Translate

Thursday, February 8, 2018

FRANCE: HIJABBED MUSLIM SINGER RETOOLS LEONARD COHEN'S "HALLELUJAH" WITH ISLAMIC PROSELYTIZING LYRICS

 FRENCH SYRIAN SINGER CHANGES LYRICS 
TO PROSELYTIZE ISLAM
"During the blind audition on February 4, Mennel started her song in English, switched to a French take of the first verse, and then transitioned into Arabic, with the Hallelujah refrain replaced with “Ya Ilahi” (‘My god’ in Arabic). All four judges, including Lebanese-born singer Mika, gave their approval shortly after the first verse.
Born to a Syrian-Turkish father and a Moroccan-Algerian mother, the hijabi singer had already released four videos on her YouTube channel before she shot to fame on TV. However, her new online popularity has led to less-than-generous scrutiny as well.
After The Voice aired on Saturday, her posts on Palestine and the terror attacks in France were soon singled out. Websites criticised her pro-Palestinian stance as well as her posts in support of Tariq Ramadan, the Oxford professor who accused of sexual misconduct. Mennel responded to her critics on Twitter, saying that saying her posts were taken out of context and do not reflect her point of view."
 https://www.agoravox.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L620xH349/Mennel_Ibtissem_The_Voice-5bae8.jpg
 http://www.non-stop-people.com/sites/non-stop-people.com/files/2018/02/mennel_2.jpg
FRANCE: HIJABBED MUSLIM SINGER RETOOLS LEONARD COHEN'S "HALLELUJAH" 
WITH ISLAMIC PROSELYTIZING LYRICS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
She seemed to be the embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of French multiculturalist Leftists: a hijab-wearing Muslima singing a song written by a famous Jewish poet. But, as seems always to be the case, there was a catch: she sang altered lyrics in Arabic that turned the song into one that proselytized for Islam:
“She said her message is one of ‘love, of peace and tolerance and the proof of this is to sing Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen – a song that illustrates perfectly the message that I wish to express as an artist.’ But her Arabic-language rendition of Cohen’s song shows she took some artistic licenses with that message, according to the Tribune Juive weekly. Whereas the French-language translation of the song’s first verse was faithful to the English origin, Ibtissem proceeded to sing in Arabic a verse that stripped away its sensual language and unmistakably sexual allusions. The verse was written years ago by a singer from Kuwait, Muhamad Al Hussayn, who is known for setting Islamic proselytizing lyrics to Western pop melodies. It exchanges Cohen’s iconoclastic musings about King David’s lust for Bathsheba and female sexuality with the story of a man who was ‘surrounded by darkness’ until he found God.”
What’s more, she has a history of statements downplaying jihad terror and playing up the fiction of Muslim victimhood in France as well as in Israel. Once again we see that sentiments that are supposed to be held only by a “tiny minority of extremists” are much more common among Muslims than multiculturalist Leftists would like to admit.
Here is Mennel singing “Hallelujah”:
 And here is the real thing:

