeking entry at the border as well as unaccompanied alien children.”

Bluey then quoted Speaker Johnson reiterating his opposition to funding Ukraine war without pairing it with the Secure the Border Act.

These are our conditions because these are the conditions of the American people…. And we are resolute on that. It is not the House’s issue right now. The issue is with the White House and the Sente, and I implore them to do their job because the time is urgent and we do want to do the right thing.

House Republicans may want to “do the right thing,” but time is running out. Congress is due to start their holiday recess next week and may not pass anything before the recess. Increasing numbers of Americans are supporting the conservative cause, and they have numerous reasons for doing so.

Some of those reasons are as follow: (1) Approximately nine million people have invaded America since Biden became President of the United States. (2) Americans do not want to fund the retirements of people in Ukraine when they cannot afford to fund their own retirement. (3) Americans want their tax dollars to go to make America a stronger nation FIRST and then use excess funds to help other nations. (4) Due to inflation, Americans have less money to pay for the needs of their own families and are putting increasing amounts of money on credit cards.

What Should Be Done about the Crisis at the Border?

President Joe Biden finally went to the southern border two full years after entering the White House. He did not hesitate to create chaos at the border, but he refused to go to the border to see the chaos there. However, he finally made the trip – yet he did not see the chaos as reported by the New York Post. 

Authorities in El Paso have been tearing down migrant encampments under cover of darkness and dispatching hundreds of migrants across the border to Mexico ahead of President Biden’s scheduled Sunday visit to the overwhelmed border town.

Encampments near the downtown bus station and the Sacred Heart Church, which operates a shelter, have been dismantled by local authorities over the last two nights as the city prepares to host President Biden’s first visit to the southern border, according to a photographer for The Post who witnessed it.

Six buses loaded with mostly Venezuelan migrants were spotted crossing a downtown bridge to Ciudad Juarez, the frontier city in Mexico, Saturday, as police escorted dozens more to a pedestrian crossing.

A Border Patrol agent who did not want to be identified told The Post that 200 people were sent back to Mexico Saturday.

Because the Biden administration refused to enforce federal immigration laws, the local communities along the border and across the country are bearing huge costs. Hans von Spakovsky wrote that the states along the border are “groaning under the enormous cost of sheltering, feeding, educating, policing, and providing medical care for tens of thousands of illegal aliens.”

Von Spakovsky indicated that the costs are more than just monetary. “There are humanitarian costs, as well, paid by those who are assaulted and killed by the human traffickers, those who die from the fentanyl flooding across the border, and those victimized by vicious criminals who have entered illegally.” He called the crisis “unprecedented” and “man-made” by Biden. He then reported numbers because numbers are numbers and do not lie.

The numbers don’t lie. In fiscal year 2022, ending Sept. 30, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported a record 2.76 million alien “encounters” at our border. CBP reported another 278,102 in October and an even-more-staggering 283,189 in November. More than 3 million illegal aliens will have crossed our border illegally in the past 15 months – all because of the administration’s irresponsible stewardship of the Department of Homeland Security.

And that number is conservative. It doesn’t include the “gotaways” – those who made it across the border illegally, without getting caught. Border officials estimate there were at least 600,000 “gotaways” in fiscal year 2022, compared to only 60,000 in fiscal year 2020. Supporters of open-border policies argue that this flood of illegal aliens is beneficial. Try telling that to the victims of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens who should never have been allowed to enter the United States.

Texas is one of the few states that provides reports on crimes committed by aliens, and the numbers are appalling. The latest report from the Texas Department of Public Safety notes that, from June 1, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2022, more than 389,000 criminal aliens were booked into local Texas jails. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed that 70% of those arrested were here illegally.

Von Spakovsky emphasized that DHS can confirm the illegal status of only those aliens for whom they have fingerprints in their database. Since there are huge numbers of “gotaways,” it is likely that most of them are here illegally.

But just those 269,000 arrested aliens confirmed to be here illegally were charged with more than 454,000 criminal offenses. That included 847 homicides, 55,509 assaults, 901 kidnappings, 22,139 thefts, 2,551 robberies, 5,579 sexual assaults, 6,729 sexual offenses, 54,885 drug charges, 35,538 obstructing police charges, and 5,315 weapons charges. And this is only in Texas.

