I'm totally honest here in the question above.
What exactly do the people who have been or are supporting one Donald J. Trump really want from their political savior?
Some interesting polling coming from the Donald's recent win in South Carolina over the weekend seems to contradict the issue that the Donald is really running on.
That is illegal immigration.
It appears that the majority, yes the majority, of those that participated in the Republican primary favor a pathway to citizenship and or legal status for illegal aliens.
Huh?!
So while the Donald is averaging about 30% of the vote in the three primaries that have been held, it is a minority within a minority. The majority of Republicans in a state like South Carolina favor some kind of legal status for those here illegally but have, basically, been working and earning a paycheck.
What is clear is that the vocal minority is angry. And voting for the Donald is what unifies the angry. The angry that want to close the border. The angry that want to bar Muslims from entering the United States. At least for a while. After that, well it gets pretty murky.
See in the beginning of the Donald's campaign, the Donald was trying to win over conservatives by having seemingly a Come-to-Jesus conversion to a solid conservative position on a variety of issues as noted in this post from Bookworm Room.
Many people just liked that the Donald was taking on the sclerosis of the Washington Beltway GOP. Yeah! Telling it like it is! And to a point I agree. The Beltway GOP oversold what they could and or could not do in regards to the Dear Leader, President Obama. They have never admitted such and deserve scorn and ridicule. Even the writer of the link admits that was a attractive aspect of the Donald and why he got him.
But then the post compares and contrasts what the Donald has done and or said in the past, it is damning to a thinking person.
There is a meme going around Facebook as an example trying to prove that the Donald has been a registered Republican since 1980. There is even something that looks official. The only problem is that what the record is that the Donald has been a registered voter and could participate in scheduled elections. The Donald, by his own admission, has been like crap on his party registration. All over the place.
Let's not forget that the Donald has also, again by his own admission, given money to both parties. And more to the Democrats than the Republicans. The Donald gave money to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that they used to retake control of congress in 2006.
When it comes to socialized medicine, the Donald is pretty much all in. He makes a lying claim that people are literally dying in the streets and that will not happen under a Trump presidency. That is right out of, well Bernie Sanders playbook.
The writer of the linked post does an excellent job on explaining the difference between eminent domain for the public good vs. a crony capitalist goal (of which the Donald is a YUGE crony capitalist).
There is much more, but for people that call themselves conservative, how in the name of all is holy can you support Donald J. Trump?
Is it really just about illegal immigration? Is that really all you care about? You really think that the Donald is going to do what he says? How? With congress? Good luck with that one. If not, are you down with a President Donald simply going the executive order route? Or is it that your anger is that of a form of political road rage? Not thinking but maybe going off half-cocked and spewing out because it will make you temporarily feel better?
Before you scream that I am for the Gang of Eight type of legislation, nope, not in the least. We do have to deport those here illegally and committing illegal activity. Period. But there is no way we can, or should, do anything sweeping. It all has to happen piece by piece. There is no magic bullet. Really, there is not. Unless you are willing to give everything one believes in up, then I get the support of the Donald.
Please do not try to claim that the Donald is a conservative. He is not. Your issue is one and it is a minority view within a minority of voters.
What the Trump voters want is the same thing that propels people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura to power. A magic fix to big problems that cannot just be waved away.
Showing posts with label Illegal immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal immigration. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2016
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Say San Fran, How's That Sanctuary Going For You?
An interesting post by Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air shows that the group Judicial Watch obtained information on crime in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, and, surprisingly crime-especially violent crime-is up in the city by the bay.
According to the report, since San Francisco became an official sanctuary city in 2011, arrests for murder have increased a substantive 55% with arrests for rapes increasing a staggering 370%. Yes, you read that right, 370%.
The following chart is helpful in following the trend. For your help in understanding the code violations:
187 - First and second degree murder.
240 - Simple assault.
243 - Battery.
261 - Rape.
Again, keep in mind that these are cases in which an arrest has been made. This is not counting any case that is unsolved. And according to the Judicial Watch press release the above are for arrests and bookings. Again, there is nothing about the actual number of murders, per se in the city.
So the question in this.
Is this a direct result of being a sanctuary city and the sheriff's department expanding the meaning of sanctuary city so as to not hand over any suspected illegal alien to federal law enforcement?
While it seems that there is a casual possibility, it is hard to quantify because, by sheer coinkidink, the sheriff's department of San Francisco county does track such a thing through it's jail management system.
Thus I come to the same conclusion that Jazz does and that it is not clear but extremely probable the spikes are at least related to the sanctuary city enforcement and the perception that if one is an illegal alien criminal, and just being an illegal alien does not count in this, they will simply go through the system like any other criminal.
But look at this year compared to all of last year. Already there are 78 murders in which an arrest and or booking has been made. There are 54 assaults. Which means with three and a half months left of 2015, 58 more murders and 40 assaults will have to take place to surpass the 2014 total. And with the trajectory edging upward, the chances that it will be higher than last year are better than 50/50.
The problem in seeking ways to engage in such crime protection and or prevention is that by not tracking the status of those going through the jail system there is not knowledge if it is indeed due to increasing crime by criminal illegal aliens or just the overall rise in crime that we are seeing in many major American cities.
What the powers that be in San Francisco are doing is intentionally burying their heads in the sands to appear to be tolerant and somehow morally superior to those cities that do track such statistics and cooperate with federal officials in turning over illegal aliens.
The people of San Francisco, so much as they know of this, need to demand that the sheriff's department make known whether or not a suspected, arrested criminal is an illegal alien and if so turn them over to federal law enforcement.
As an aside, a look at the San Francisco Chronicle website and the local news area shows nothing about this important story.
The reality is that the city of San Francisco is violating federal law and the federal government is doing nothing about it. And the people that elect the sheriff and the city council/board of supervisors (San Francisco is a city-county government.) have no one to blame but themselves.
If the sheriff would take such statistics and there is a correlation between higher violent crime and criminal illegal aliens, it would prove the abject failure of the whole sanctuary city scam. And prove ant-illegal alien pols to be right.
According to the report, since San Francisco became an official sanctuary city in 2011, arrests for murder have increased a substantive 55% with arrests for rapes increasing a staggering 370%. Yes, you read that right, 370%.
The following chart is helpful in following the trend. For your help in understanding the code violations:
187 - First and second degree murder.
240 - Simple assault.
243 - Battery.
261 - Rape.
So the question in this.
Is this a direct result of being a sanctuary city and the sheriff's department expanding the meaning of sanctuary city so as to not hand over any suspected illegal alien to federal law enforcement?
While it seems that there is a casual possibility, it is hard to quantify because, by sheer coinkidink, the sheriff's department of San Francisco county does track such a thing through it's jail management system.
Thus I come to the same conclusion that Jazz does and that it is not clear but extremely probable the spikes are at least related to the sanctuary city enforcement and the perception that if one is an illegal alien criminal, and just being an illegal alien does not count in this, they will simply go through the system like any other criminal.
But look at this year compared to all of last year. Already there are 78 murders in which an arrest and or booking has been made. There are 54 assaults. Which means with three and a half months left of 2015, 58 more murders and 40 assaults will have to take place to surpass the 2014 total. And with the trajectory edging upward, the chances that it will be higher than last year are better than 50/50.
The problem in seeking ways to engage in such crime protection and or prevention is that by not tracking the status of those going through the jail system there is not knowledge if it is indeed due to increasing crime by criminal illegal aliens or just the overall rise in crime that we are seeing in many major American cities.
What the powers that be in San Francisco are doing is intentionally burying their heads in the sands to appear to be tolerant and somehow morally superior to those cities that do track such statistics and cooperate with federal officials in turning over illegal aliens.
The people of San Francisco, so much as they know of this, need to demand that the sheriff's department make known whether or not a suspected, arrested criminal is an illegal alien and if so turn them over to federal law enforcement.
As an aside, a look at the San Francisco Chronicle website and the local news area shows nothing about this important story.
The reality is that the city of San Francisco is violating federal law and the federal government is doing nothing about it. And the people that elect the sheriff and the city council/board of supervisors (San Francisco is a city-county government.) have no one to blame but themselves.
If the sheriff would take such statistics and there is a correlation between higher violent crime and criminal illegal aliens, it would prove the abject failure of the whole sanctuary city scam. And prove ant-illegal alien pols to be right.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Two Scary And Accurate Thoughts On Donald Trump
Just in case you did not know it, I am not exactly a big fan of one Donald J. Trump and his merry band of Trumpettes.
Don't get me wrong, at one level, I get the frustration that the Donald represents. The political class doesn't really listen to the voters and does what it wants no matter what. Although the Donald's anger is directed at the ossified, incompetent Republican leadership in and out of congress, there is always Bernie Sanders, the vowed Socialist reminding the left-wing base of the Democrat party how they have been betrayed as well.
Sen. Sanders is the left's and Democrats' problem.
As a conservative and Republican, my concern is about the conservative movement and it's place in the Republican party.
My serious opposition to the Donald is that at the end of the day he is not a conservative, does not care about issues-please note issueS-that are of great importance to conservatives, and will govern with the wind if, God forbid, he should win the GOP nomination and or worse, be elected the 45th president of the United States.
The following two articles, first from Ben Domenich of The Federalist and Peter Weber of The Week do sort of get to the same thing.
Mr. Domenich believes that the Donald is playing a dangerous game of White identity politics with his hyperbole on illegal immigration. I dispute that because Mr. Weber states something that I could tell you. That there are a core of Hispanics that actually are for strong border security. Even for the Donald's plan to ship all the illegals, 11,000,000, back to the nation of origin.
OK, I must digress here.
The numbers of illegal aliens is absolutely unknown. 11,000,000 or 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 is just at best a guesstimate. If we actually knew the numbers, it would actually be easy to round em up and ship em out, right? We are putting a number to at best guess a round number for purposes of trying to figure out a lot of different things.
Back to this post.