“Everyone loved this French-Muslim singer’s Leonard Cohen cover. Then they read her Facebook posts.,” by Cnaan Liphshiz, JTA, February 7, 2018:
(JTA) — In a deeply divided nation that is still reeling from a toxic presidential election last spring, as well as jihadist and racist attacks, Mennel Ibtissem’s performances offered a rare vision of hope.
The blue-eyed Muslim woman sang Arabic and French-language renditions of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” on national television in France while wearing a head cover. She was a favorite on the French edition of “The Voice” talent and reality show, seeming to embody the values of coexistence and tolerance in a country with a notorious integration problem.
But in a repeat of recent scandals involving ambassadors for diversity in Europe, Ibtissem’s social media activity showed a different side of her — one that spread pro-Palestinian propaganda, conspiracy theories and accusations that the French state, not jihadists, is responsible for terrorism.
It was that last remark, posted by the 23-year-old singer on social media in 2016, that prompted the TF1 television network to consider disqualifying Ibtissem from the show.
“We cannot keep on the show a person who made illegal statements,“ a network spokesman told television host and journalist Jean-Marc Morandini on Tuesday.
In her 2016 remarks, Ibtissem, the show’s first contender to perform while wearing a Muslim head covering, wrote following the murder of a priest in Saint-Etienne-du Rouvray by an Islamist that “the real terrorist[s] are our government.”
The same year, one day after a jihadist terrorist attack in Nice in which 86 people died, she seemed to peddle a popular conspiracy theory that Muslims are being framed for false-flag attacks.
“It’s becoming a routine: An attack each week!! And sure enough, the ‘terrorist’ takes with him his identity CARD. Of course, when planning a dirty you always take papers! #DontTakeUsForFools,” she wrote on Facebook.
In a separate post in 2016, Ibtissem said her country has “a shitty society,” that she is “sick of the French system” and that she’s “eager to get the hell out of here.”
Henda Ayari, a French feminist and author who grew up in a Muslim family, said L’Affaire Mennel indicates an eagerness in the French media and beyond to seek the semblance of tolerance rather than the real thing.
“Wearing a veil does not make one a saint, modesty needs no veil, beauty needs no pretty face to shine, external beauty does not mean internal one. Never rely on appearances, they’re deceiving,” Ayari wrote Tuesday on Twitter about Ibtissem….
BNVCA also noted a 2015 video of a song she wrote and performed titled “Smile Palestine,” in which she sings of “a life of despair” for the Palestinians amid “slaughter of mothers, fathers, little sisters and little brothers.”
Reacting to the controversy Ibtissem, an English teacher in training who was born in France to a Syrian father and an Algerian mother, wrote on Facebook that her statements about terrorism had been “taken out of context” and “do not reflect any of my views.”
She did not attempt to re-contextualize her remarks, but added that she was born in France.
“I love my country, and of course I wholeheartedly condemn terrorism, which was the reason for my fury: How can you imagine that I would defend the indefensible!” Ibtissem wrote.
She said her message is one of “love, of peace and tolerance and the proof of this is to sing Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen – a song that illustrates perfectly the message that I wish to express as an artist.”
But her Arabic-language rendition of Cohen’s song shows she took some artistic licenses with that message, according to the Tribune Juive weekly. Whereas the French-language translation of the song’s first verse was faithful to the English origin, Ibtissem proceeded to sing in Arabic a verse that stripped away its sensual language and unmistakably sexual allusions.
The verse was written years ago by a singer from Kuwait, Muhamad Al Hussayn, who is known for setting Islamic proselytizing lyrics to Western pop melodies. It exchanges Cohen’s iconoclastic musings about King David’s lust for Bathsheba and female sexuality with the story of a man who was “surrounded by darkness” until he found God.
A Tribune Juive author, in an unsigned op-ed, wrote that the altered version went to the heart of the controversy surrounding Ibtissem.
“To the uninitiated French public, Mennel began to sing a poetic story drawing on Psalms and King David, who ruled a Jewish kingdom in Jerusalem,” the op-ed read. “But to her many followers who speak Arabic, this artist had a very different religious message.”
_________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
 Mennel Ibtissem, Syria's Magic in the Voice France (with Video)
EXCERPT:
 The 22 years old, who is born to a Syrian-Turkish father and Moroccan-Algerian mother, was able to charm all four judges while performing Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah,” and as she was wrapping up, she surprised all of us by switching into an Arabic version of the song replacing Hallelujah with “Ya Ilahi.” Ibtissem chose the Lebanese-born Singer Mika to be her coach.

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: WOMAN ARRESTED FOR REMOVING HIJAB REFUSES TO REPENT DESPITE FACING 10 YEARS IN PRISON

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: WOMAN ARRESTED 
 https://tommyhansson.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/nargeshoseini-e1517851950832-1.jpg
FOR REMOVING HIJAB REFUSES TO REPENT DESPITE FACING 10 YEARS IN PRISON 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Narges Hosseini is an actual feminist. Where are the feminists of the West speaking up for her right not to wear the hijab? Linda Sarsour? Anyone?
Women such as Narges Hosseini and Vida Movahed deserve the wholehearted support of all free people. That they do not receive it from the supposedly feminist Left reveals the self-serving hypocrisy of Western feminists.

