90 Miles From Tyranny

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Illegal Alien Wanted After Allegedly Killing Tennessee Woman in Hit-and-Run

An illegal alien is wanted by the Knoxville Police Department and federal immigration officials after he allegedly caused a hit-and-run accident last week that left a 52-year-old Knoxville, Tennessee, woman dead.

Illegal alien Juan Francisco, 55-years-old, is accused of hitting and killing 52-year-old Debbie Burgess while driving his pickup truck in Knoxville on April 8. Knoxville Police Department (KPD) officials say the illegal alien fled the scene and has yet to turn himself in.

Francisco has been in the U.S. illegally since at least 2002 despite his criminal record, which includes an arrest for drunk driving in 2017, a reckless driving charge in 2004, and a theft charge in 2002, federal immigration officials confirmed to WVLT.

The illegal alien is now facing vehicular homicide charges and fleeing the scene of a crime. Police are asking the public for help in locating Francisco, requesting that anyone with information call the anonymous KPD hotline at 865-215-7212.

The fatal hit-and-run is vastly similar to the hit-and-run death of 22-year-old Pierce Corcoran, who was allegedly killed by an illegal alien driver days before...

There Is No ‘Labor Shortage’

One of the many trade-offs inherent to immigration policy is efficiency vs. distribution in the labor market. Importing more workers from abroad can lower the cost of production, but the savings come in large part from holding down wages. Anyone who claims that immigration offers only benefits or only costs to the labor market is not being honest about the issue. Unfortunately, immigration advocates have a habit of developing exactly those sorts of one-sided talking points. One of the most prominent right now is the idea of a "labor shortage". Forget all this talk about trade-offs, they say, employers simply cannot find any more workers without immigration.

That claim is false. Neither theory nor evidence backs the existence of a "labor shortage". As discussed below, when employers complain of a "shortage", they really mean a shortage of people willing to work for the (low) wage that employers would like to pay. The percentage of working-age Americans not in the labor force remains significantly below the level from the year 2000, and employers should strive to bring those potential workers back.

Key Points

Shortages Should Not Occur in a Free Market

A shortage implies that we have somehow run out of workers to fill essential jobs. Even just on an intuitive level, this seems unlikely. After all, how could the world's largest economy, boasting a population of 329 million, have no one available to work in large industries such as farming, or construction, or software development? And if the United States is in dire need of more workers, how do countries with far smaller labor forces, such as South Korea or Finland, maintain such strong economies?

The answer, of course, is that none of these countries has run of out of workers. In fact, the very notion of a "shortage" in a free market economy is dubious. As long as prices are free to adjust, the market will generally do a good job of matching supply with demand. If the demand for a particular good or service increases, buyers will be willing to pay a higher price, which causes more suppliers to come into the market. That's why we can always take our car to the gas station and fill up the tank, even though the world oil market is routinely buffeted by supply and demand shocks. The price of gasoline changes to absorb those shocks, thus ensuring enough supply to meet demand. It is only when gas prices are not allowed to rise — for example, the Nixon- and Carter-era price controls — that we get genuine shortages.

The market for labor works in a similar way. Employers demand labor, workers supply it, and the market wage is the price at which they meet. Just as with gasoline, there should not be a shortage of labor as long as the price (the wage) can rise. If employers demand more labor, they need to increase the wage in order to increase the supply of workers, just as the price of gasoline rises when demand increases.

When employers today complain of a "labor shortage", what they really mean is there are not enough Americans willing to work at the wage employers want to pay. Employers' unwillingness to raise wages gives the appearance of a "shortage," for which employers claim the only solution is to increase the labor supply by bringing in workers from abroad.

Tight Labor Markets Benefit Marginalized Groups

Sometimes employers are explicit about their desire to keep wages low through immigration. For example, a 2015 report from the farm lobby argued that 0.6 percent annual wage increases for field workers are "a strain on many U.S. farms", and that more guestworkers are needed "to fill job vacancies without upward pressure on wages."1

The better outcome for American workers would be to raise wages. In fact, a tight labor market is the rare uplift program that does not require any new taxes or regulations. It naturally incentivizes employers to raise wages, improve working conditions, and recruit from marginalized groups.