Mr. Domenich's thesis dovetails to Mr. Weber's article about a core of Hispanics that are none too thrilled about illegal aliens, especially from south of the border, including and especially from Central America. A lot of the opposition is based on people taking a piece of their pie, so to speak. Many Hispanics that oppose the current wave off illegal immigration are actually victims of it. When it comes to such things as in-state costs for illegal children or the so-called anchor babies means that many of the Hispanic children born here are competing with people who were not born here for their space at public colleges and universities. Especially in regards to student loans, grants and scholarships.
I agree with Mr. Domenich that if the GOP and modern American conservatism throws away the fusionist coalition that has been built by people like Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich, we will be no better than liberals and the left in playing identity politics. And he is correct.
What drives the Donald and his supporters, quite bluntly, is his bellicose personality. For whatever reason, the hardcore supporters of the the Donald, the Trumpettes, seem perfectly down with the Donald if he should do end arounds the United States constitution to meet his seemingly indecichperable goals. I ask all over Facebook and the internets if those that support the Donald would be down if he did what the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has done in excessive and questionable executive orders so long as it advances supposed conservative goals. Man do those crickets chirp and chirp loudly.
When I say that the Donald is our Obama, people get incensed but it is true and even worse because we do not know anything about what he would do outside of illegal immigration. Even that is questionable. But the Trumpettes are impressed with his personality and seemingly angry, no nonsense approach to our problems.
Which is why, as Mr. Weber points out nicely, the Donald would be a mini-dictator or caudillo a la Francisco Franco of Spain. No, it will not be by a violent civil war that it would happen but by the fact even elements on the conservative sign are perfectly OK with someone who might not be a leader within the context of the rule of law. Which is what has animated, correctly, a large part of conservative opposition to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
It's one thing to tap into righteous anger about a political class that has become more distant from the voters at all levels. City, county, state and federal. It's great to state the obvious. That they do not listen to their constituencies. They promote policies people have said they do not want. Pet projects the purveyors of big government on both sides try to shove down our collective throats. But it is harnessing that anger into something productive that I do not see the Donald doing. He's just spouting off on his bar stool and saying he can do what he says because now he is incorruptible. After telling all in the last GOP presidential debate how very corrupt he has been. And proudly. The Donald is either not well informed on a variety of issues or deflects a question with some kind of BS. Or he will give one answer to one interviewer/reporter and a different one to another interviewer/reporter. That should turn people off, alas it does not. It simply makes Trumpettes even more invested in their dude.
And that leads to people believing that we need a supposed conservative strong man as opposed to one that can clearly express and govern as a conservative.
It is one of the scariest aspects of the Trump candidacy.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Ann Coulter And John Kasich Mock Pro-Life
Before I explain why I think both conservative diva Ann Coulter and Republican presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich of Ohio seem to have a problem with pro-lifers, there needs to be an explanation.
For some reason these days conservatism has been ghettoized, mostly by other conservatives. We know that there are the three stools of modern conservatism. That would be domestic policy, foreign policy and social policy. There are subgroups in there, but that is the conservative coalition. And like it or not, the political vehicle for that is the Republican party.
I consider myself a practioniner of the three stools. No one is more or less important to conservative thinking and or ideas.
But since the end of the Bush 41 presidency in particular, there are those that want to rid one part of the stool or another. Some want to have a more government policy, albeit a conservative one with supposed conservative outcomes. Some do not like what they think is an overly muscular foreign policy and would like almost nothing more than to have a Fortress America world outlook. And of course there are those that want to purge the conservative movement of the icky social conservatives and their outdated view of the culture and the world.
The debate about illegal immigration is somewhat hard to categorize. I would put that under a very important concern of social conservatives. But there are some foreign policy hawks that have legitimate, righteous concerns about unfettered illegal immigration. Especially in the age of world-wide jihad. And even some domestic/economic conservatives that believe there is a serious cost in illegal immigration.
I consider myself very much a pro-lifer. I do not believe in abortion on demand and especially all the way to the ninth month. I do believe in the political reality that if we are to at the very least place restrictions on late-term abortions, there will have to be the exception for incest and rape. Science is in fact and indeed proving that a baby is very developed at the 20th week of a pregnancy. And with the video revelations of the group Center For Medical Progress and the cavalier manner of essentially selling aborted babies as body parts and tissue, it makes this tweet from Ann Coulter very disturbing.
Miss Coulter is a huge supporter of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and especially his seemingly hard-line on illegal immigration. A separate post for another time. But in Miss Coulter's zeal to make illegal immigration the issue of the upcoming presidential election, this is what she was willing to give up:
I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in the White House after this immigration policy paper
Really? Why would you tweet such a thing, Ann? Are you saying the wholesale murder of babies at the hands of the Abortuary Industrial Complex is OK as long as we build that wall and round up all illegal aliens and ship 'em home (only the "good ones" can come back in a expedited process).
The visual of what Miss Coulter tweeted is revolting.
Putting that aside, this is a huge problem of single-issue candidates and their supporters. They are so focused on the one issue that they do not see the forest through the trees.
Mr. Trump is suspect in so many areas of importance to conservatives and even Republicans and especially on abortion, there is no doubt that he really has not given any serious thought to the issue. And make no mistake, it is an issue of importance to many conservatives beyond social conservatives. Especially the fact that the federal government grants over $500,000,000 annually to Planned Parenthood, a private, non-profit organization. Oh, and Planned Parenthood is not supposed to use the money to perform abortions. But if you really think that there is some accounting of that federal, re: taxpayers, money, there is sure as hell no viable proof of it.
I would expect Miss Coulter to mock the other side as in liberals, leftists and the like. But to casually tweet such a sentiment, on a Sunday no less, shows something unbecoming of one that I have liked over the years for her clear-eyed view of the world.
But Miss Coulter is simply a supporter of a candidate and based on one position.
Ohio Republican John Kasich is an actual candidate for president. And it appears that he does not like that the Republican party talks too much about abortion.
Now to his credit, Gov. Kasich has made it harder for the Abortuary Industrial Complex to do business in Ohio. And when he served in congress, he was a very good congressman on abortion issues.
But the dirty secret is that the dude who is running Team Kasich is named John Weaver, a GOP consultant class loser if there ever was one. Mr. Weaver hates the conservative base that is the GOP. He really believes in somehow gaining respectability by narrowing and not expanding the field. After all, the greatest failure of Mr. Weaver's illustrious career was that of Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in 2000. Yeah, like any other political consultant, he can point to a success or two. Notably he did help Michigan GOP governor, Rick Snyder, win in 2010. But overall, Mr. Weaver is a weasel and a proven loser.
So, maybe this is why Mr. Kasich, again noted to be pro-life, felt a need to say the following:
I think (abortion) is an important issue, but I think there's many other issues that are really critical. Early childhood. Infant mortality. The environment. Education. I think we focus too much on one issue, and now that gay marriage is kind of off the table, we're kind of down to one social issue.
Where oh where does one start?!
Look, abortion is an important issue because it determines overall what kind of society we are. If we look at babies as nothing, then all the other issues that Gov. Kasich rightfully pointed out are not all that important. The whole reason of being that there is the Republican party is the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that all are created equal. Not equal outcomes in life, but created equal. That is why the GOP was so against slavery. And in a similar vein, why since Ronald Reagan it has taken the righteous position of being pro-life.
Had Gov. Kasich actually made it a part of his litany rather than something separate, it would make the abortion issue a part of rather than a separate issue. For all of the issues are extremely important that he mentioned in his rip on pro-lifers.
And worst of all is that he falls into the leftist trap (and consultant-class Republicans) that there have only been two social issues that animate GOP voters. Abortion and same-sex marriage.
In fact and indeed, GOP voters look at early childhood development, infant mortality and education as equal social issues. Throw in criminal justice and prison reform and there is more than just abortion and same-sex marriage.
Conservatism and by extension the Republican party is a coalition. And for the most part there is agreement on issues. But it is tiresome to see when trying to push a certain agenda conservatives seem to like to mock those of us that are pro-life and that we are too focused on that one issue. It is why I am not a one-issue kinda guy. If I were I would sit out more elections than participate in. The one issue to me is the United States moving in and beginning a conservative Renaissance. Short-shifting our partners in coalition is not going to help us get there.
For some reason these days conservatism has been ghettoized, mostly by other conservatives. We know that there are the three stools of modern conservatism. That would be domestic policy, foreign policy and social policy. There are subgroups in there, but that is the conservative coalition. And like it or not, the political vehicle for that is the Republican party.
I consider myself a practioniner of the three stools. No one is more or less important to conservative thinking and or ideas.
But since the end of the Bush 41 presidency in particular, there are those that want to rid one part of the stool or another. Some want to have a more government policy, albeit a conservative one with supposed conservative outcomes. Some do not like what they think is an overly muscular foreign policy and would like almost nothing more than to have a Fortress America world outlook. And of course there are those that want to purge the conservative movement of the icky social conservatives and their outdated view of the culture and the world.
The debate about illegal immigration is somewhat hard to categorize. I would put that under a very important concern of social conservatives. But there are some foreign policy hawks that have legitimate, righteous concerns about unfettered illegal immigration. Especially in the age of world-wide jihad. And even some domestic/economic conservatives that believe there is a serious cost in illegal immigration.
I consider myself very much a pro-lifer. I do not believe in abortion on demand and especially all the way to the ninth month. I do believe in the political reality that if we are to at the very least place restrictions on late-term abortions, there will have to be the exception for incest and rape. Science is in fact and indeed proving that a baby is very developed at the 20th week of a pregnancy. And with the video revelations of the group Center For Medical Progress and the cavalier manner of essentially selling aborted babies as body parts and tissue, it makes this tweet from Ann Coulter very disturbing.
Miss Coulter is a huge supporter of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and especially his seemingly hard-line on illegal immigration. A separate post for another time. But in Miss Coulter's zeal to make illegal immigration the issue of the upcoming presidential election, this is what she was willing to give up:
I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in the White House after this immigration policy paper
Really? Why would you tweet such a thing, Ann? Are you saying the wholesale murder of babies at the hands of the Abortuary Industrial Complex is OK as long as we build that wall and round up all illegal aliens and ship 'em home (only the "good ones" can come back in a expedited process).
The visual of what Miss Coulter tweeted is revolting.