“Woman Arrested For Removing Hijab in Tehran Refuses to Repent Despite Facing 10 Years in Prison,” Center for Human Rights in Iran, February 6, 2018:
Narges Hosseini, who was arrested for protesting Iran’s compulsory hijab, refused to appear in court to face charges punishable by up to 10 years, including “encouraging immorality or prostitution.”
“Ms. Hosseini did not even appear in court to express remorse for her action. She said she objects to the forced hijab and considers it her legal right to express her protest,” Hosseini’s lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, told the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) on February 5, 2018.
Hosseini, 32, has been in detention since January 29, 2018. She was unable to pay the $135,000 USD bail set by the judge presiding over her case.
She was arrested on January 29, 2018, for posting a photo on social media of herself standing on a bench holding her white headscarf like a flag on Tehran’s Revolution’s Street.
All women in Iran are required to cover their hair and bodies in public.
Vida Movahed was the first woman to be arrested after she did the same thing in late December 2017 in Tehran. The act of removing your headscarf in public and waving it like a flag has become a symbol for the “Girls of Revolution Street” movement, which advocates choice over compulsion for women’s clothing.
“Ms. Hosseini is being held in difficult circumstances in Gharchak Prison [south of Tehran] but she is not prepared to say she is sorry,” Sotoudeh, a prominent human rights lawyer, told CHRI. “She believes she’s innocent.”
Hosseini is facing the charges of, “openly committing a harām [sinful] act” and “violating public prudency” under Article 638 and “encouraging immorality or prostitution” under Article 639.
According to Article 639 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, “The following individuals shall be sentenced to one year to 10 years’ imprisonment… A – Anyone who establishes or directs a place of immorality or prostitution. B – Anyone who facilitates or encourages people to commit immorality or prostitution.”
Article 638 states, “Anyone in public places and roads who openly commits a harām [sinful] act, in addition to the punishment provided for the act, shall be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment or up to 74 lashes; and if they commit an act that is not punishable but violates public prudency, they shall only be sentenced to 10 days to two months’ imprisonment or up to 74 lashes.”
Hosseini’s lawyer also rejected a senior judicial official’s claim that her client is a drug addict….

JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REFUSED TO BAKE CAKE FOR SAME SEX WEDDING

 http://tennesseestar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Christian-Baker-wins-in-CA-Court_840x840.jpg
 https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/mireya-and-eileen-rodriquez-del-rio1.jpg?w=500
 VIDEO:
 Rabid Republican Blog − The Case Of The Cake Not Yet Baked!
JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REFUSED TO BAKE CAKE 
FOR SAME SEX WEDDING 
BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
A California judge has affirmed the constitutional rights of a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. According to Superior Court Judge David Lampe, the public marketplace cannot compel an individual to endorse a message with which he or she disagrees.  
Judge Lampe contends that wedding cakes are "artistic expressions" and are therefore at the core of the First Amendment.
"For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment," the judge said in the ruling.
Lampe's ruling contrasts with a ruling out of Colorado that stated a baker could not refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for the wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig because he said it violated his Christian faith. The couple then filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission. To avoid violating his faith as well as the court's order, Phillips has stopped making wedding cakes, which has eaten into a significant portion of his profits, according to the Washington Times. That case is now before the Supreme Court.
California has a similar public accommodation law to that of Colorado, so when Cathy Miller, owner of "Tastries" bakeshop in Bakersfield and devout Christian, refused to make a cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-De Rio's wedding, the state pursued legal action. Charles LiMandri of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund acted as Miller's lawyer.
The judge offered to hold off on making a decision in the case until the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Phillips case, but California argued that it was entitled to a decision.
According to Judge Lampe, the case would have had a different decision had the debate been over a premade cake. “No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Judge Lampe wrote in his order.
“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” he added.
The Blaze reports that the judge also noted that Miller's recommendation that the couple go to a competitor was a factor in the ruling. “Furthermore, here the State minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent. The fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios (the couple) feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection,” the judge wrote.
And though the ruling is a win for constitutional rights, it is predicated on the notion that the government is the purveyor of individual liberties and rights.
Ron Paul, a former U.S. congressman from Texas, remarked on this very concept in 2017, following another case in which Christian bakers in Oregon were punished for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple and were ordered to pay $135,000 in fines. Paul wrote that there is a danger in asking judges whether a bakery owner's refusal to bake a cake is rooted in religious objections:
Looking just at this argument means that a victory for the bakery would implicitly accept the legitimacy of laws dictating to whom private businesses must provide services, as long as an exemption is made for those with religious objections. This reduces property and contract rights to special privileges held by business owners with “sincere religious convictions.” It also allows judges, bureaucrats, and politicians to determine who is really acting on sincere religious convictions.
Paul contends that individuals should have the right to determine with whom they would like to transact:
Just as business owners have the right to decide who to do business with, individuals have the right to form any arrangement they wish as long as they do not engage in force or fraud. This includes entering into what many consider unconventional or even immoral marriage contracts. What no individual has the right to do is use government to force others to accept his definition of marriage.
Still, Miller is pleased that Judge Lampe acknowledged and upheld her rights. "Our bakery and our family feel very blessed that the judge ruled in our favor,” Miller said. “Not to say that we want to be discriminatory, but we do need to stand up for our religious freedom and our freedom of speech."
______________________________________________________
 Judge Rules California Can’t Force Baker to Create Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ in Violation of Her Christian Faith
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the State of California cannot force a baker who identifies as a Christian to create cakes for same-sex “weddings” in violation of her faith. He differentiated between selling a generic product on the shelf with having to specially create a cake that celebrates an event that her religion prohibits.
“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake,” Judge David Lampe noted in his ruling on Tuesday to deny the State’s request for a preliminary injunction. “The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.”
“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” he declared.
As previously reported, two lesbian women, Eileen Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez, who already “married” in December 2016, approached Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake. Miller, who had the women try some of her cupcakes while present, offered to call another baker who could accommodate them as she herself could not be a part of the event.

