President Trump will not sign off on any deals related to immigration without the approval of pro-American immigration reformers Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).

According to CNN reporter Dierdre Walsh, Meadows confirmed that Trump has entrusted himself and Cotton for their blessing of any immigration deals that are brokered between the president, Democrats, and the Republican establishment.

Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows told reporters President Trump committed to him that he wouldn’t back an immigration bill unless he & Sen Tom Cotton backed it.
Asked about Schumer saying Cotton can’t be involved: “I don’t really care what Chuck Schumer says.”

— Deirdre Walsh (@deirdrewalshcnn) January 19, 2018

. @deirdrewalshcnn reports @RepMarkMeadows says President Trump committed to Meadows that he wouldn’t sign an immigration bill that he and @TomCottonAR don’t support

— Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN) January 19, 2018

Meadows and Cotton’s strong influence on national immigration policy is a win for Trump’s base and the populist, economic nationalist wing of the Republican Party, as the Congressman and Senator have vowed to only support a deal on immigration that cuts legal immigration levels to benefit American workers and constructs a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

For example, both want to see the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S., ended, as does Trump. Ending chain migration, which has imported more than nine million foreign nationals since 2005, would likely reduce legal immigration from more than one million immigrants arriving in the country a year to about 500,000 admissions a year.

In an explosive report, Breitbart News revealed that chain migration, if not ended, is expected to add between seven and eight million new foreign-born voters to the U.S. electorate – a scheme that favors Democrats as immigrants, specifically Hispanics and Asians, vote 2-to-1 for Democrats over Republicans.

As Breitbart News reported, Cotton — seen as the successor to Jeff Sessions, who has strived for more than a decade to enact immigration policy that benefits the American people — has played a particularly powerful role in the national immigration debate with Trump.

Stunning admission by Schumer. Admitting Cotton’s presence in immigration debate is so influential that Dems want him out of the room during negotiations in order to push expansive amnesty.https://t.co/k3QFRhBBQV

— John Binder ? (@JxhnBinder) January 19, 2018

Cotton’s influence in the Trump White House has led to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-IL) to admit that he does not want to cut a deal on immigration, so long as the Arkansas populist conservative is in the room.

In response, Cotton said Schumer does not want him to be part of immigration negotiations “probably because I would get a good deal, and he wants a bad deal.”

Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from family-based chain migration. In 2016, the legal and illegal immigrant population reached a record high of 43.7 million. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population. Mass immigration to the U.S. has kept American wages stagnant, while depressing job prospects for poor, working, and middle-class communities.

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted review in the legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s permanent policy restricting entry into the United States from the residents of eight terror-prone nations, in what will be a historic case on presidential authority, national security, the role of the courts in immigration, and the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty.

This travel policy has gone through three versions since President Trump was sworn into office, and the Supreme Court’s decision in the case they accepted Friday should permanently settle all legal challenges to his authority on this subject.

Congress delegated broad authority to the president in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), a provision in federal law which provides:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

One week after being inaugurated, President Trump invoked that authority on January 27, 2017, to issue Executive Order 13769, establishing a temporary ban on immigration from certain terror-prone nations while the new administration developed “extreme vetting” measures to ensure that dangerous people were not entering the country.

When that executive order ran into early legal trouble, President Trump superseded it on March 6 with Executive Order 13780, providing additional findings and specifics justifying the policy.

Liberal Democratic opponents of the policy continued to pursue legal challenges to these measures, taking the case to a leftwing federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Judge Derrick Watson, who predictably struck it down.

By filing the lawsuit in Hawaii, the plaintiffs—represented by former U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who served under President Barack Obama—knew that any appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As expected, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Watson’s ruling striking down the ban.

The Supreme Court then reversed the Ninth Circuit for the most part by a 9-0 vote. (Four justices voted to give President Trump a complete victory in that challenge.)

Then President Trump superseded those temporary measures on September 27, when he announced a permanent policy in Presidential Proclamation 9645.