Putting that aside, this is a huge problem of single-issue candidates and their supporters. They are so focused on the one issue that they do not see the forest through the trees.
Mr. Trump is suspect in so many areas of importance to conservatives and even Republicans and especially on abortion, there is no doubt that he really has not given any serious thought to the issue. And make no mistake, it is an issue of importance to many conservatives beyond social conservatives. Especially the fact that the federal government grants over $500,000,000 annually to Planned Parenthood, a private, non-profit organization. Oh, and Planned Parenthood is not supposed to use the money to perform abortions. But if you really think that there is some accounting of that federal, re: taxpayers, money, there is sure as hell no viable proof of it.
I would expect Miss Coulter to mock the other side as in liberals, leftists and the like. But to casually tweet such a sentiment, on a Sunday no less, shows something unbecoming of one that I have liked over the years for her clear-eyed view of the world.
But Miss Coulter is simply a supporter of a candidate and based on one position.
Ohio Republican John Kasich is an actual candidate for president. And it appears that he does not like that the Republican party talks too much about abortion.
Now to his credit, Gov. Kasich has made it harder for the Abortuary Industrial Complex to do business in Ohio. And when he served in congress, he was a very good congressman on abortion issues.
But the dirty secret is that the dude who is running Team Kasich is named John Weaver, a GOP consultant class loser if there ever was one. Mr. Weaver hates the conservative base that is the GOP. He really believes in somehow gaining respectability by narrowing and not expanding the field. After all, the greatest failure of Mr. Weaver's illustrious career was that of Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in 2000. Yeah, like any other political consultant, he can point to a success or two. Notably he did help Michigan GOP governor, Rick Snyder, win in 2010. But overall, Mr. Weaver is a weasel and a proven loser.
So, maybe this is why Mr. Kasich, again noted to be pro-life, felt a need to say the following:
I think (abortion) is an important issue, but I think there's many other issues that are really critical. Early childhood. Infant mortality. The environment. Education. I think we focus too much on one issue, and now that gay marriage is kind of off the table, we're kind of down to one social issue.
Where oh where does one start?!
Look, abortion is an important issue because it determines overall what kind of society we are. If we look at babies as nothing, then all the other issues that Gov. Kasich rightfully pointed out are not all that important. The whole reason of being that there is the Republican party is the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that all are created equal. Not equal outcomes in life, but created equal. That is why the GOP was so against slavery. And in a similar vein, why since Ronald Reagan it has taken the righteous position of being pro-life.
Had Gov. Kasich actually made it a part of his litany rather than something separate, it would make the abortion issue a part of rather than a separate issue. For all of the issues are extremely important that he mentioned in his rip on pro-lifers.
And worst of all is that he falls into the leftist trap (and consultant-class Republicans) that there have only been two social issues that animate GOP voters. Abortion and same-sex marriage.
In fact and indeed, GOP voters look at early childhood development, infant mortality and education as equal social issues. Throw in criminal justice and prison reform and there is more than just abortion and same-sex marriage.
Conservatism and by extension the Republican party is a coalition. And for the most part there is agreement on issues. But it is tiresome to see when trying to push a certain agenda conservatives seem to like to mock those of us that are pro-life and that we are too focused on that one issue. It is why I am not a one-issue kinda guy. If I were I would sit out more elections than participate in. The one issue to me is the United States moving in and beginning a conservative Renaissance. Short-shifting our partners in coalition is not going to help us get there.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
A Sane Approach To Border Security First
But trust me, this will not keep Donald Trump and the Trumpettes quiet or even give it a serious thought.
This piece put out by the editors of National Review is one of the best regarding the illegal immigration crisis I have seen in a long time.
Unlike so many talking points and positions, this actually is about the one thing that most reasonable people agree about in regards to this debate.
Border security.
The problem with the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" approach is that it takes on way too much all at one time. Sort of like so-called "comprehensive health care reform" or any other big government schemes.
What excites the Trumpettes is that their leader, the Donald, says he will build a wall along the Southern border of the United States and Mexico.
A wall is good in theory if there is one long line. But there is not. As we see there are hills, valleys and even a river that divides the two nations. It is probably impossible to build an actual wall. But as I have pointed out, mostly on Facebook, is that there is a multi-pronged approach. The editorial addresses that subject. There are parts of the border where an actual wall is possible and a good idea. But there are other parts that would require more of a barrier approach. And, this is most important, actually letting the Border Patrol do their job and arrest those crossing the border illegally. What upsets many Americans, myself included, is the way that the Obama administration has tried to essentially legalize millions of illegal aliens by executive order. And seeing just how easy it is to enter the United States pretty much with ease.
However, that is just a part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is that many people do come to the United States legally but simply overstay their visas. And that there is no effective way to enforce our immigration laws at the workplace.
Here is where the Donald's supporters need to understand that even now, he is still essentially an open-borders dude. Interviewed by CNN, the Donald started with the canard that illegal aliens are doing the jobs that Americans won't do. Uh, Americans will not work for little if any wages. The reality is that illegals are often paid off the books, with cash. There is no discernible way to really track illegal workers. Really, if there are no illegals to clean the toilets and Americans will have to be paid a decent, market-driven wage, they will do it. And then there is the "plan" to deport the supposed 11,000,000 illegal aliens to the nation of origin (sorry but they are not all from Mexico). Then he would put most in the front of the line for an "expedited" reentry process.
Huh?!
As the editorial notes, it's amnesty-laundering and is in fact and indeed a much more costly process. As well as a true slap in the face to those that are trying to actually become American citizens the right and legal way.
What the the Donald and his Trumpettes are falling into the trap of is giving credence to those that want to approach this problem in the wrong way and worse. This is why the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" folks will gain traction. Because they want to do something. Even if it screws up a system even worse than it is now.
Now I wish in the perfect world that we can have a humane policy of repatriating illegals back to their country of origin. But there is not. And the editorial points out what to do about those already here is secondary to solving the immediate problem of border security.
So here is the plan the editors of National Review advocate:
1) Build and supplement border barriers where appropriate, and see to it that they are patrolled.
2) Develop an effective system for those who overstay their visas, deport over-stayers, and impose heavy sanctions on them, and impose heavy sanctions , up to and including a lifetime ban on future travel to the United States.
3) Mandate the national use of E-verify or another system for checking employment eligibility, and then take the necessary additional step of making sure that records are current and complete so as to avoid the use of hijacked Social Security numbers.
4) Reform employment laws to impose much heavier penalties on those that employ illegals, and make those cases easier to prosecute.
5) Decline to renew the legal status granted under President Obama's executive amnesty; and then, when that's done, on the matter of the illegals who are already here, do . . . more or less what we've been doing, at least for a while, deporting those illegals who come into custody as we do under current protocols.
That is a solid plan that can lead to a serious decline in illegal immigration. And there is a serious policy for border security.
One aspect that I would add is to penalize so-called "sanctuary" cities for defying federal law by withholding any federal funds. I'm not asking the local police to become ICE agents or Border Patrol agents. But when they do have a suspect in custody and it is clear that person is an illegal alien, hand them over for deportation processing.
Here is also a reality we who live in border states do not realize.
That even in much of the United States, the perception is that illegal immigration is not a major problem. In almost all polling data, immigration issues are at the bottom along with global warming, aka climate change. No candidate is tying illegal immigration with the increasing possibility of the easy access of terrorists to the United States via illegal immigration and or legal immigration and simply overstaying a visa.
But those of us that live on the front lines of the problem, the border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas see the problem first hand. And that is why so many people do not get why illegal immigration is not a much more serious and or higher-ranking problem that needs to be responsibility dealt with.
The GOP candidate that can take this and articulate it in a coherent manner will be the one that has a real handle on the issue and can frame it in solving the immediate problem now and work on the other aspects once we can verifiably know our borders are secure.
This piece put out by the editors of National Review is one of the best regarding the illegal immigration crisis I have seen in a long time.
Unlike so many talking points and positions, this actually is about the one thing that most reasonable people agree about in regards to this debate.
Border security.
The problem with the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" approach is that it takes on way too much all at one time. Sort of like so-called "comprehensive health care reform" or any other big government schemes.
What excites the Trumpettes is that their leader, the Donald, says he will build a wall along the Southern border of the United States and Mexico.
A wall is good in theory if there is one long line. But there is not. As we see there are hills, valleys and even a river that divides the two nations. It is probably impossible to build an actual wall. But as I have pointed out, mostly on Facebook, is that there is a multi-pronged approach. The editorial addresses that subject. There are parts of the border where an actual wall is possible and a good idea. But there are other parts that would require more of a barrier approach. And, this is most important, actually letting the Border Patrol do their job and arrest those crossing the border illegally. What upsets many Americans, myself included, is the way that the Obama administration has tried to essentially legalize millions of illegal aliens by executive order. And seeing just how easy it is to enter the United States pretty much with ease.
However, that is just a part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is that many people do come to the United States legally but simply overstay their visas. And that there is no effective way to enforce our immigration laws at the workplace.
Here is where the Donald's supporters need to understand that even now, he is still essentially an open-borders dude. Interviewed by CNN, the Donald started with the canard that illegal aliens are doing the jobs that Americans won't do. Uh, Americans will not work for little if any wages. The reality is that illegals are often paid off the books, with cash. There is no discernible way to really track illegal workers. Really, if there are no illegals to clean the toilets and Americans will have to be paid a decent, market-driven wage, they will do it. And then there is the "plan" to deport the supposed 11,000,000 illegal aliens to the nation of origin (sorry but they are not all from Mexico). Then he would put most in the front of the line for an "expedited" reentry process.
Huh?!
As the editorial notes, it's amnesty-laundering and is in fact and indeed a much more costly process. As well as a true slap in the face to those that are trying to actually become American citizens the right and legal way.
What the the Donald and his Trumpettes are falling into the trap of is giving credence to those that want to approach this problem in the wrong way and worse. This is why the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" folks will gain traction. Because they want to do something. Even if it screws up a system even worse than it is now.
Now I wish in the perfect world that we can have a humane policy of repatriating illegals back to their country of origin. But there is not. And the editorial points out what to do about those already here is secondary to solving the immediate problem of border security.
