From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

The National Border Patrol Council, the union representing roughly 16,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide, endorsed former President Donald Trump for president while criticizing President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

On Monday, the union issued a statement, saying, “On behalf of the 16,000 men and women represented by the National Border Patrol Council, we strongly support and endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States.”

They did so after endorsing Trump at a Prescott, Ariz., rally on Sunday where Trump was joined by many Border Patrol leaders.

“If we allow border czar Harris to win this election, every city, every community in this great country is going to go to hell. The untold millions of people unvetted, who she has allowed into this country that are committing murders, rapes, robberies, burglaries and every other crime will continue to put our country in peril,” NBPC’s new president, Paul Perez, said.

“Only one man can fix that. That is Donald J. Trump. He has always stood with the men and women who protect this border, who put their lives on the line for the country.”

The union also said border experts want Trump to be president “so that the border can be secured without compromise. Only the drug cartels and Democrats want an open border – that’s what Border Czar Harris has given them and will continue to do in the future.”

The union’s leaders for the last nearly four years have joined Trump at border events in Texas and Arizona. After Trump announced he was running for reelection, the NBPC’s former president, Brandon Judd, endorsed him and joined him at campaign events.

The NBPC has repeatedly criticized the border policies of Biden and Harris, arguing they created the border crisis. The union has also repeatedly fact checked claims they’ve made, including refuting that it had ever endorsed Biden for president.

Prior to dropping out of the presidential race, during the June presidential debate, Biden claimed, “the Border Patrol union endorsed me, endorsed my position.”

In response, the union posted a statement on X, saying, “To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.”

During the Sept. 10 presidential debate between Harris and Trump, Harris made comments related to “the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity,” which the union criticized. “She apparently only cares about other countries’ sovereignty b/c when it comes to America, she and President Biden opened up the border, erasing any semblance of sovereignty,” it said.

After Harris made claims about her border policies at a campaign event in Douglas, Ariz., the union said, “VP Harris claimed that she played a role in increasing Border Patrol Agent overtime pay. This couldn’t be further from the truth. As with all things border related she was no where to be found when we needed her.”

In response to Harris claiming that Border Patrol agents needed more resources, the union said, “We have apprehended over 8 million illegal immigrants over the last 4 years and now you realize we need more help 38 days before the election.

“Vice president Harris has ignored the border problem she created for over three years. She goes down there for 20 minutes for a photo op and decides to repeat some of the things the NPBC has said before. But again, where has she been the last 3 1/2 years?”

During the debate and at campaign rallies, Harris has repeatedly claimed she would sign a Senate border bill into law, which she says allocated funding to hire 1,500 Border Patrol agents. She and others claim Trump killed the bill.

On Sunday, Trump vowed to immediately ask Congress for funds to hire an additional 10,000 Border Patrol employees, give existing agents a 10% raise, and create a $10,000 retention and signing bonus, if elected president.

“I will always stand with the incredible men and women of Border Patrol,” he said. “They have a tremendous shortage because they haven’t been treated right. They want to do their jobs. You know, they consider it bad treatment when you’re not allowed to do your jobs.”

The Senate border bill does the opposite of what Harris and other proponents claim, according to the bill language, including allowing an unlimited number of illegal foreign nationals into the country due to numerous exceptions. The bill would codify existing policies created by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for which he was impeached in February, which Republicans argue is facilitating the ongoing crisis.

Texas officials also argued the bill would codify mass migration and nullify state sovereignty.

U.S. Senate Democrats and Independents ultimately didn’t support it; Senate Democratic leadership never brought it to a vote.

U.S. Senate Democrats have also sought to distance themselves from Biden-Harris border policies as local communities grapple with increased crime and social services costs associated with illegal border crossers. Senate leadership also refused to consider a border bill passed by the U.S. House.

Despite Harris’ recent campaign claims, while a U.S. senator, she sought to reduce funding and staff of federal border agencies, including seeking to eliminate U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement, the agency responsible for removing some of the most dangerous criminals.

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Gage Haubrich

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s gun ban and buyback policy is running out of steam.

And it hasn’t even left the station.

The buyback is broken. Law-abiding firearms owners don’t want to lose their guns. It doesn’t go far enough for gun-control advocates. And taxpayers don’t want to pick up the massive bill.

“It’s a waste of Canadian’s money,” said a spokesperson for PolyRemembers, a prominent gun-control advocacy group. “We are not reducing the risk level. It’s just for appearances.”

Instead, PolyRemembers wants the government to go further and ban even more models of firearms.

But if the recommendation is to ban more guns, the solution brings a lot more problems.

And Ottawa already tried that. The federal government tried to dramatically expand the list of guns banned with committee amendments. One of the additions included the semi-automatic SKS rifle, of which there are estimated to be more than 500,000 in Canada.

After the introduction of amendments to Bill C-21 that would have seen many common hunting rifles banned, the Assembly of First Nations passed an emergency resolution opposing the ban.

“It’s a tool,” said Kitigan Zibi Chief Dylan Whiteduck about the list of rifles to be banned. “It’s not a weapon.”

“No government has a right to take that away from us and regulate that,” said said Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations Vice-Chief Heather Bear. “That is our job as mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, and hunters

The government backed down and removed the amendments.

Expanding the buyback to include even more firearms would mean more resistance from current firearms owners and a larger cost to buyback even more guns.

The government says the aim of the ban is to keep Canadians safe, but the evidence shows that it’s unlikely to help, even if it was expanded to include more firearms.

The federal government announced a ban on 1,500 types of what it called “assault-style” firearms in May 2020. It promised to provide “fair compensation” to gun owners whose firearms it confiscates.

New Zealand tried a gun ban and buyback program that was more far reaching than Ottawa’s, banning almost all semi-automatic firearms, not only so-called “assault style” rifles.

It didn’t work.

During the decade before the buyback, according to data from the New Zealand Police, violent firearm offences averaged 932 a year in New Zealand. In 2019, the year of the buyback, there were 1,142 offences. In 2022, the number of offences was 1,444.

New Zealand’s buyback wasn’t cheap either. Costs to administer the program were more than double the initial estimates.

Experts in Canada have seen enough to know the policy is a failure.

The National Police Federation, the union that represents the RCMP, says Ottawa’s buyback, “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

And it’s a lot of funding and resources.

In total, estimates show that Trudeau’s scheme could cost taxpayers up to $756 million to buyback the guns, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That doesn’t even include the administration costs – it’s just the cost of compensating firearms owners.

Instead of taking away firearms from Canadians, that’s enough money to pay for the average salaries of 1,000 police officers for more than seven years.

The government has a history of ballooning costs for these types of programs. The government initially promised the long-gun registry would cost taxpayers only $2 million. The final tab was over $2 billion. The registry was scrapped by the Harper government and stayed scrapped under the Trudeau government.

If those were the overruns just to register the guns, how much money would the federal government waste trying to confiscate them?

Ottawa’s buyback has already cost taxpayers $67 million since 2020. Not a single gun has been “bought back” yet.

It’s time for Ottawa to cancel its gun ban and buyback. Because right now, all it looks set to do is cost taxpayers a boatload of money without making Canadians safer.