Once again, the Hawaii District Court blocked the policy. And once again, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions vowed to appeal, and on January 5, 2018, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

On January 19, the Supreme Court granted review in this blockbuster case. The justices will decide four questions:

1. Whether [Hawaii’s] challenge to the President’s suspension of entry of aliens is justiciable.

2. Whether the Proclamation is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad.

3. Whether the global injunction is impermissibly broad.

4. Whether Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause.

In other words, the Court will decide first whether policies of this nature can be taken to court at all, or left instead to Congress and the president.

If lawsuits are permitted, the justices will next decide whether President Trump’s specific proclamation here is consistent with federal law as passed by Congress.

The Court will also tackle whether it exceeds a district court’s authority under these circumstances to issue a worldwide injunction again all U.S. federal officers, or if instead their orders must be narrower and more modest in scope.

Finally, the Court will tackle the issue of whether this policy violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because the plaintiffs here claim that the policy is actually a ban on Muslims, arguing that this is a government establishment of an official state religion.

The case will almost certainly be argued the last week of April, with a decision at the end of June 2018.

The case is Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

A CNN poll shows that the Democrats’ push for amnesty is the big loser in the government shutdown fight — and likely will hurt Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections.

According to CNN:

56% overall say approving a budget agreement to avoid a shutdown is more important than continuing the DACA program, while just 34% choose DACA over a shutdown. Democrats break narrowly in favor of DACA — 49% say it’s more important vs. 42% who say avoiding a shutdown is the priority — while majorities of both Republicans (75%) and independents (57%) say avoiding a shutdown is more important.

The poll shows that only the Democrats’ base supports their amnesty-before-budget push:

The CNN question is useful because it asks voters to pick priorities, not merely to express their feelings.

For example, 96 percent of Democrats in the poll said they support the DACA amnesty, but only 49 percent say it more is important than passing a budget. The sudden drop shows how the DACA support is inflated by voters’ desire to be seen welcoming immigrants, and shrunken when voters must privately balance the costs of an amnesty against their own community’s circumstances.

The anti-amnesty result matches January 18 report in the Washington Post, which showed the results of a poll conducted for Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer:

the public view shifts if voters think the government is shuttering because of the immigration issue, particularly in five states that Trump won in 2018 by overwhelming margins and where Democratic senators face reelection in November: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

In those five states, voters split the shutdown blame evenly between Trump and Democrats. That result shifts, 48 percent to 39 percent, onto Democratic shoulders if the DACA issue is what led to the shutdown.

The data is bad news for Schumer, but also for amnesty-booster Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, who recently told home-state voters:

I’m focused on one thing — not that meeting — but on making sure that those who are being protected by DACA and eligible for the DREAM Act have a future in America. I am focused on that full time. 

Sen. Durbin responds to @SenTomCotton who says he “misrepresented” what @realDonaldTrump said during Oval Office meeting when @SenatorDurbin says referred “shi-hole” countries. @cbschicago pic.twitter.com/NflI5XzlhC

— Mike Puccinelli (@MPuccinelliCBS2) January 15, 2018

GOP Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell is slamming Schumer for the shutdown and repeatedly blaming it on Democrats’ enthusiasm for illegal immigration. He said early January 19:

“Extreme elements of their base want illegal immigration to crowd out every other priority,” McConnell said during an early morning speech (watch from 12:00) in the Senate, January 19. “Apparently, they believe the issue of illegal immigration is more important than everything else — all the government services the American people depend on.”

Voters “will see which Senators vote to shove aside veterans, military families, and vulnerable children to hold the entire country hostage until we pass an immigration bill they have not even written yet,’ McConnel continued. “This is completely unfair and uncompassionate.”

President Donald Trump is also wrapping the amnesty push around the Democrats’ necks:

Government Funding Bill past last night in the House of Representatives. Now Democrats are needed if it is to pass in the Senate – but they want illegal immigration and weak borders. Shutdown coming? We need more Republican victories in 2018!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 19, 2018

Polls show that President Donald Trump’s American-first immigration policy is very popular.

