Establishment support for legal mass immigration is allowing and concealing large-scale illegal discrimination by U.S. employers against American blue-collar workers, says a new report.

In American Affairs, Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax and D.C.-based researcher Jason Richwine describe many underreported academic studies which show immigration-enabled discrimination;

study after study reveals that employers display a clear and avowed preference for Hispanic and Asian immigrants over lowskill natives of all backgrounds for a host of entry-level jobs across a range of industries in a variety of geographic locations.

Those attitudes were exemplified in a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a bakery company in Houston, Texas. According to the Houston Chronicle:

The EEOC settled a … Hispanics-only hiring case last year for $1 million against Lawler Foods, a commercial bakery in Humble. The agency accused the bakery of favoring Hispanic workers and telling black, white and other applicants it would not hire them. The company was able to create a Hispanic-dominated workforce for its production line by relying on Hispanic employees to recruit friends and family, and advertising for Spanish speakers when the company had openings, according to the EEOC lawsuit.

Wax and Richwine say these problems can be addressed if elites recognize the harm caused by their pro-immigration priorities and if sidelined American blue-collar workers also recognize their own shortcomings.

Cutting off the flow of low-skill immigration could force a renewed commitment to getting Americans back to work—a commitment that must include, among other things, aggressive job recruiting and training by employers, reviving the social expectation that prime-age men must work, ending the “college for all” mindset that devalues blue-collar occupations, and strengthening work requirements as a condition of aid …

Why restrict immigration? Replacing American workers with fresh waves of low-skill immigrants is not a viable long-term strategy for our country. Despite some immediate economic benefits for employers, large shareholders, and consumers, albeit with substantial offsetting fiscal costs, mass importation of low-skill workers is both demoralizing and risky in the longer term …

Sustained mass immigration is also in bad faith, because it facilitates a wholesale evasion of hard realities. Too many low-skill Americans are poorly socialized to work and considered undesirable by American employers. The current immigration status quo allows this to be papered over. Changing the status quo will force this situation to be confronted and addressed. Society and workers themselves must face up to native workers’ perceived, and actual, inadequacies, and also to the need to take the low-skill jobs that exist and are available.

White-collar Americans are also suffering discrimination because employers prefer to hire young foreign graduates who will work long hours at low pay in the hope of the valuable prize of citizenship, say advocates. A ComputerWorld report about a 2016 lawsuit by four American plaintiffs said:

David Neumark, a professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine, analyzed Infosys’ U.S. workforce for the plaintiffs and wrote a 76-page report filed this week in federal court in Wisconsin, where the case is being heard …

One plaintiff was hired by Infosys to work on a $49.5 million Affordable Care Act, government-funded development project for the District of Columbia. There were about 100 Infosys employees working on the healthcare project, but only three were American, the lawsuit claimed. The plaintiff alleged harassment, and was denied promotion, the complaint said.

Neumark brought a statistical analysis to the discrimination claim. Specifically, the economist wrote, “from 2009 through 2015, 89.39% of Infosys’ United States workforce was South Asian while only 11.45% of the United States’ Computer Systems Design and Related Services industry was South Asian.”

President Donald Trump’s deputies are taking some steps to deter and penalize anti-American discrimination.

Also, Trump’s popular immigration principles call for the passage of the RAISE Act, which would help American workers by halving the supply of new immigrant workers. The act would end the visa lottery and the “chain migration” laws which allow new immigrants to award green cards to their foreign relatives, regardless of the relatives’ skills, education, ideology, and age.

Polls show that a lopsided majority of Americans oppose cheap-labor immigration which undermines U.S. workers.

Although industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants, the alternative “fairness” polls show that voters put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors, and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. That political power of that fairness priority was made clear in during the GOP primaries and again in November 2016.

Each year, four million Americans turn 18 and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.

But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing almost 2 million work-permits to foreigners, by providing work-visas to roughly 500,000 temporary workers and doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.

The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor and spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

A Colorado man who was convicted on multiple counts of human trafficking, child prostitution and sexual exploitation of a child – including pimping – has been strangled by the long arm of the law.

The 31-year-old scumbag Brock Franklin was the ringleader of a criminal gang who used social media to lure their victims, then abducted and drugged them – selling them as prostitutes to sexual deviates.

It was one of the most diabolical sex trafficking operations in Colorado history and last week, a judge in Arapaho County sentenced Franklin to a whopping 472-years in prison meaning that he could be a free man around Christmas of the year 2489 or so.

‘The tough ones are us women:’ Colorado pimp gets 472 year sentence https://t.co/kKehDHkXxa http://pic.twitter.com/G6V5kAqHYe

— 9NEWS Denver (@9NEWS) November 21, 2017

Via Denver NBC affiliate 9 News “‘The tough ones are us women:’ Colorado pimp gets 472-year sentence”:

A man convicted of sexually exploiting women as a pimp will spend the rest of his life – and then some – in prison.

In a sentencing hearing Tuesday afternoon, Arapahoe County Judge Peter F. Michaelson sentenced the man found guilty of running a child prostitution ring to 472 years in prison.

That is more than four times the minimum required sentence – and the largest sentence brought down for a human trafficking case in the country.

Brock Franklin was indicted in 2015 by a grand jury for allegedly using drugs and violence to control young girls, often forcing them into lewd acts as part of a child sex trafficking ring.

Four others have already been sentenced for their involvement in the human trafficking ring.

Prosecutors said Franklin preyed on young women and girls who were vulnerable. In his trial, a jury heard from eight of the nine victims in the case.

“Damage isn’t lessened because of where someone came from or where someone did not come from,” an attorney for the Arapahoe County District Attorney’s Office said in court Tuesday.