According to Von Spakovsky, there are other states, such as California and New York, that will not “collect or report is data.” However, there are Americans who “are being killed and victimized all over the country.” Hence, the “violence, bloodshed, and mayhem caused by these criminals should shock the conscience of every government official.”

The biggest problem is that Biden’s “proposal for mass amnesty and mass parole” promises to “make the problem worse.” Von Spakovsky gave a great suggestion: “It’s time to end the chaos, enforce the law, and hold Biden and all federal and state executive branch officials accountable for failing to do their jobs.”

Do Texas and Louisiana Have Standing to Sue on Border Issues?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the need for sovereign nations to protect their borders. Hans von Spakovsky and Charles “Cully” Stimson published an article at The Daily Signal about a case now at the Supreme Court. Texas and Louisiana sued the Biden administration for its “guidelines that severely restricted the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement of federal immigration law against illegal aliens.” This case was supported by amicus briefs from twenty other states. 

Oral arguments in the case were heard by the Supreme Court this week because the Biden administration appealed a September 30, 2021, ruling by a federal district court judge. Von Spakovsky and Stimson reported the following:

According to the administration, the misnamed “enforcement” efforts of the Department of Homeland Security are to be “guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented noncitizens who could be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities for years” and the fact that they are here illegally “should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them.” …

Texas and Louisiana claimed this type of individualized review and discretionary decision-making violated federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1231 (a)(2), which mandate that the executive branch “shall take into custody” or deport aliens convicted of specific types of crimes or who have final orders of removal issued against them by immigration judges. Shall means shall (ie., must), Texas argued in the lower court.

The district judge agreed, saying that the Biden administration offered an “implausible construction of a federal law that flies in the face of the limitations imposed by Congress” and that it was invoking “discretion and prioritization in an effort to evade meaningful judicial review.”

The justices heard oral arguments for two and a half hours on Tuesday, and they questioned the lawyers on the above issues as well as “whether the states even had standing to bring a lawsuit in the first place.” No one knows how the justices will rule on this case, but they made some interesting statements.

The solicitor general of the U.S., Elizabeth Prelogar, for example, argued that the states had no standing to sue the federal government, no matter how much they are damaged by the policy implemented by the Biden administration.

She also argued that the word “shall” in the immigration statutes – as in the federal government “shall” detain aliens convicted of particular crimes – does not actually mean “shall,” and the Biden administration instead has the “discretion” to decide which aliens it will detain. In essence, she argued that the administration has the “discretion” to decide whether to comply with the law….

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply questioned Prelogar about her claim that states never have standing to “challenge immigration policies concerning apprehension or removal of aliens.” Roberts himself pointed out that the solicitor general’s claim conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision at the end of last term in Biden v. Texas over the Biden’s administration’s cancellation of the “Remain in Mexico” policy implemented by the Trump administration.

The chief justice said he thought she would “have a little more concern about an opinion of ours that’s 4 months old” and chided her, saying, “It’s not even out of the cradle yet and you’re throwing it under the bus.”

Other justices asked questions of Prelogar. Justice Samuel Alito questioned the government’s argument about standing – giving standing to individuals but not states. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Prelogar if she was saying that a new administration could refuse to enforce any federal labor or environmental laws and deny standing to the states to sue. “Prelogar said that was exactly the position the Biden administration was taking.” This statement is amazing, but it is not the only amazing statement made by the government.

 

Why Does the Biden Administration Refuse to Secure the Border?

             The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns national security and the responsibility of the federal government to maintain a security border. People all over the world know that the border between Mexico and the United States is wide open and that anyone can cross the border and be allowed into the interior of America.

More than 1.7 million migrants have crossed illegally into the United States in the past year because Biden administration policies. The Trump administration had border crossings under control, but the Biden administration cancelled the applicable policies and caused this national security problem.

Border Patrol agents have taken into custody people from more than one hundred other nations, and many of the migrants are terrorists, members of gangs, and criminals. The border is not secure, and the insecure border is the cause of national security problems.

            Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security attended a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. Mayorkas was grilled by the Senators and failed to give adequate answers to their questions.