"The tightest labor market in more than half a century is finally lifting the wages of the least-skilled workers on the bottom rung of the labor force, bucking years of stagnation," according to the New York Times.2

"[B]ig companies such as Walmart and Koch Industries ... are turning to an underutilized source of labor: inmates and the formerly incarcerated," according to...

Illegal Alien Female Stabs Muslim Gas Station Attendant Who Tried To Sexually Assault Her At Knife-point

Florida Diversity Is Posing A Challenge To Florida Man.

A 17-year-old Florida girl stabbed an armed gas station clerk who had allegedly cornered her inside a bathroom and attempted to rape her at knifepoint, officials said.

The victim told police she entered a Chevron gas station in Dania Beach at around 3 a.m. on April to purchase two microwaveable dinners.

She had gone to use the restroom at the back of the store when the store’s clerk locked the front door and followed her inside, WSVN reported.

Inside, the clerk – identified as 67-year-old Mohammad Munshi – allegedly pulled out a pocket knife and then reached into her pants and grabbed her before she was able to push him off.

Mohammad Munshi, 67, was arrested after he allegedly tried to sexually assault a 17-year-old girl at knifepoint in Florida.(Broward Sheriff's Office)

The victim said she got ahold of the pocket knife after a struggle and stabbed him in the stomach with it before running away from the gas station.

The girl ran out of the store but didn't contact authorities because of her immigration status, the affidavit said, according to Local 10.

Police said another customer entered the gas station about 20 minutes later and Munshi called for help, claiming he had been stabbed by a shoplifter.

Munshi was questioned at the hospital and was unable to keep his story straight, WSVN reported.

Additionally, surveillance footage reportedly showed the events unfold as the victim had stated.

Munshi was arrested on April 10 and charged with one count of armed sexual battery. He spent six days in jail before posting a $75,000 bond and surrendering his Bangladesh-issued passport...

ILLEGAL ALIEN CHARGED WITH RAPING 7-YEAR-OLD GIRL IN VIRGINIA

CULPEPER COUNTY, VA (WTVR) – A 33-year-old immigrant, living in the country illegally, has been charged with raping a 7-year-old girl.

On Thursday, Culpeper Sheriff’s Detectives arrested Oscar Ramirez, 33, of Culpeper, for the rape of a seven-year-old girl, which reportedly occurred between April 6 and 7.

Ramirez was charged with one count of Rape of a Child less than 13 years of age and was taken into custody without incident. He is being held at the Culpeper County Jail without bond.

On Friday, an ICE Agent responded to the Culpeper Jail to place a detainer on Ramirez for failing to report for an immigration hearing in 2006 in Houston, Texas.

He will be deported to his home country of El Salvador after his legal proceedings in Culpeper are completed and any potential prison sentence has been served.

“I’m thankful for the work of Detective Maria Rodriguez on this investigation,” Culpeper Sheriff Scott Jenkins said. “This is another example of America’s need for secure borders and...

Attorney General Barr Blocks Catch and Release by Migration Judges

Immigration judges cannot release migrants who are caught sneaking into the United States, even if the migrants ask for asylum, says a binding legal decision by Attorney General William Barr.

The decision will dramatically shift the migration-caused civic and housing crises from the nation’s blue-collar communities over to the Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, whose budget and detention centers only have enough resources to house about 50,000 people year-round.

“The [text of the relevant] Act provides that, if an alien in expedited proceedings establishes a credible fear, he “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” says Barr’s April 16 decision, titled. Matter of M-S-. Because of the law, “I order that, unless DHS paroles the respondent under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act, he must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude.”

“This is a HUGE ruling that will harm thousands seeking protection from persecution at the US border since far more will be held in detention even after passing the threshold screening under the credible fear standard,” complained Greg Chen, director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The association’s lawyers make their money by guiding migrants and corporate hiring managers through the extremely dense network of migration laws and regulations. But Barr’s decision blocks the use of a common path for migrants who are trying to get through the courts and into the U.S. jobs they need to repay the smuggling fees they owe to the cartels.