So here is the plan the editors of National Review advocate:
1) Build and supplement border barriers where appropriate, and see to it that they are patrolled.
2) Develop an effective system for those who overstay their visas, deport over-stayers, and impose heavy sanctions on them, and impose heavy sanctions , up to and including a lifetime ban on future travel to the United States.
3) Mandate the national use of E-verify or another system for checking employment eligibility, and then take the necessary additional step of making sure that records are current and complete so as to avoid the use of hijacked Social Security numbers.
4) Reform employment laws to impose much heavier penalties on those that employ illegals, and make those cases easier to prosecute.
5) Decline to renew the legal status granted under President Obama's executive amnesty; and then, when that's done, on the matter of the illegals who are already here, do . . . more or less what we've been doing, at least for a while, deporting those illegals who come into custody as we do under current protocols.
That is a solid plan that can lead to a serious decline in illegal immigration. And there is a serious policy for border security.
One aspect that I would add is to penalize so-called "sanctuary" cities for defying federal law by withholding any federal funds. I'm not asking the local police to become ICE agents or Border Patrol agents. But when they do have a suspect in custody and it is clear that person is an illegal alien, hand them over for deportation processing.
Here is also a reality we who live in border states do not realize.
That even in much of the United States, the perception is that illegal immigration is not a major problem. In almost all polling data, immigration issues are at the bottom along with global warming, aka climate change. No candidate is tying illegal immigration with the increasing possibility of the easy access of terrorists to the United States via illegal immigration and or legal immigration and simply overstaying a visa.
But those of us that live on the front lines of the problem, the border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas see the problem first hand. And that is why so many people do not get why illegal immigration is not a much more serious and or higher-ranking problem that needs to be responsibility dealt with.
The GOP candidate that can take this and articulate it in a coherent manner will be the one that has a real handle on the issue and can frame it in solving the immediate problem now and work on the other aspects once we can verifiably know our borders are secure.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Why Are So Many Supporting Donald Trump?!
As a conservative and a life-long Republican, I can not figure out nor understand the appeal of one Donald J. Trump and why in the hell he is the GOP frontrunner.
Before I continue, let me say that if anyone regularly reads this blog should know, I am not some establishment toady in the least. I don't need to go into my bonifides but check out more here to get the point.
One aspect of the appeal is the frustration that many of us have that the GOP leadership in congress is not exactly doing what we would like them to do. The GOP congressional leadership seems interested in proving to the the MSM and the leftywhore media that they can "govern". Hell, even work with the Dear Leader, President Obama. That is all true. They have done nothing to promote, for instance, legislation that would address the subject of border security. One thing the base and the majority of voters seem to want is strong, verifiable border security. We want a wall built once and for all. We want Border Patrol agents to do their job and arrest lawbreakers trying to enter this nation illegally. It's a totally winning issue with wide, bipartisan support.
Is congress, the GOP-majority congress, doing anything about it?
Yes, that is the sound of crickets chirping loudly as hell.
How about defunding of Planned Parenthood? Again, that is a winning issue as we see the blood on the hands of those who were caught selling aborted baby tissues and possible suitable organs. Games were played by the senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the senate essentially made sure that there was no possible way there would be 60 possible votes to defund the abortion provider.
I give but two examples that frustrate the base. There are quite a few others, but this inaction by a supposed Republican congress seems to have provided a lot of the support that the Donald has gained in this campaign.
It appears that the issue du jour that animates the Trumpettes the most is illegal immigration.
Those that support the Donald loved it when in his presidential announcement that he would build an impenetrable wall and also have Mexico pay for it. Since then, like on everything else he is like crap-all over the place. What those excited about his seemingly tough stand on illegal immigration do not want to be told is that he does not oppose amnesty. That he would not deport the oft-reported number of 11,000,000 illegal aliens. For some sane approach to dealing with the illegal immigration problem, this from the editors of National Review is worth a read. I'm sure that the Donald will not read it because it might actually make him change his mind and support this strategy.
The Donald is a walking bag on contradictions.
On the one hand, the Donald claims that socialized medicine is awesome in Canada and Scotland. At one time in a past life, the Donald actually supported Hillary Clinton and her socialist-medicine power grab in the mid 1990s. Now during last week's GOP debate, he did take one conservative theme and supports being able to buy health insurance across state lines. But in the same breath he said that he will take care of those who do not have health insurance coverage and did not provide details.
That is kind of the Donald's style. Shoot off the mouth and seem like the tough guy in the room. Then when fleshed out in questioning, the Donald can not make his case.
I'm not sure what is worse. The Donald or his supporters.
Trying to engage with Trumpettes is almost as bad as engaging with lefties. Every discussion disintegrates into a Trumpette saying that if you're not with Trump then you are an establishment toady and really secretly for one John Ellis Bush, aka Jeb! Bush. There is this either or mentality the Trumpettes make and it is such a false choice.
It's not Trump vs. Bush. There are 15 other announced, serious candidates. There is really something for everyone. There is the establishment choice, Mr. Bush and a Tea Party favorite such as Sen. Ted Cruz. Or Gov. Scott Walker. There is the libertarian choice in Sen Rand Paul. There are unity candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio or former businessman Carly Fiorina. They are but a few candidates. What the Trumpettes do is offer a false choice because their dude is anti-establishment. He's truth-telling. Of course when pressed, there is not any specific issue that they can articulate the Donald is truth-telling in the least.
If someone says that they are Tea Party and support the Donald, I don't get it. For the Donald himself admitted in the debate that he was in fact and indeed the biggest crony capitalist there is. He admitted, proudly, that he has bought off many a pol in both parties. The crux of the Tea Party and the frustration with big government are people like the Donald. The fact is the Donald has supported and continues to support eminent domain. That is when the government condemns an "blighted" area of property and deigns it a redevelopment area. Who has benefited by such decisions in New York City? Why of course, the Donald.
Please, Trumpettes, try to explain that to me.
A lot of the Donald's defenders say that he is conservative now. That Ronald Reagan used to be a liberal Democrat. The difference is that Mr. Reagan did not just one day go from FDR Democrat to Goldwater Republican. It was a serious evolution that basically developed throughout the 1950s/ In fact Mr. Reagan was still a Democrat and the head of Democrats for Nixon is 1960. By 1964, Mr. Reagan took the plunge and became a Republican. And a conservative Republican.
Just because the Donald talks tough on illegal immigration is not enough for me. I want my party to nominate the most electable conservative. I don't believe that is Donald Trump and I do not believe that is Jeb! Bush. We have a lot of time to go, but I will not get the support that Donald J. Trump has in his quixotic quest for the GOP presidential nomination.
Before I continue, let me say that if anyone regularly reads this blog should know, I am not some establishment toady in the least. I don't need to go into my bonifides but check out more here to get the point.
One aspect of the appeal is the frustration that many of us have that the GOP leadership in congress is not exactly doing what we would like them to do. The GOP congressional leadership seems interested in proving to the the MSM and the leftywhore media that they can "govern". Hell, even work with the Dear Leader, President Obama. That is all true. They have done nothing to promote, for instance, legislation that would address the subject of border security. One thing the base and the majority of voters seem to want is strong, verifiable border security. We want a wall built once and for all. We want Border Patrol agents to do their job and arrest lawbreakers trying to enter this nation illegally. It's a totally winning issue with wide, bipartisan support.
Is congress, the GOP-majority congress, doing anything about it?
Yes, that is the sound of crickets chirping loudly as hell.
How about defunding of Planned Parenthood? Again, that is a winning issue as we see the blood on the hands of those who were caught selling aborted baby tissues and possible suitable organs. Games were played by the senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the senate essentially made sure that there was no possible way there would be 60 possible votes to defund the abortion provider.
I give but two examples that frustrate the base. There are quite a few others, but this inaction by a supposed Republican congress seems to have provided a lot of the support that the Donald has gained in this campaign.
It appears that the issue du jour that animates the Trumpettes the most is illegal immigration.
Those that support the Donald loved it when in his presidential announcement that he would build an impenetrable wall and also have Mexico pay for it. Since then, like on everything else he is like crap-all over the place. What those excited about his seemingly tough stand on illegal immigration do not want to be told is that he does not oppose amnesty. That he would not deport the oft-reported number of 11,000,000 illegal aliens. For some sane approach to dealing with the illegal immigration problem, this from the editors of National Review is worth a read. I'm sure that the Donald will not read it because it might actually make him change his mind and support this strategy.
The Donald is a walking bag on contradictions.
On the one hand, the Donald claims that socialized medicine is awesome in Canada and Scotland. At one time in a past life, the Donald actually supported Hillary Clinton and her socialist-medicine power grab in the mid 1990s. Now during last week's GOP debate, he did take one conservative theme and supports being able to buy health insurance across state lines. But in the same breath he said that he will take care of those who do not have health insurance coverage and did not provide details.
That is kind of the Donald's style. Shoot off the mouth and seem like the tough guy in the room. Then when fleshed out in questioning, the Donald can not make his case.
I'm not sure what is worse. The Donald or his supporters.
Trying to engage with Trumpettes is almost as bad as engaging with lefties. Every discussion disintegrates into a Trumpette saying that if you're not with Trump then you are an establishment toady and really secretly for one John Ellis Bush, aka Jeb! Bush. There is this either or mentality the Trumpettes make and it is such a false choice.
It's not Trump vs. Bush. There are 15 other announced, serious candidates. There is really something for everyone. There is the establishment choice, Mr. Bush and a Tea Party favorite such as Sen. Ted Cruz. Or Gov. Scott Walker. There is the libertarian choice in Sen Rand Paul. There are unity candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio or former businessman Carly Fiorina. They are but a few candidates. What the Trumpettes do is offer a false choice because their dude is anti-establishment. He's truth-telling. Of course when pressed, there is not any specific issue that they can articulate the Donald is truth-telling in the least.