            The Daily Signal published an article by Chad Wolf, Mark Morgan, and Lora Ries stating that there was a “lack of transparency and leadership that is needed to tackle the biggest border security crisis the U.S. has ever faced.” First, I should give the credentials of the authors. 

·         Wolf was the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration. He is now a visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s David Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy.

·         Morgan was acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection during the Trump administration. He is now a visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy.

·         Ries is director of the Center for Technology Policy and a senior research fellow for homeland security at The Heritage Foundation.

The above listed credentials show that Wolf, Morgan, and Ries are qualified to analyze the

Performance of Mayorkas. They listed the following six key takeaways from the hearing:

1) “A” for Effort: Mayorkas started off by giving himself and his department an “A: for effort, investment in mission, and support of the Department of Homeland Security workforce….

2) Attempt to Redirect Blame to Trump: This is an often-used argument from the Biden administration. When members of the administration are challenged on their open-borders agenda and lack of any measurable results, they pivot to claiming President Donald Trump’s administration broke the immigration system….

3) Lack of Transparency: On numerous occasions, Mayorkas had the chance to provide data to buttress his arguments or to respond to legitimate and straightforward question. Here’s a short list of information he did not provide:

·         The number of COVID-positive illegal aliens released into the U.S.

·         The number of minors currently held in U.S. Border Patrol facilities.

·         The number or percentage of in-person interviews conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Afghanistan evacuees.

·         The number of families separated at the border since February, the first full month of the Biden administration.

To be clear, the Department of Homeland Security produces daily metrics containing this information. The more appropriate question is: Why didn’t the secretary come prepared with such data?

4) ‘Obama Cages’: When asked by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, about the number of minors currently being held in U.S. Border Patrol facilities – or “cages,” as the left referred to them during the Trump administration – Mayorkas went out of his way to say that he was not familiar with the description of “cages.”

That would conflict with testimony he provided during his confirmation hearing when he repeatedly acknowledged the term “cages,” as well as the fact of the construction of such facilities during his time at the department under President Barack Obama.

5) Border Patrol Agents on Horseback: When pressed on why he didn’t defend Border Patrol agents on horseback from unwarranted criticism earlier this year, Mayorkas again obfuscated and claimed that he “stands with the men and women of the department … [and that] I will not prejudge the facts….”

But unfortunately, that stands in stark contrast to comments he made shortly after the incident in September:

[I was] horrified by what I saw.

One cannot weaponize a horse to aggressively attack a child. That is unacceptable. That is not what our policies and our training require…. Let me be quite clear: That is not acceptable.

That lack of leadership and refusing to support the department’s law enforcement officers is taking a toll….

6) Payments to Illegals Aliens: Perhaps the most remarkable part of the hearing occurred when Mayorkas refused to acknowledge that paying illegal aliens who were separated from their children $450,000 would, in fact, encourage more illegal crossings….

            The performance of Mayorkas was not a surprise to most people. He was, obviously, toeing the company line and being a good employee. However, it shows clearly that the Biden administration are not interested in securing the southern border. It shows that they want millions of poor people to come into the United States, but it does not necessarily show compassion for people who are suffering.

The Biden policies follow the tactics of Saul Alinsky who taught his followers to overwhelm the system. They also follow the general policy of the Obama administration to never let a good crisis go to waste. The influx of thousands of Afghan refugees, the pandemic with all its problems, the economy and many people losing their jobs, and the surge at the southern border are all being done to overwhelm the American system and fundamentally transform our democratic republic into a socialist nation.

At first, people assumed that it was newness to the job and compassion for the downtrodden of the world that caused the Biden administration to make so many costly mistakes – Biden’s blunders. However, more people are stating openly that all these mistakes cannot be assigned to incompetence. It appears, particularly from performances like that of Mayorkas this week, that Biden’s policies are working exactly how he and his administration expect them to work.

This means that all the chaos in our nation is being done on purpose to overwhelm Americans and the American way of life. That means that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the entire administration are acting contrary to what is good for America. In other words, they are either completely incompetent, or they are traitors. In the first case, they should all resign, and in the second case, they should all be arrested and tried for treason.