“We’re Christians. We love everyone. God made everyone. It doesn’t matter the color [or] whatever. Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” Miller told ABC23 News. “But, there’s certain things that violate my conscience and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong, and most of what that’s based on is Scripture.”
The women, upset that she had offered a referral instead of creating the cake herself, took to social media about the matter and later filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which handles enforcement of the state’s civil rights law. Miller’s attorneys say that she received hateful messages and death threats as a result of the situation.
The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.

“California respects and celebrates diverse religious beliefs and freedom of speech, but does not create exceptions to its civil rights laws to allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” Director Kevin Kish said in a statement.
“After a careful review of the preliminary facts, DFEH concluded that legal intervention was warranted to ensure equal access to services and prevent harm resulting from discrimination until our investigation is complete,” he outlined.
Judge Lampe denied the State’s request for an emergency injunction in December, advising that he wanted to allow time for Miller to respond. A hearing for a preliminary injunction was held last Friday, and according to Miller’s attorneys with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, hundreds of Bakersfield residents gathered outside of the courthouse to pray for Miller prior to the hearing.
On Tuesday, Judge Lampe ruled in favor of Miller, and differentiated between not allowing a person to buy anything from one’s store because of their homosexuality, and being forced to create something that presents a message that is against one’s religion.
“The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is laudable and necessary public goal. No vendor may refuse to sell their public goods, or services (not fundamentally founded upon speech) based upon their perception of the gender identification of their customer, even upon religious grounds,” he wrote. “A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire.”
“No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe continued.
However, “[t]he difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” he noted.
“Would this court force a baker who strongly favored LGBT rights to create and design wedding cake she had refused to a Catholic couple, in her protest of the Catholic Church’s prescription against same-sex marriage?” Lampe asked. “The answer is ‘No.’ This court has an obligation to protect free speech, regardless of whose foot the shoe is on.”
“A wedding cake is not just cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be greater form of expressive conduct,” he also noted. “The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.”
Lampe ruled that the State could not outweigh its interests with Miller’s free speech rights and noted that there were ample alternatives for the lesbian women as “Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield.”
“For the reasons stated above, the application for preliminary injunction is denied. The State cannot succeed upon the merits, and the balance of hardships does not favor the State,” he concluded.
Read the ruling in full here.
Miller’s attorneys cheered the ruling upon its release.
“Cathy would never discriminate against anyone who walks through her bakery’s doors. She will gladly serve anyone, including same-sex couples,” said President Charles LiMandri. “But Cathy will not use her artistic talents to express messages that conflict with her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech.”