If someone says that they are Tea Party and support the Donald, I don't get it. For the Donald himself admitted in the debate that he was in fact and indeed the biggest crony capitalist there is. He admitted, proudly, that he has bought off many a pol in both parties. The crux of the Tea Party and the frustration with big government are people like the Donald. The fact is the Donald has supported and continues to support eminent domain. That is when the government condemns an "blighted" area of property and deigns it a redevelopment area. Who has benefited by such decisions in New York City? Why of course, the Donald.
Please, Trumpettes, try to explain that to me.
A lot of the Donald's defenders say that he is conservative now. That Ronald Reagan used to be a liberal Democrat. The difference is that Mr. Reagan did not just one day go from FDR Democrat to Goldwater Republican. It was a serious evolution that basically developed throughout the 1950s/ In fact Mr. Reagan was still a Democrat and the head of Democrats for Nixon is 1960. By 1964, Mr. Reagan took the plunge and became a Republican. And a conservative Republican.
Just because the Donald talks tough on illegal immigration is not enough for me. I want my party to nominate the most electable conservative. I don't believe that is Donald Trump and I do not believe that is Jeb! Bush. We have a lot of time to go, but I will not get the support that Donald J. Trump has in his quixotic quest for the GOP presidential nomination.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Wanna Know Why Republicans Are Big Losers?
Ahh, now I have the hook for the lefties to troll here and think that I will give them something that they want.
Maybe that I changed on illegal immigration?
I am sure that many will think that I agree with the current RNC Chair Reince Priebus and this that he said in an interview with Business Insider:
“Using the word ‘self-deportation’ — it’s a horrific comment to make. I don’t think it has anything to do with our party. When someone makes those comments, obviously, it’s racist."
Of course now Mr. Priebus has to walk back on the racist thing. And Business Insider is oh so glad to oblige. And credit to keeping the original quote goes to Allahpundit over at Hotair.com.
So Reince, may I call you by your first name?
So Reince, did you really, truly feel this way in 2012 when the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, said this many, many times over the course of the campaign? If so, did you let him know, Reince? If so at what point? And Reince, what is horrible about the comment and or the term "self-deportation"?
Let me write this up front.
I don't think that self-deportation is a great term either. Not because it is racist. No the opposite for me. It was a politically correct way to say sure, I'll deport a fair amount of illegal aliens. Well,I won't really do it. See, they will come to the United States, look for work, can't find any and voila! They will just go back from where they came from. And that is how I will do some deportation.
UGH!
When one has to over explain such a position, to use a consultant term, it sucks.
Period.
But to Mr. Priebus' point of it being racist or even horrible, it is not either. No, really, it is not.
After the loss in the 2012 presidential election campaign, Mr. Preibus and the GOP claimed that they wanted to hear from the grassroots. They sent out some mailers and or e-mails. I got an e-mail and it had a lot of questions. Some on illegal immigration. And what is the top priority in dealing with it. I believe that I answered what I have answered for 30 years now. We need border security first and foremost and nothing else matters until that goal is met. I am realistic and know that it will not be a hundred percent, but that there should be something in place that show tangible results.
I guess in Mr. Priebus' mind, that makes me a . . .you know what is coming . . .a . . .RAAAAACIST!
Again, dear readers, always remember that there are five a's in RAAAAACIST.
Oh, and while I think since he should know better, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) should have probably left out his comment of people that smuggle drugs, many illegal aliens, have the calves the size of cantaloupes, they point Rep. King was making is that because our border, both north and south, are so porous that drug smuggling can happen with little if any consequence.
But by what Mr. Preibus is suggesting, does he really care about what the rank-and-file Republican thinks on this issue? Or does he care about what the big-money donors, the left, and most importantly, the permanent Republican Consultant Class thinks on the issue? Oh, and why is this so damned important when we need to fight Obamacare?
Last question is an aside, but very much again the divide between the Republican Consultant Class and the rank-and-file.
But I think it is obvious that Mr. Preibus wants the cash and the accolades of the establishment rather than doing the right thing.
And this is why the Republicans are big losers.
I write this and say it time and again but, well let me highlight it so that Reince and the gang actually read this it might absorb in their craniums:
Republicans cannot out do Democrats on being liberal. If there is a Republican moderate and a Democrat, no matter where they are in the party, running for office in marginal districts, areas, whatever, people will vote for the Democrat. At least with the Democrat they know they will be getting a big-government type. With the moderate Republican, they think that candidate will lick that index finger, put it in the wind and go where ever that wind blows.
Reince, do you get it? Hey, Republican Consultant Class, are you actually reading and taking any of what a grassroots Republican voter thinks?
If you want to understand that you need to better reach Hispanic voters, it is not all about adopting the Democrat position. Because I refer you to what I wrote above. The thanks that the Republican party will get is a nice, big middle finger as Democrats will win many voters because they do not trust us and what we really think on the issue.
And here is a reality we conservatives and Republicans of all stripes better understand.
We will not, I repeat not, make any tangible gains with Hispanics in 2014 or beyond no matter what happens in the immigration debate.
The Republican party gets about roughly 30% of the Hispanic vote in any given election. All we need to do is expand that a few percent each election. Not by pandering on illegal immigration. But by getting really into the communities and speak to the people directly. No amount of pandering will work if we do not even bother to really go into so-called hostile territory and explain to the people why the Republican party is better for them than the Democrat party.
When the Republican National Committee chair can't even talk straight about illegal immigration and articulate a position that accepts some will be able to stay and become, eventually, American citizens and that we will have to forcibly deport a number of illegal aliens and create a real border security such as a real and virtual fence, we will be the losers we deserve to be.
Maybe that I changed on illegal immigration?
I am sure that many will think that I agree with the current RNC Chair Reince Priebus and this that he said in an interview with Business Insider:
“Using the word ‘self-deportation’ — it’s a horrific comment to make. I don’t think it has anything to do with our party. When someone makes those comments, obviously, it’s racist."
Of course now Mr. Priebus has to walk back on the racist thing. And Business Insider is oh so glad to oblige. And credit to keeping the original quote goes to Allahpundit over at Hotair.com.
So Reince, may I call you by your first name?
So Reince, did you really, truly feel this way in 2012 when the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, said this many, many times over the course of the campaign? If so, did you let him know, Reince? If so at what point? And Reince, what is horrible about the comment and or the term "self-deportation"?
Let me write this up front.
I don't think that self-deportation is a great term either. Not because it is racist. No the opposite for me. It was a politically correct way to say sure, I'll deport a fair amount of illegal aliens. Well,I won't really do it. See, they will come to the United States, look for work, can't find any and voila! They will just go back from where they came from. And that is how I will do some deportation.
UGH!
When one has to over explain such a position, to use a consultant term, it sucks.
Period.
But to Mr. Priebus' point of it being racist or even horrible, it is not either. No, really, it is not.
After the loss in the 2012 presidential election campaign, Mr. Preibus and the GOP claimed that they wanted to hear from the grassroots. They sent out some mailers and or e-mails. I got an e-mail and it had a lot of questions. Some on illegal immigration. And what is the top priority in dealing with it. I believe that I answered what I have answered for 30 years now. We need border security first and foremost and nothing else matters until that goal is met. I am realistic and know that it will not be a hundred percent, but that there should be something in place that show tangible results.
I guess in Mr. Priebus' mind, that makes me a . . .you know what is coming . . .a . . .RAAAAACIST!
Again, dear readers, always remember that there are five a's in RAAAAACIST.
Oh, and while I think since he should know better, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) should have probably left out his comment of people that smuggle drugs, many illegal aliens, have the calves the size of cantaloupes, they point Rep. King was making is that because our border, both north and south, are so porous that drug smuggling can happen with little if any consequence.
But by what Mr. Preibus is suggesting, does he really care about what the rank-and-file Republican thinks on this issue? Or does he care about what the big-money donors, the left, and most importantly, the permanent Republican Consultant Class thinks on the issue? Oh, and why is this so damned important when we need to fight Obamacare?
Last question is an aside, but very much again the divide between the Republican Consultant Class and the rank-and-file.
But I think it is obvious that Mr. Preibus wants the cash and the accolades of the establishment rather than doing the right thing.
And this is why the Republicans are big losers.
I write this and say it time and again but, well let me highlight it so that Reince and the gang actually read this it might absorb in their craniums:
Republicans cannot out do Democrats on being liberal. If there is a Republican moderate and a Democrat, no matter where they are in the party, running for office in marginal districts, areas, whatever, people will vote for the Democrat. At least with the Democrat they know they will be getting a big-government type. With the moderate Republican, they think that candidate will lick that index finger, put it in the wind and go where ever that wind blows.
Reince, do you get it? Hey, Republican Consultant Class, are you actually reading and taking any of what a grassroots Republican voter thinks?
If you want to understand that you need to better reach Hispanic voters, it is not all about adopting the Democrat position. Because I refer you to what I wrote above. The thanks that the Republican party will get is a nice, big middle finger as Democrats will win many voters because they do not trust us and what we really think on the issue.
And here is a reality we conservatives and Republicans of all stripes better understand.
We will not, I repeat not, make any tangible gains with Hispanics in 2014 or beyond no matter what happens in the immigration debate.
The Republican party gets about roughly 30% of the Hispanic vote in any given election. All we need to do is expand that a few percent each election. Not by pandering on illegal immigration. But by getting really into the communities and speak to the people directly. No amount of pandering will work if we do not even bother to really go into so-called hostile territory and explain to the people why the Republican party is better for them than the Democrat party.
When the Republican National Committee chair can't even talk straight about illegal immigration and articulate a position that accepts some will be able to stay and become, eventually, American citizens and that we will have to forcibly deport a number of illegal aliens and create a real border security such as a real and virtual fence, we will be the losers we deserve to be.
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Illegal Alien Debate Marches On
I was going to write today on the subject of illegal immigration but reading this beyond excellent piece by Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review changed the whole way that I was going to write about this subject.
Let me advise you to read the link first before reading any more that I have to write.
The thrust of what I was going to write is similar to Mr. Hanson. That this is a debate between the elites and the American people.
But he gets it right.
It is not a pretty left-right debate. Nor really Democrat and Republican. But it is about the elites, and there are left-right elites as well as Democrat and Republican elites.