In a packed courtroom Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors read two letters from Franklin’s victims.

“Every morning I wake up I have to remind myself the defendant will no longer be able to hurt me,” the first letter began.

The victim, identified only as “DY,” wrote to the court about the PTSD, anxiety, and depression she suffers because of Franklin’s actions.

“I began to doubt myself, thinking everything the defendant told me was true,” her letter read. “I am a mother and a soon-to-be wife and I am not all the defendant said I was or to become.”

Then, one of his victims spoke directly to the court – in person.

“I miss myself, my confidence, my laugh. I miss my happiness,” she said, as she described her three “long months” under Franklin, beginning in Jan. 2015.

She discussed her recurrent PTSD, anxiety and depression.

“The tough ones are us women,” she addressed the court. “The prison time [the defendant] will serve does not compare to the damage he has caused to these women or myself,”

“I forgive Brock Franklin, but only because the Good Lord says I must,” she said tearfully to the court.

The victim finished her impact statement by saying, “Today I let this demon go.”

In March of this year, Franklin went on trial for 34 counts including pimping a child, patronizing a child prostitute, kidnapping and assault.

He was found guilty on 30 counts including human trafficking, sexual exploitation of a child, child prostitution, kidnapping, pimping of a child, and racketeering.

He was acquitted of several charges including distributing marijuana and assault with a deadly weapon.

The lead investigator on Franklin’s case also spoke to the court.

The detective with the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office described the case as “emotional and hard” on everyone who touched it.

Now Mr. Franklin is likely to get a good deal of education in how a pimping operation is run from the other end.

Two universal truths about democrats are 1) they are hypocrites and 2) reality is what they say it is. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal put these truths on display Sunday when he accused President Trump of being a “tyrant” for doing something he has the authority to do and also a thing former president Obama did. Words mean what they want them to mean and things are only bad when a Republican does them.

This is all a pretty stupid and boring thing involving the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Like many government agencies, the President appoints the head and the Senate must approve. This however was a unique scenario as the person running the agency stepped down and tried to illegally name his successor. Because this happened while Congress was on a break, President Trump was well within his powers to appoint a temporary successor.

Obama appointee Richard Cordray was the director of the CFPB, but resigned on Friday. He appointed Leandra English as the deputy director, which in his absence would make her the acting director. As you may have noticed, an agency director doesn’t get to appoint directors, that’s the President’s job. As such, Trump named Mick Mulvaney as the acting director, something he is allowed to do, and seeing as Congress is in recess and can’t approve or disapprove of his appointments, something he had to do. They will, when they return, vote on whether Mulvaney gets to keep this position or not. This is all very non-controversial stuff, backed by the law.

Here’s how Blumenthal sees it:

Congress had great foresight to mandate that the CFPB deputy fills the Director’s vacancy – to stop a bullying, tyrannical President from crippling the agency and undercutting consumers. That more recently passed provision trumps others. https://t.co/6HLb5WEMR9

— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) November 26, 2017

“Congress had great foresight to mandate that the CFPB deputy fills the Director’s vacancy – to stop a bullying, tyrannical President from crippling the agency and undercutting consumers. That more recently passed provision trumps others,” wrote Blumenthal.

There is no truth to Blumenthal’s claim that the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the CFPB, authorizes the acting director to name his successor, but that’s the least of the problems with the Senator’s tweet.

The democrat is accusing Trump of being a tyrant, which is is an absolute ruler unrestrained by the law. What Trump did is well within the law; there’s no tyranny here at all. Blumenthal also accuses the President of bullying, which is just as dumb. How does using the power he is assigned an act of bullying? Like I said, words mean what democrats want them to mean.

Making this as stupid as possible, former president Barack Obama actually installed Richard Cordray as the director of the CFPB while Congress was not in session. In 2013, Obama used a recess appointment for Cordray, meaning he became the director without Senate approval. Why is Trump a bully tyrant and Obama is not?

The answer is obviously because Trump is a Republican while Obama is a democrat. Blumenthal has been a US Senator since 2011 so he was around when Obama pulled this act of tyranny and yet he was not so outraged back then. If democrats weren’t full of shit, they’d be as empty as their rhetoric.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) announced Sunday he will be stepping down as ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.

The move comes after it surfaced that he had paid a former staffer a settlement after she claimed she was fired for rebuffing Conyers’ sexual advances.

“After careful consideration and in light of the attention drawn by recent allegations made against me, I have notified the Democratic Leader of my request to step aside as ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee during the investigation of these matters,” Conyers said.

The longest-serving member of the House has denied the claims against him.

“I deny these allegations, many of which were raised by documents reportedly paid for by a partisan alt-right blogger. I very much look forward to vindicating myself and my family before the House Committee on Ethics,” Conyers said.

Politico reported on Conyers departure from the post, which he has held since 1965:

Conyers’ departure from the position opens a powerful committee post and adds to turmoil roiling Capitol Hill amid a series of sexual harassment allegations against members and aides.

BuzzFeed broke the story last week that Conyers’ office had paid an accuser $27,000 to settle a complaint that she had been fired after refusing his sexual advances.

The settlement, using taxpayer funds, was reached outside of the formal reporting mechanism for sexual harassment claims—the Office of Compliance (OCC).

As Breitbart News reported, the office released a report that showed between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2017 some $17 million had been handed out as settlements to individuals or groups of individuals who filed a variety of charges against members of Congress or staff, including sexual harassment claims.

“A large portion of cases originate from employing of offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act of 1995] CAA, such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family, and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Susan Tsui Grundmann, executive director of the OOC, wrote in the report.

“The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA.” the report read.