We are back to the age-old question: “How many illegal migrants can you fit in Gracie Mansion.”
Mayor Adams said this year that he is willing to stress-test the matter, suggesting that he would be more than happy to put up some of the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that have come into this city this year. We’ll see.
I’m not surprised that he is resorting to such claims.
After all, New York — like other “sanctuary cities” — has already seen hotel after hotel turned over to the city’s newest arrivals.
And once the homeless accommodations get filled up, and the city’s hotels start to overflow, it seems that the migrants have to move in with us.
That is what Mayor Adams suggested this week.
That the city’s residents should start to put up the illegal migrants in our own cramped apartments.
Well here’s an idea: No. Absolutely not.
Failure is bipartisan
Because it wasn’t hard-working taxpayers here who chose to grandstand and make New York a “sanctuary city.”
It wasn’t people paying sky-high rents in the city who decided it would be a good idea if New York became one of the country’s foremost destinations for people who have broken every law to come into this country.
That decision was made by our politicians.
And it has been made possible by politicians from both parties.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for in America — on the matter of illegal migration the results are always the same.
To be fair, it is the same in other developed countries.
In Britain, a Conservative government which came to power promising to limit migration has overseen a doubling in the number of migrants in the last year alone.
The same story has happened here.
I will get onto the Democrats in a moment.
But in the meantime, why is it that the Dems even had the opportunity to make the southern border so entirely porous?
One reason is the previous incumbent in the White House.
What was the one campaign promise above all others that Donald Trump bellowed in 2016? “Build the Wall.”
And remember who he promised us was going to pay for that wall?
“Mexico.”
As the crowds at his rallies gleefully chanted with him.
So how did he do?
Well he left office having completed about 458 miles of a border wall.
But only around 52 miles of that was built in places where there had previously been no wall.
To put that in perspective, there are almost 2,000 miles of border between the United States and Mexico.
Yet at his CNN Townhall last month Trump told the cheering crowd.
“I did finish the wall. I built the wall.”
Here’s a fact-check.
He didn’t.
And Mexico didn’t pay a dime for it.
Who knows why?
When he was first eyeing up his run for office it was conservative writer Ann Coulter, among others, who persuaded him that the border wall was the major issue which could get him elected President.
He picked up her suggestion and ran with it.
She wrote a whole book supporting him, was one of the few who predicted his victory and even introduced him at rallies.
Repeating mistakes
When the border wall didn’t materialize.
Coulter criticized him.
And what did Trump do?
Did he build his wall faster?
No, as I said last week, he did what he always does — he attacked a person who had been loyal to him.
It was the age-old Trump problem.
If he had actually applied himself to building the wall rather than spending his time blocking and insulting Coulter and others on Twitter then who knows, perhaps his wall might have materialized.
But it didn’t.
And so, when the Dems came into power there was no wall.
Now we can see the results of that.
Because the Democrats have made the same mistakes their counterparts in Europe have made in recent years.
First they have blurred the lines between people fleeing conflict and people fleeing economic deprivation.
Second they have decided that instead of assessing asylum applications outside the country you should let people in illegally and then vaguely pretend to process their applications once they are here.
It is what the Italians have done, what the Greeks and other Europeans have done, and it is what the British have done.
Everywhere it has been a disaster.
Everywhere it means that if you break all the rules and get in then you get to stay.
It makes a mockery of all the people going through the legal routes.
And it presently makes us the countries of destination for almost all of the world.
About 662 million people live in Latin America and the Caribbean.
That’s twice the population of this country.
Nearly all of them have a far worse standard of living than we enjoy here.
Should they be allowed to come because of that?
Of course not.
Yet they have come.
And they will keep on coming.
Because of Republican failures and Democrat weakness.
I’ve never been invited to Gracie Mansion myself.
But I hope it’s vast.
Why are 9/11 terrorists still alive?
I read this week that the military judge in the 9/11 case has postponed this summer’s hearings.
Apparently a new evaluation must take place to assess the competency of one of the accused to face trial.
The mental competency hearing relates to Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a deputy in the plot.
As a result the trial of all the main accused will be delayed.
That includes the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was also the man who beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
I’m not generally a fan of the death penalty.
But for these guys?
Sorry — but what’s the hold-up here?
How is it possible that the trial of the 9/11 plotters is still going on in 2023?
How are they still alive?
Is the plan that when someone commits mass murder on American soil we put the perpetrators on trial until they die of old age?
What a disgrace.
This story originally appeared on NYPost