The opening paragraph is epic, but I want to focus on the last part because it is important to what this is all about:
They talk deprecatingly of rubes who do not understand the new global realities, but never of their own parochialism ensconced in New York or Washington or San Francisco. They talk of reactionaries who do not fathom the ins and outs of the debate; never of their own willful ignorance of the realities on the ground in East L.A. or southwest Fresno.
WOW! So true, Mr. Hanson. So true.
Yes, the elites love to talk about the victims of this boondoggle of immigration, legal and rampantly illegal. Yet they do realize that many of the victims are in fact multi-generational Mexican-Americans. They think that they know what is best for the people in East L. A. or Southwest Fresno. Yet they really have no clue about the people that do live there now.
But what Mr. Hanson does, and this is important because this is a conservative making this point, is how the corporate class has no problem with de facto amnesty and a constant stream of cheap labor from not just Mexico but anywhere from Latin America.
The fact is that many of these people, men mostly but also many strong women, come to the United States and pick the crops, construction work, nanny service, maids. They are anywhere between the ages of 18-40. And because of their limited English, if any, and lack of legality and education and well, they will wear themselves out. Especially the farm workers. But don't worry. For the taxpayers of California eventually will subsidize these workers eventually with housing subsidies, health care, food and the children of these illegal aliens will be educated to not fare as the parents who have come to the United States for a better life.
Interestingly, the illegal that is paid less than the American worker still makes five times more an hour than they would doing almost anything in Mexico according to Mr. Hanson. So yes, they are exploited yet are better off when all is said and done in the United States.
What a country!
A little digression here.
The huge elephant in the room is Mexico itself.
Mexico is a plutocratic, socialist mess of a nation. There is not a strong middle class to speak of. The majority of people live in abysmal poverty. And unlike being an illegal alien in the United States, they have almost no hope of ever getting out of their station in life. Bottom line, there is a real reason that these people, and not just Mexicans but most of Latin America, want to come to the United States. For most it is still the land of opportunity. And while a sizable minority are criminal and yes get on government assistance, that is the minority.
Back to the article.
Mr. Hanson makes a valid point about the conservative Republican elite that really believe that fighting for so-called comprehensive immigration is going to be an electoral bonanza.
It will not.
If the 1986 immigration reform, yes it was called amnesty then, is a guide, the sad fact is that it will not help the Republican party make any considerable inroads in the Hispanic community. In fact, with any luck maybe, and it is a maybe, a rip-roaring 35% might vote Republican. And really, that is not going to happen.
What will make inroads is for the Republican party to stop this cheap way to get votes. Because it won't happen.
What will make a difference is to get involved in the Hispanic community. It means showing up! It means getting involved way before the election season, not just a few weeks before. It means that no matter the outcome of an election, to stay and keep being in the fight. It is a form of political guerrilla warfare. It is how the Democrats do it. It is why they have won the Hispanic vote election after election. It is why Republicans need to make this a long term strategy and yes, it will yield results.
And Mr. Hanson points out that the GOP, the party of Black Americans from the Civil War to the beginning of the Great Depression, has so written of the Black vote yet it may be more attainable than the Hispanic vote at this juncture of American history.
But Mr. Hanson continues to get at the heart of this dilemma.
That the elites really do not see the damage of their short-sighted policies.
For instance, now that the illegal alien scourge is getting right to the borders of Silicon Valley, why the elites there are not really sending their children to public schools. Nor public colleges or universities. And they don't care that much about their taxes going up to pay for those that do the work that they do not want to do. Yet they are not the only ones that will have to pay higher taxes and get substandard educations and lower services from the government. After all, even the elites need fire protection and police and hospitals.
And look at what our so-called immigration policies are doing to those that provide more than cheap labor. Again from Mr. Hanson's article:
Almost every aspect of illegal immigration is illiberal to the core. Respect for the law? The elite decides that for a particular political constituency, the law is now fluid. If you are a Bulgarian M.D. and overstay your visa, beware. A Korean engineer wouldn’t dare to fly to Mexico City and cross illegally into Arizona. Without ethnic bosses and millions of compatriots within our borders, all others are lawbreakers subject to deportation.
Yes other lawbreakers are going to get it. But if you are a South of the border illegal, well probably not. Your reward is going to be blanket amnesty. No matter how one looks at it, that is what this so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform leads to.
And here is a gruesome Rogue's Gallery of bad players in this drama:
Indeed, the tragedy of illegal immigration is that it becomes the cornerstone for hundreds of agendas: those of the self-interested Mexican government, exploitative American employers, the new ethnic chauvinists, the upper middle classes who deem themselves lords of the manor, and, yes, the elite whose professions are as noble as their deeds are not.
Sad that America has become a lot like Europe after World War II when most nations instituted a strong welfare state and imported a lot of cheap labor. And mostly from Islamic nations. And they failed to integrate these workers into their national fabrics. And they wonder why now they have these people rioting in the streets.
We all want something better than the so-called immigration system we have now.
But that cannot and should not happen until there is verifiable border security. And it cannot happen until there is a way to root out those that are criminals and taking advantage of American generosity. Then, and only then can we look at legalizing those that have been here a long time. But nothing like that until then.
One thing that all should have learned about a massive federal government overhaul is what happened during the Obamacare debacle. Only now and in the next several years will we learn the disaster that is. We should not want that in regards to solving the illegal alien situation.
Victor Davis Hanson has hit it on the head with this one. We need to face that this fight is between an elite and the rest of us. Until we face that, we will not be able to mobilize to defeat this abomination.
Let me advise you to read the link first before reading any more that I have to write.
The thrust of what I was going to write is similar to Mr. Hanson. That this is a debate between the elites and the American people.
But he gets it right.
It is not a pretty left-right debate. Nor really Democrat and Republican. But it is about the elites, and there are left-right elites as well as Democrat and Republican elites.
The opening paragraph is epic, but I want to focus on the last part because it is important to what this is all about:
They talk deprecatingly of rubes who do not understand the new global realities, but never of their own parochialism ensconced in New York or Washington or San Francisco. They talk of reactionaries who do not fathom the ins and outs of the debate; never of their own willful ignorance of the realities on the ground in East L.A. or southwest Fresno.
WOW! So true, Mr. Hanson. So true.
Yes, the elites love to talk about the victims of this boondoggle of immigration, legal and rampantly illegal. Yet they do realize that many of the victims are in fact multi-generational Mexican-Americans. They think that they know what is best for the people in East L. A. or Southwest Fresno. Yet they really have no clue about the people that do live there now.
But what Mr. Hanson does, and this is important because this is a conservative making this point, is how the corporate class has no problem with de facto amnesty and a constant stream of cheap labor from not just Mexico but anywhere from Latin America.
The fact is that many of these people, men mostly but also many strong women, come to the United States and pick the crops, construction work, nanny service, maids. They are anywhere between the ages of 18-40. And because of their limited English, if any, and lack of legality and education and well, they will wear themselves out. Especially the farm workers. But don't worry. For the taxpayers of California eventually will subsidize these workers eventually with housing subsidies, health care, food and the children of these illegal aliens will be educated to not fare as the parents who have come to the United States for a better life.
Interestingly, the illegal that is paid less than the American worker still makes five times more an hour than they would doing almost anything in Mexico according to Mr. Hanson. So yes, they are exploited yet are better off when all is said and done in the United States.
What a country!
A little digression here.
The huge elephant in the room is Mexico itself.
Mexico is a plutocratic, socialist mess of a nation. There is not a strong middle class to speak of. The majority of people live in abysmal poverty. And unlike being an illegal alien in the United States, they have almost no hope of ever getting out of their station in life. Bottom line, there is a real reason that these people, and not just Mexicans but most of Latin America, want to come to the United States. For most it is still the land of opportunity. And while a sizable minority are criminal and yes get on government assistance, that is the minority.
Back to the article.
Mr. Hanson makes a valid point about the conservative Republican elite that really believe that fighting for so-called comprehensive immigration is going to be an electoral bonanza.
It will not.
If the 1986 immigration reform, yes it was called amnesty then, is a guide, the sad fact is that it will not help the Republican party make any considerable inroads in the Hispanic community. In fact, with any luck maybe, and it is a maybe, a rip-roaring 35% might vote Republican. And really, that is not going to happen.
What will make inroads is for the Republican party to stop this cheap way to get votes. Because it won't happen.
What will make a difference is to get involved in the Hispanic community. It means showing up! It means getting involved way before the election season, not just a few weeks before. It means that no matter the outcome of an election, to stay and keep being in the fight. It is a form of political guerrilla warfare. It is how the Democrats do it. It is why they have won the Hispanic vote election after election. It is why Republicans need to make this a long term strategy and yes, it will yield results.
And Mr. Hanson points out that the GOP, the party of Black Americans from the Civil War to the beginning of the Great Depression, has so written of the Black vote yet it may be more attainable than the Hispanic vote at this juncture of American history.
But Mr. Hanson continues to get at the heart of this dilemma.
That the elites really do not see the damage of their short-sighted policies.
For instance, now that the illegal alien scourge is getting right to the borders of Silicon Valley, why the elites there are not really sending their children to public schools. Nor public colleges or universities. And they don't care that much about their taxes going up to pay for those that do the work that they do not want to do. Yet they are not the only ones that will have to pay higher taxes and get substandard educations and lower services from the government. After all, even the elites need fire protection and police and hospitals.
And look at what our so-called immigration policies are doing to those that provide more than cheap labor. Again from Mr. Hanson's article:
Almost every aspect of illegal immigration is illiberal to the core. Respect for the law? The elite decides that for a particular political constituency, the law is now fluid. If you are a Bulgarian M.D. and overstay your visa, beware. A Korean engineer wouldn’t dare to fly to Mexico City and cross illegally into Arizona. Without ethnic bosses and millions of compatriots within our borders, all others are lawbreakers subject to deportation.
Yes other lawbreakers are going to get it. But if you are a South of the border illegal, well probably not. Your reward is going to be blanket amnesty. No matter how one looks at it, that is what this so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform leads to.
