A Postscript To The 9/22/21 Post "The U.S. Immigration Policy"

President Biden has finally found his voice with regards to the ongoing immigration crisis at our southern border.  But, as with his Vice President, it was not to express concern about the human smuggling, drug smuggling or the cartels behind it.  It was not to express concern about people entering our country with Covid or other diseases, or about people who may be criminals or gang members or terrorists.  No, none of that was of concern.  After all, Biden invited all of these people to come.  No, our President's concern was about the lie being told about the mounted Border Police.  Nothing new about this - the Democrats and the Left have been scapegoating the police since last summer's riots.  

Recall that the initial lie was that a mounted Border Patrol agent used a whip on a Haitian migrant.  Or, as the mainstream media and the Left told us - a black Haitian migrant.  When it was shown that the mounted officers have no whips, the story was that the agent used the horse's reins as a whip.  Except, no one was hit.  That did not deter Biden from saying this:  "To see people treated like they did, horses barely running over...people being strapped - it's outrageous."  And Biden went further:  "I promise, those people will pay.  There will be an investigation underway now and there will be consequences.  There will be consequences."  

As with his former boss, Biden is not terribly big on "due process."  What people will pay?  Who will suffer consequences, and for what?  Why is there even going to be any investigation if the decision has already been made - regardless of the facts.  I, for one, have zero confidence of there being a fair investigation at this point.  Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did nothing to assure us of a fair investigation when he said:  "We are addressing this with tremendous speed and tremendous force...it (the investigation) will be completed in days not weeks."  

The mainstream media was, of course, outraged, and was unable to refrain from adding the racial component.  Here was the 9/22/21 USA Today editorial:  "Think about that: An agent, carrying with him the authority of the U.S. government, riding down a defenseless, frightened black man."  Jeff Self is a retired Border Patrol agent and deputy sector chief, who also worked the mounted patrol for part of his 33 year career.  Self explained that these mounted agents are trained to not not allow those they are pursuing to get too close to the horse, lest they pull the reins in a manner causing injury or death to the horse, the agent, and even the migrant.  Self:  "Everything I see on this is appropriate."   

For now, at least, there will be no more mounted Border Patrol agents.  But here is my question:  why have any Border Patrol agents?  Why not defund them?  Biden and the Democrats clearly want an open border.  Biden invited these people to come during the campaign, and it is estimated that by year's end at least 2 million of these "migrants" will have entered the U.S. in 2021.  All during Biden's first year in office.  It is no coincidence.  It is Biden's policy.  

According to Secretary Mayorkas, of the 15,000 migrants that were recently at the Del Rio, Texas border crossing, about 12,000 were already released into the country.  Mayorkas assured us that these people are monitored in order to "ensure their appearance in court."  Right.  Even Chris Wallace pushed back on that assertion, pointing out for one period 44% failed their required court appearance.  Mayorkas said that a claim for "humanitarian relief" is "one of our proudest traditions."  First, preliminary research reflects that humanitarian relief is most often granted for visiting a sick family member, attending a funeral and seeking needed medical attention.  But second, I am astounded that Mayorkas thinks is the way to determine anyone's need for humanitarian relief.  To say that his and Biden's system is not an orderly process that might engender support, is a huge understatement.  

 

A Postscript To The 9/22/21 Post "The U.S. and Israel"

As he promised, House Democrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made sure proposed legislation to restore financing for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense batteries was brought to a vote this past week, after an earlier move by the "progressives" in the House prevented a vote on it.  The measure passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with a vote of 420 to 9, with 2 members voting present.  Recall that Israel had to use many of those defensive missiles during the May war with Hamas, when thousands of rockets and missiles were fired into Israel.

Those voting against passage of the bill were Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), Ayana Presley (D-Mass), Cori Bush (D-MO), Marie Newman (D-Ill), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Andre Carson (D-IND), Jesus Garcia (D-Ill) and Thomas Massie (R-KY).

Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, said in explaining her vote:  "We cannot be talking only about Israelis need for safety at a time when Palestinians are living under a violent apartheid system and are dying from what Human Rights Watch has said are war crimes..."  Tlaib, as usual, is full of misinformation, if not outright lies.  She refers to Israelis as if all Israelis are Jews.  As of 2019 there were approximately 1,890,000 Arab Israelis.  Many are Muslim, some are Christian, Druze and Bedouin.  Those Arab Israelis are also protected by Iron Dome.  Clearly, Tlaib does not care about them.  

Israel is not run as a "violent apartheid system."  It is a democracy, with Arabs serving in the Knesset (the legislature) and in the current government led by Naftali Bennett.  And, once again, I need to point out that the "Palestinians" are responsible for their own fate, having turned down peace offer after peace offer, that would have established a separate state for them.  In fact, they could have had their own state since 1947, but even then they rejected the UN vote of partition, dividing the British Mandate into a Jewish State and an Arab State.  Instead, they chose war, in their first effort to wipe the new State of Israel off the map.  I am disgusted that Tlaib is considered a valuable member of the House Democrats caucus.  As for Human Rights Watch, they have a well known history of anti-Israel bias, focusing on what Israel does to protect itself, and not on the Palestinians offensive actions.

One of the two members voting "present" was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She was seen crying on the House floor after her vote.  No doubt she was distressed.  I am sure she wanted to vote "No."  But she is a politician, and a politician with larger ambitions.  One theory behind her vote of "present," is that there will likely be a redrawing of her district, after the latest census.  The redrawing may include a community with a large Jewish population.  The other theory is that she plans to run against Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) for his seat in the Democratic primary in 2022.  She is well aware that New York State has a large Jewish population.  Now the question is, will her failure to take a stand one way or the other hurt her political future.  Given her considerable fund raising capabilities, I tend to think it will not.

So now the bill goes to the Senate, where the aforementioned Chuck Schumer runs things.  But Patrick Leahy is the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and he has suggested that there may not be any urgency in considering this bill.  As for Schumer, all he would say is "Iron Dome is very important and it'll get done.  That's all I'm going to say."  I imagine that Schumer, a once vocal supporter of Israel, has also been looking into his political future, and may be concerned about next year's election.  After all, last time around Eliot Engel (D-NY, and another longtime Israel supporter) lost his seat to "progressive" candidate Jamaal Bowman.  Schumer and Engel both hail from New York and both are Jewish.  

But at least one Democratic Jewish member of Congress, Ted Deutch (D-Fla), did not hesitate to speak up.  In response to Tlaib, Deutch said:  "To advocate for the dismantling of the one Jewish state in the world, when there's no place on the map for one Jewish state, that's antisemitism and I reject it."  Sadly, each new election seems to bring additional Israel haters to the Congress.  And it would be telling if Senate Majority Leader Schumer should lose his seat to AOC or another Israel-bashing "progressive."