Barr directed officials to delay implementation of the law for 90 days, giving DHS managers — and congressional leaders — three months to decide which migrants should be released into the nation’s cities and towns.

The delay gives time for DHS to set up tent cities where migrants can be held until the judges decide the asylum pleas. If DHS detains most of the migrants — and so prevents them from working — the next wave of migrants may decide that any effort to get into the United States would be an economic disaster for...

Dirty dealings of dirt devils who concocted Trump-Russia probe

By Andrew C. McCarthy
In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” to refer to the Obama administration, um, spying on the Trump campaign. Of course, fainting spells ensued, with the media-Democrat complex in meltdown. Former FBI Director Jim Comey tut-tutted that he was confused by Barr’s comments, since the FBI’s “surveillance” had been authorized by a court.

(Needless to say, the former director neglected to mention that the court was not informed that the bureau’s “evidence” for the warrants was unverified hearsay paid for by the Clinton campaign.)

The pearl-clutching was predictable. Less than a year ago, we learned the Obama administration had used a confidential informant — a spy — to approach at least three Trump campaign officials in the months leading up to the 2016 election, straining to find proof that the campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking of Democratic emails.

As night follows day, we were treated to the same Beltway hysteria we got this week: Silly semantic carping over the word “spying” — which, regardless of whether a judge authorizes it, is merely the covert gathering of intelligence about a suspected wrongdoer, organization or foreign power.

There is no doubt that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. As Barr made clear, the real question is: What predicated the spying? Was there a valid reason for it, strong enough to overcome our norm against political spying? Or was it done rashly? Was a politically motivated decision made to use highly intrusive investigative tactics when a more measured response would have sufficed, such as a “defensive briefing” that would have warned the Trump campaign of possible Russian infiltration?

Last year, when the “spy” games got underway, James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, conceded that, yes, the FBI did run an informant — “spy” is such an icky word — at Trump campaign officials; but, we were told, this was merely to investigate Russia. Cross Clapper’s heart, it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. No, no, no. Indeed, the Obama administration only used an informant because — bet you didn’t know this — doing so is the most benign, least intrusive mode of conducting an investigation.

Me? I’m thinking the tens of thousands of convicts serving lengthy sentences due to the penetration of their schemes by informants would beg to differ. (Gee, Mr. Gambino, I assure you, this was just for you own good . . .) And imagine the Democrats’ response if, say, the Bush administration had run a covert intelligence operative against Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign’s co-chairman. Surely David Axelrod, Chuck Schumer, The New York Times and Rachel Maddow would chirp that “all is forgiven” once they heard Republicans punctiliously parse the nuances between “spying” and “surveillance”; between “spies” and “informants”; and between investigating campaign officials versus investigating the campaign proper — and the candidate.

The “spying” question arose last spring, when we learned that Stefan Halper, a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence, had been tasked during the FBI’s Russia investigation to chat up three Trump campaign advisers: Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis. This was in addition to earlier revelations that the Obama Justice Department and FBI had obtained warrants to eavesdrop on Page’s communications, beginning about three weeks before the 2016 election.

The fact that spying had occurred was too clear for credible denial. The retort, then, was misdirection: There had been no spying on Donald Trump or his campaign; just on a few potential bad actors in the campaign’s orbit.

It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.

The pols making these claims about what the FBI was doing might have been well served by listening to what the FBI said it was doing.

There was, for example, then-Director Comey’s breathtaking public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017. Comey did not just confirm the existence of a counterintelligence probe of Russian espionage to influence the 2016 election — notwithstanding that the government customarily refuses to confirm the existence of any investigation, let alone a classified counterintelligence investigation. The director further identified the Trump campaign as a subject of the probe, even though, to avoid smearing people, the Justice Department never identifies uncharged persons or organizations that are under investigation. As Comey put it:

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and...