And here is a gruesome Rogue's Gallery of bad players in this drama:
Indeed, the tragedy of illegal immigration is that it becomes the cornerstone for hundreds of agendas: those of the self-interested Mexican government, exploitative American employers, the new ethnic chauvinists, the upper middle classes who deem themselves lords of the manor, and, yes, the elite whose professions are as noble as their deeds are not.
Sad that America has become a lot like Europe after World War II when most nations instituted a strong welfare state and imported a lot of cheap labor. And mostly from Islamic nations. And they failed to integrate these workers into their national fabrics. And they wonder why now they have these people rioting in the streets.
We all want something better than the so-called immigration system we have now.
But that cannot and should not happen until there is verifiable border security. And it cannot happen until there is a way to root out those that are criminals and taking advantage of American generosity. Then, and only then can we look at legalizing those that have been here a long time. But nothing like that until then.
One thing that all should have learned about a massive federal government overhaul is what happened during the Obamacare debacle. Only now and in the next several years will we learn the disaster that is. We should not want that in regards to solving the illegal alien situation.
Victor Davis Hanson has hit it on the head with this one. We need to face that this fight is between an elite and the rest of us. Until we face that, we will not be able to mobilize to defeat this abomination.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Mitt, Do NOT Take Election Advice From Sen. McCain
Mitt, Mitt, Mitt!!!
I beg and plead with you, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee! I beseech thee!
DO NOT TAKE ANY, I MEAN ANY, ELECTION ADVICE FROM ONE SEN. JOHN "F--- YOU" McCAIN!!!!!
Remember folks, when Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the Republican presidential nominee how well he did against the current occupier of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Well, I think that the above paragraph does tend to say it all, does it not?
But that does not mean Sen. "F--- You" McCain and his lap dog Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham did not offer him "advice" anyhow.
According to this article, Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham decided to offer an "Intervention" on Mitt Romney's stand on illegal immigration and what to do about it.
Uh, this is the same Sen. "F--- You" McCain that, in 2010, had to run to the right of illegal alien candidate J. D. Hayworth just to secure the Arizona Republican senate nomination for his 800th term as the senior senator.
Understand that Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham have been the leading Republicans in the senate that would grant amnesty to those illegal aliens already here in the United States. Way back in 2007, these jokers were so desperate that they were trying every trick in the legislative book to get passage of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
These two clowns are and always have been for amnesty for illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority are from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America. As such, it is pandering in the nth degree.
Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham somehow believe that if Republicans soften up and just let these folks stay in the United States and eventually become citizens, why they will not forget us Republicans and hence give us a permanent majority.
Yup, just as they did in 1986 when at least then President Ronald Reagan called it what it was, amnesty.
Gee, I think that there has not been an election since then in which the majority of Hispanics have voted for a Republican presidential candidate. The high-water mark is supposedly 44% for then President George W. Bush in 2004.
The bottom line is that going down that same road again is a recipe for disaster for the Republican party.
And Mitt Romney should not accept ANY advice from two of the biggest loser in the Republican party today.
Yup, just ask that President McCain fellow.
I beg and plead with you, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee! I beseech thee!
DO NOT TAKE ANY, I MEAN ANY, ELECTION ADVICE FROM ONE SEN. JOHN "F--- YOU" McCAIN!!!!!
Remember folks, when Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the Republican presidential nominee how well he did against the current occupier of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Well, I think that the above paragraph does tend to say it all, does it not?
But that does not mean Sen. "F--- You" McCain and his lap dog Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham did not offer him "advice" anyhow.
According to this article, Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham decided to offer an "Intervention" on Mitt Romney's stand on illegal immigration and what to do about it.
Uh, this is the same Sen. "F--- You" McCain that, in 2010, had to run to the right of illegal alien candidate J. D. Hayworth just to secure the Arizona Republican senate nomination for his 800th term as the senior senator.
Understand that Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham have been the leading Republicans in the senate that would grant amnesty to those illegal aliens already here in the United States. Way back in 2007, these jokers were so desperate that they were trying every trick in the legislative book to get passage of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
These two clowns are and always have been for amnesty for illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority are from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America. As such, it is pandering in the nth degree.
Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham somehow believe that if Republicans soften up and just let these folks stay in the United States and eventually become citizens, why they will not forget us Republicans and hence give us a permanent majority.
Yup, just as they did in 1986 when at least then President Ronald Reagan called it what it was, amnesty.
Gee, I think that there has not been an election since then in which the majority of Hispanics have voted for a Republican presidential candidate. The high-water mark is supposedly 44% for then President George W. Bush in 2004.
The bottom line is that going down that same road again is a recipe for disaster for the Republican party.
And Mitt Romney should not accept ANY advice from two of the biggest loser in the Republican party today.
Yup, just ask that President McCain fellow.
Monday, June 25, 2012
What Does The Supreme Court Ruling On Arizona's SB 1070 Mean?
Today the United States supreme court in a 5-3 decision struck down three of the four critical components of the Arizona immgration law known in shorthand as Arizona SB 1070.
The four provisions of the law that the court ruled on as follows.
1) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien in Arizona.
2) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and seek and or perform work.
3) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and not complete and or carry immgration documentation.
4) Whether or not law enforcement in the state can verify the immigration status of suspects stopped during investigating another crime.
So, the supreme court, led by the erratic justice, Anthony Kennedy, struck down the first three and allowed the last one to stand.
Although three of the four provisions were struck down, the fourth one being allowed to stand means that there is still a half a mouth of teeth in this law.
Now here is the ruling from the supreme court.
I admit, I am not a legal eagle, and would love commentary from some actual legal eagles.
But my understanding is that the majority believe the the state of Arizona overstepped in assering the right to actually enforce, no assist, federal law.
Yet somehow, the majority said, well it is still OK for local law enforcement, during routine traffic stops primarily, to ask suspects to prove their immgration status.
To me, it is a convoluted split decision that should make no one happy.
Yes, it is obvious that we need to have real immgration reform. It does not nor should it be all comprehensive. It should be in stages. Absolute control of all borders, north, south and the coasts. Once that is acheived, then also in stages deport those here five years or less. Period. Those who have been here five to ten years, they should be able to get work permits, but not a path to citizenship. And those who have been here 11 years plus should be on a pathway to citizenship. No, I have not thought the logistics of it all. But if a lot are deported, we would be dealing with less people in seeking a serious reform. And having the borders secure will make what I propose palatable.
There will never be a perfect plan to please all.
But what we are doing now is almost pointless.
What Arizona did in passing SB 1070 in the first place was react to the inaction of the federal government to the situation along the border of Arizona and Mexico. Throw in New Mexico and Texas and to a lesser extent California.
The federal government did not do its duty according to the state government. And they have been correct.
And the not so dirty secret is this.
NOTHING will be done this year. This is an election year. Once the election is over and it depends on the outcome, then maybe something will be done.
While some aspects of the Arizona law is out, state and local law enforcement will still be able to question the immigration status of suspects in overal determining of a situation in a traffic stop.
Oh, and another thing to count on.
More and more demogogary and misinformation and fear mongering during this presidential campaign season.
The supreme court split itself in trying to have it all ways on this issue and did nothing to bring clarity to the issue of illegal immigration.
Let's hope that they do a better job in their decision regarding Obamacare.
The four provisions of the law that the court ruled on as follows.
1) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien in Arizona.
2) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and seek and or perform work.
3) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and not complete and or carry immgration documentation.
4) Whether or not law enforcement in the state can verify the immigration status of suspects stopped during investigating another crime.
So, the supreme court, led by the erratic justice, Anthony Kennedy, struck down the first three and allowed the last one to stand.
Although three of the four provisions were struck down, the fourth one being allowed to stand means that there is still a half a mouth of teeth in this law.
Now here is the ruling from the supreme court.
I admit, I am not a legal eagle, and would love commentary from some actual legal eagles.
But my understanding is that the majority believe the the state of Arizona overstepped in assering the right to actually enforce, no assist, federal law.
Yet somehow, the majority said, well it is still OK for local law enforcement, during routine traffic stops primarily, to ask suspects to prove their immgration status.
To me, it is a convoluted split decision that should make no one happy.
Yes, it is obvious that we need to have real immgration reform. It does not nor should it be all comprehensive. It should be in stages. Absolute control of all borders, north, south and the coasts. Once that is acheived, then also in stages deport those here five years or less. Period. Those who have been here five to ten years, they should be able to get work permits, but not a path to citizenship. And those who have been here 11 years plus should be on a pathway to citizenship. No, I have not thought the logistics of it all. But if a lot are deported, we would be dealing with less people in seeking a serious reform. And having the borders secure will make what I propose palatable.
There will never be a perfect plan to please all.
But what we are doing now is almost pointless.
What Arizona did in passing SB 1070 in the first place was react to the inaction of the federal government to the situation along the border of Arizona and Mexico. Throw in New Mexico and Texas and to a lesser extent California.
The federal government did not do its duty according to the state government. And they have been correct.
And the not so dirty secret is this.
NOTHING will be done this year. This is an election year. Once the election is over and it depends on the outcome, then maybe something will be done.
While some aspects of the Arizona law is out, state and local law enforcement will still be able to question the immigration status of suspects in overal determining of a situation in a traffic stop.
Oh, and another thing to count on.
More and more demogogary and misinformation and fear mongering during this presidential campaign season.
The supreme court split itself in trying to have it all ways on this issue and did nothing to bring clarity to the issue of illegal immigration.
Let's hope that they do a better job in their decision regarding Obamacare.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The Dear Leader Resorts To Faux Amnesty For Young Illegal Aliens
Well, nothing like another election-year ploy from the Dear Leader, President Obama, to raise the hackles of your humble, yet blog-funked, blogger.
Yesterday, the Dear Leader, President Obama, by executive order, has circumvented congress and will no longer enforce the law regarding the children of illegal aliens.
What this means is that up to 800,000 children of illegal aliens between 16-30 years-old will be eligible for work permits. One of the conditions include not having a criminal record.
To all of this I say really? You, our Dear Leader, President Obama, want to begin, by executive order, an amnesty process around congress. The same congress that your party, the Democrat party, controlled for two years of your presidency.