TRUMP APPEARS TO BE NEGATIVE TOWARD MCCAIN-COONS IMMIGRATION PLAN

 https://www.ac2news.com/wp-content/uploads/McCain-Coons-565x358.jpg
TRUMP APPEARS TO BE NEGATIVE TOWARD MCCAIN-COONS IMMIGRATION PLAN
BY WARREN MASS
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Senator Christopher Coons (D-Del.) introduced an immigration bill (S.2367), of which Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was an original cosponsor, on February 5 that would grant relief from deportation and a path to citizenship for the nearly 800,000 young illegal aliens known as “Dreamers,” whose work permits are set to expire March 5. These youthful illegal aliens had been granted protection from deportation and the right to work legally in the United States under former President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The official description of S.2367 states that in addition to providing “relief from removal and adjustment of status” of the young illegal aliens, it also seeks to improve border security and foster United States engagement in Central America.
As of February 6, the text for S.2367 had not been listed as received at the congress.gov website, but the Washington Post reported that the measure does not authorize spending the $25 billion that President Trump is seeking to fortify the U.S.-Mexican border with a new wall and fence construction.
The Post also reported that the McCain-Coons legislation additionally would grant legal status to so-called Dreamers who have been in the country since 2013, which amounts to a greater number of illegal aliens than the 1.8 million President Trump now supported legalizing.
Apparently, the bill says nothing about ending chain migration or the visa lottery program — two of the four pillars of the immigration plan Trump said he would offer to Congress during his State of the Union speech.
Coons told reporters on February 5 that he has not heard from top congressional leaders about the bill he and McCain introduced, and that he considers it one of several proposals that could earn a vote.
Coons said that “a broader solution” introduced by Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is one possible compromise for senators to support. However, CNN reported back on January 17, the day that bill was introduced, that Trump and his top advisers told reporters that the bill was not what the White House was looking for, virtually assuring the measure had no chance of moving forward as it was drafted.
With the Graham-Durbin bill apparently dead in the water, Coons said his proposal with McCain could be a “fresh start” and a “strong starting place” for the Senate to consider during the upcoming efforts to pass an immigration bill.
In a statement quoted by the Post, McCain said the bill “would address the most urgent priorities” of legalizing the status of Dreamers and make changes to border security — and allow Congress to move on.
“It’s time we end the gridlock so we can quickly move on to completing a long-term budget agreement that provides our men and women in uniform the support they deserve,” the Arizona senator added.
A report in The Hill observed that although McCain and Coons believe their bill could be a starting point for negotiations among a wider group of senators, Trump voiced criticism of the measure before it was even formally introduced.
The president said it was a non-starter to offer a fix for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program without providing funding for the border wall.
“Any deal on DACA that does not include STRONG border security and the desperately needed WALL is a total waste of time,” Trump wrote in a tweet. “March 5th is rapidly approaching and the Dems seem not to care about DACA. Make a deal!”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on September 5 that the DACA program will end in six months, giving Congress time to find a legislative solution for people enrolled in the program. That period ends on March 5, when roughly 800,000 DACA recipients will begin to face deportation without action by Congress.
The Hill cited a statement from Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, who said on February 5 that the Coons-McCain proposal fell short of what the president requires. Asked if it should be the base for the Senate's legislation, he shook his head no, saying “a lot” needed to be added to it. “Look at our [the White House’s] framework,” he told reporters, “I think we’d advocate our framework to be the base bill.”
While Trump may appear to be uncompromising and inflexible in being reluctant to embrace the McCain-Coons bill, he has in fact already compromised much more than congressional conservatives like. As was observed in a recent article in The New American, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on January 25, “I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally. Doing so is inconsistent with the promises we made to the men and women who elected us.”
Cruz’s statement, though it did not mention Trump by name, was an apparent response to remarks made by the president that he was open to the “Dreamers” obtaining citizenship eventually.
When former President Obama issued DACA, he said it was a temporary stop-gap until Congress took action to develop a permanent solution. In his executive order, he only granted permission for DACA “Dreamers” to remain in the country. He did not propose to make them citizens.
Cruz seized upon this distinction and stated:
For some reason that to me is utterly inexplicable, we see Republicans falling all over themselves to gallop to the left of Obama in a way that is contrary to the promises made to the voters who elected us. We need to honor the promises we made. And that is what I am energetically urging my colleagues to do.
While campaigning for the presidency, candidate Trump promised that he would “immediately terminate” DACA after being elected. However, in recent months, he has increasingly demonstrated a willingness to compromise with Democrats by supporting legislation that would offer the same protection from deportation and extended work authorization that the Obama administration granted.
Furthermore, as Cruz noted, Trump is now going beyond what Obama offered with DACA by offering a path to citizenship to the Dreamers. Trump appears to have rejected the immigration proposal by McCain and Coons, tweeting: “It’s a total waste of time.” If he truly feels that way, the president would do well to consider Cruz’s statements, which should be well worth his time.
 
Related articles:
Senator Cruz Opposes Amnesty for Anyone Entering America Illegally
Trump On Citizenship for Dreamers: “We’re Going to Morph Into It”
“Bill of Love”: Trump’s Ongoing Effort to Strike Deal With Democrats for DACA Recipients
Trump and Democrats Working on Deal Over Future of DACA Recipients Before Program Expires
Trump Letter to Congress Outlines Immigration Plan, but Is Open to “Reform” of DACA Recipients’ Status
DHS Assistant Secretary Says Administration Supports Allowing “Dreamers” to Stay
Trump’s Apparent Willingness to Preserve DACA Disturbs His Conservative Base