For example, a December poll of likely 2018 voters shows two-to-one voter support for Trump’s pro-American immigration policies, and a lopsided four-to-one opposition against the cheap-labor, mass-immigration, economic policy pushed by bipartisan establishment-backed D.C. interest-groups.

Business groups and Democrats tout the misleading, industry-funded “Nation of Immigrants” polls which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants, including the roughly 670,000 ‘DACA’ illegals and the roughly 3.25 million ‘dreamer’ illegals.

 

Facebook has announced plans to rank the visibility of news sources based on whether they are “broadly trusted.” The mainstream media is reporting this as a win for users, and an abdication of responsibility on Facebook’s part. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

If Facebook really wanted to let users determine what news sources they trust, they already have a perfectly functioning system for doing that. It’s called “likes.” If the platform were truly giving power back to the users, they would let them see news from sources that they choose, via the liking system.

Instead, Facebook is going to rank and de-rank news sites based on complicated user surveys aimed at discovering “broadly trusted” sources. Here’s how Mark Zuckerberg explained it:

We decided that having the community determine which sources are broadly trusted would be most objective.

Here’s how this will work. As part of our ongoing quality surveys, we will now ask people whether they’re familiar with a news source and, if so, whether they trust that source. The idea is that some news organizations are only trusted by their readers or watchers, and others are broadly trusted across society even by those who don’t follow them directly. (We eliminate from the sample those who aren’t familiar with a source, so the output is a ratio of those who trust the source to those who are familiar with it.)

Of course, if Zuckerberg really wanted to let “the community determine” what news sources they want to read, they already have a daily multi-billion user survey system for that. It’s called “likes.”

In his announcement, Zuckerberg was transparent about his objectives. He wants to socially engineer his users away from “polarization” and “misinformation.”

There’s too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world today. Social media enables people to spread information faster than ever before, and if we don’t specifically tackle these problems, then we end up amplifying them. That’s why it’s important that News Feed promotes high quality news that helps build a sense of common ground.

Zuckerberg’s comment is a veiled attack on his own users. Left to their own devices, Zuckerberg believes that they gravitate towards “misinformation” and “polarization,” and need to be fed “high-quality news” by a Facebook algorithm, instead of being free to choose the sources they like.

Facebook’s goal of finding media sources that are not “polarized” will be difficult in a media ecosystem that is separated into the mainstream media on one hand, who continue — with decreasing effectiveness — to claim a lack of bias, and the alternative media on the other hand, who are open about their biases.

In Righteous Indignation, Andrew Breitbart praised the Huffington Post for being “openly and loudly and radically leftist,” in contrast to publications like The New York Times that conceal their biases and aspire to the same kind of unbiased, “broadly trusted” status that Facebook is planning to promote.

Unless so-called “unbiased” media organizations carefully control for viewpoint diversity — and none of them are particularly strict about it — they will inevitably fall into partisan grouthink. That’s precisely what has happened to the mainstream media.

To be biased is to be human. In searching for “broadly trusted” news sources, with all the connotations of unbiasedness, Mark Zuckerberg is looking for… non-humans.

It’s almost like he wants the memes to keep coming.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, Gab.ai and add him on Facebook. Contact him securely at allumbokhari@protonmail.com

For some people, owning and operating a fast food franchise is a life goal and a potentially quite lucrative business venture.

Unfortunately, owning a franchise is financially out of reach for most people, as it typically requires a rather substantial investment up front to even get started, according to a piece from Business Insider in 2014.

For several popular fast food chains — like Taco Bell, Wendy’s, KFC and McDonald’s — potential franchisees have to show that they have a net worth of at least $1.5 million or more and liquid assets of at least $750,000. All told, start-up costs can range anywhere from $1 million to $3.5 million.

Other popular restaurants, such as Pizza Hut and Subway, cost a bit less to open up but still require substantial investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But there is one extremely popular fast food franchise that is initially incredibly cheap to own and operate — relatively speaking — and only costs about $10,000 up front to get your foot in the door.

TRENDING: Player Who Refused to Kneel for Anthem Drops Incredible Statement About Jesus After Winning Play

That restaurant is Chick-fil-A, and they are offering an incredible deal to potential franchisees who want to operate their own restaurant — with a catch.

According to their website, outside of the initial franchise fee of $10,000, the only other requirement is that “the individual be free of any other active business ventures” and be prepared to “operate the restaurant on a full-time, hands-on basis.”

They should also be able to show that they possess a “proven track record in business leadership” and have “successfully managed (their) personal finances.”

As such, owning a Chick-fil-A restaurant is not an ideal venture for someone looking for a passive business investment that doesn’t require actual work, nor would it work for somebody seeking to own multiple restaurants, as they don’t allow multi-unit operators.

Furthermore, since Chick-fil-A covers all of the costs of construction and equipment, the parent company gets to choose the location where the new restaurant will be built.

There are some other stipulations as well that were covered in an October 2017 article by The Balance, such as the fact that franchisees won’t actually “own” the restaurant, and therefore can’t sell it or pass it along to heirs, nor will it build any equity in the company. They also must abide by the long-standing tradition of remaining closed on Sundays, barring an emergency in the community.

Also, likely to offset the low start-up cost, franchisees are required to give 50 percent of their pre-tax profits to the company, a substantially higher margin than the other aforementioned restaurants which typically only charge advertising/royalty/service fees of between 5-10 percent of gross sales.

As for the likelihood of actually acquiring a Chick-fil-A franchise, you’d better hope you are one of the 70 to 80 applicants chosen out of the 20,000 potential franchisees who apply for a restaurant every single year.

RELATED: Grandfather Orders Non-Menu Item from Chick-Fil-A…Ends Up Saving His Life

All of that said, for somebody who isn’t afraid of hard work and is looking to operate a popular fast food restaurant in a direct hands-on fashion, this could be a great opportunity.

Obviously, considering the success of the franchise, the fantastic food and their excellent reputation, the company is doing something right.

Please share this story on Facebook to let everyone know about how they could go about becoming an operator of a Chick-fil-A franchise.

What do you think of the low initial investment to become a Chick-fil-A franchisee? Scroll down to comment below!

L’Oréal Paris UK’s new hijab-wearing Muslim model has made numerous anti-Israel posts on Twitter, calling the nation “sinister,” “child murderers,” and claiming “defeat” awaits them.

Amena Khan entered the spotlight this week after being featured in a L’Oréal hair product advertisement while wearing a hair-covering hijab.

“Whether or not your hair is on display it doesn’t affect how much you care about it,” declared Khan in response to critics, while L’Oréal Paris UK General Manager Adrien Koskas praised the advertisement as a “disruptive campaign for the haircare market.”

Several Twitter posts from Khan’s verified account, however, reveal the model’s anti-Israel beliefs. The tweets were deleted before noon on Friday — after they were discovered by Twitter users — but not before Breitbart Tech archived them for posterity.

“Israel is a sinister state & the ones who suffer most are innocent children,” proclaimed Khan in one since-deleted post, while in another she declared, “Israel = Pharoah. Both are child murderers. Insha’Allah, defeat also awaits the former; it’s only a matter of time.”

In other posts, Khan repeatedly referred to Israel as an “illegal state,” and claimed they take part in “terrorising innocent civilians.”

Khan has since deleted the posts, leaving up tweets which support Palestine, but removing those which attack Israel.

FREE PALESTINE <3

— Amena (@amenaofficial) June 21, 2013

Last year, L’Oréal Paris UK’s first transgender model Munroe Bergdorf went on several racist, anti-white rants, where she claimed white people were “the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth.”

After the rants emerged, L’Oréal fired Bergdorf, however the model was later rewarded with verification on Twitter.

L’Oréal Paris UK has not responded to Breitbart Tech’s request for comment on the matter.

Charlie Nash covers technology and LGBT for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington, or like his page at Facebook.