There is so much about this faux amnesty that is has to be broken down, which I will do.
1) Totally disingenuous
Again, as noted above, when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the White House, they could have passed legislation such as this. But they did not. Once Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and gained senate seats, legislation such as this was not gonna happen. But to think that this is not aimed at gaining more support from one particular group of voters, Hispanics, then please get your head examined. In an accompanying article at the Left Angeles Times, here is the accompanied photo and caption direct from the Times website:
Nancy Guarneros, 25, right, hugs Jorge Gutierrez, 28, as they join more than 150 students and Dream Act supporters who rallied in downtown Los Angeles on Friday to voice support for President Obama's decision to halt the deportation of young illegal immigrants who have no criminal records and meet certain other criteria. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times / June 15, 2012)
Now note that there are not a slew of Danish illegal aliens. Nor Indians. Nor Red Chinese. Nor Australians. Nor people from the Arabian peninsula. No, this is a sop to Hispanics. But especially those of Mexican ancestry. Overwhelmingly the vast majority of the 800,000 plus possible for this scam, er program will be Mexican. It is nothing more than to assume that all Mexican Americans will be supportive of this. Which leads to number two.
2) Er, Not All Mexicans Think Alike
One of the great lies is that Mexican Americans are totally monolithic when it comes on how to deal with illegal immigration.
But there is a serious divide between multi-generational Mexicans that have been in the United States vs. the illegal vs those that have played by the rules to immigrate here.
The most upset group are those that did it right.
Yes, it is a bureaucratic nightmare, but they played by the rules and did everything right. They did not come here illegally. Nor did they bring their children here illegally. They have to wonder why bother? Why not just wait for a desperate president like the Dear Leader, President Obama, and they can just be rewarded. Especially where their children are concerned.
Then there are the multi-generationals.
They look at such things as the "DREAM" act as more of the nightmare act. They see such things as possibly affecting their children when it comes to attending college. And now in the fight for jobs in this wretched economy.
In California, the above two groups without a doubt voted for the controversial measure Prop. 187 in 1996 and I believe would do so again. Do not believe that it was only the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll White Republicans that voted for the measure. A vote does not get 59% without the vote of some Hispanics.
But that does not mean they are the majority just yet.
There are enough Hispanic voters that do not get what I noted and look at what was done yesterday through the prism of race and not national interest.
3) Economic Impact
OK, so if these 800,000 plus young people become part of the work force at this point, where are the jobs for them?
Since unemployment has been at eight percent plus throughout the whole Dear Leader, President Obama administration, will these new workers get jobs over American citizens? What if they can not find employment? Are they not then in even more of a limbo than not?
Well, it will take a while for the process to work itself out. The economy may improve somewhat by the time we see the first beneficiaries of the program in the work force. But the fact that it is even being announced now in the midst of a disastrous economy shows a tone-deafness of this administration beyond belief. It makes it look like the president cares more about the fate of illegal aliens children over that of actual Americans.
4) Political Impact
That is a good question. Will it hurt or help the Dear Leader, President Obama in the long run? Well, his sudden "evolution" on same-sex marriage sure did not help. When one balances this all out on the next couple of weeks, it may prove to be a wash. Not much of a gain if any among the general electorate. It is the pure opportunism of these latest pronouncements that will roil the electorate. There are just not enough gay activist types and or illegal alien advocate type to offset the rest of the regular people. If this does not motivate the right to oppose this administration by voting them out in November, nothing will. In the end, I do not think that this will help the Obama campaign.
5) Totally Ignores Congress
This is an interesting fact.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, totally did an end-run on congress. By doing so, he risks a potential Romney administration simply shutting down the program. By not going through congress with a compromise measure such as what this could have been does not make it an actual law. It shows the misguided approach that a president can just sign an executive order and voila! No future administration would dare to go the other way, would they? Why risk it? And why totally flaunt a potential abuse of the Executive Order? Does anyone think in the current administration that no one will bring a lawsuit? And the possibility that the supreme court could rule this one unconstitutional?
Again, one must look at number four. All about the politics.
And that is what is wrong with this.
It is all about pandering and politics.
When the Democrats controlled the executive and legislative branch, they could have passed something like this. And maybe even so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. But they did not. Deep in the craniums of most Democrats, they had to know that this is a toxic issue. And surprise! It still is.
I expect more and more of this "evolution", er pandering, to continue right up to election day.
Yesterday, the Dear Leader, President Obama, by executive order, has circumvented congress and will no longer enforce the law regarding the children of illegal aliens.
What this means is that up to 800,000 children of illegal aliens between 16-30 years-old will be eligible for work permits. One of the conditions include not having a criminal record.
To all of this I say really? You, our Dear Leader, President Obama, want to begin, by executive order, an amnesty process around congress. The same congress that your party, the Democrat party, controlled for two years of your presidency.
There is so much about this faux amnesty that is has to be broken down, which I will do.
1) Totally disingenuous
Again, as noted above, when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the White House, they could have passed legislation such as this. But they did not. Once Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and gained senate seats, legislation such as this was not gonna happen. But to think that this is not aimed at gaining more support from one particular group of voters, Hispanics, then please get your head examined. In an accompanying article at the Left Angeles Times, here is the accompanied photo and caption direct from the Times website:
Nancy Guarneros, 25, right, hugs Jorge Gutierrez, 28, as they join more than 150 students and Dream Act supporters who rallied in downtown Los Angeles on Friday to voice support for President Obama's decision to halt the deportation of young illegal immigrants who have no criminal records and meet certain other criteria. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times / June 15, 2012)
Now note that there are not a slew of Danish illegal aliens. Nor Indians. Nor Red Chinese. Nor Australians. Nor people from the Arabian peninsula. No, this is a sop to Hispanics. But especially those of Mexican ancestry. Overwhelmingly the vast majority of the 800,000 plus possible for this scam, er program will be Mexican. It is nothing more than to assume that all Mexican Americans will be supportive of this. Which leads to number two.
2) Er, Not All Mexicans Think Alike
One of the great lies is that Mexican Americans are totally monolithic when it comes on how to deal with illegal immigration.
But there is a serious divide between multi-generational Mexicans that have been in the United States vs. the illegal vs those that have played by the rules to immigrate here.
The most upset group are those that did it right.
Yes, it is a bureaucratic nightmare, but they played by the rules and did everything right. They did not come here illegally. Nor did they bring their children here illegally. They have to wonder why bother? Why not just wait for a desperate president like the Dear Leader, President Obama, and they can just be rewarded. Especially where their children are concerned.
Then there are the multi-generationals.
They look at such things as the "DREAM" act as more of the nightmare act. They see such things as possibly affecting their children when it comes to attending college. And now in the fight for jobs in this wretched economy.
In California, the above two groups without a doubt voted for the controversial measure Prop. 187 in 1996 and I believe would do so again. Do not believe that it was only the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll White Republicans that voted for the measure. A vote does not get 59% without the vote of some Hispanics.
But that does not mean they are the majority just yet.
There are enough Hispanic voters that do not get what I noted and look at what was done yesterday through the prism of race and not national interest.
3) Economic Impact
OK, so if these 800,000 plus young people become part of the work force at this point, where are the jobs for them?
Since unemployment has been at eight percent plus throughout the whole Dear Leader, President Obama administration, will these new workers get jobs over American citizens? What if they can not find employment? Are they not then in even more of a limbo than not?
Well, it will take a while for the process to work itself out. The economy may improve somewhat by the time we see the first beneficiaries of the program in the work force. But the fact that it is even being announced now in the midst of a disastrous economy shows a tone-deafness of this administration beyond belief. It makes it look like the president cares more about the fate of illegal aliens children over that of actual Americans.
4) Political Impact
That is a good question. Will it hurt or help the Dear Leader, President Obama in the long run? Well, his sudden "evolution" on same-sex marriage sure did not help. When one balances this all out on the next couple of weeks, it may prove to be a wash. Not much of a gain if any among the general electorate. It is the pure opportunism of these latest pronouncements that will roil the electorate. There are just not enough gay activist types and or illegal alien advocate type to offset the rest of the regular people. If this does not motivate the right to oppose this administration by voting them out in November, nothing will. In the end, I do not think that this will help the Obama campaign.
5) Totally Ignores Congress
This is an interesting fact.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, totally did an end-run on congress. By doing so, he risks a potential Romney administration simply shutting down the program. By not going through congress with a compromise measure such as what this could have been does not make it an actual law. It shows the misguided approach that a president can just sign an executive order and voila! No future administration would dare to go the other way, would they? Why risk it? And why totally flaunt a potential abuse of the Executive Order? Does anyone think in the current administration that no one will bring a lawsuit? And the possibility that the supreme court could rule this one unconstitutional?
Again, one must look at number four. All about the politics.
And that is what is wrong with this.
It is all about pandering and politics.
When the Democrats controlled the executive and legislative branch, they could have passed something like this. And maybe even so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. But they did not. Deep in the craniums of most Democrats, they had to know that this is a toxic issue. And surprise! It still is.
I expect more and more of this "evolution", er pandering, to continue right up to election day.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Do Not Ignore Illegal Immigration
Two things come to mind as to why I am writing about an issue that has been a thorn in the side of the United States as long as I can remember.
The dreaded subject is illegal immigration.
This story in the Riverside Press-Enterprise over this past weekend highlighted the plight of farm workers in one of the wealthiest areas of the United States.
Now, before you think your humble blogger has gone all bleeding-heart on you, read on.
In reading the article, I wondered if these people would be better off as seasonal workers that come to the United States, do the farm work, and return to Mexico. While they are here under a guest-worker program, they would be subject to the laws of the United States. Many of those laws would protect these people from the clear abuse they suffer in these so-called trailer parks. And one thing the article did not address is how many of the people were in fact illegal aliens.
I suppose to some people, it is not relevant.
But I strongly disagree.
Does anyone really think that if these people had a form of legal immigration status, this clear abuse would happen? I doubt that at the scale we see in this article.
Yet we have people such as conservative radio talker Michael Medved insisting that illegal immigration is not a big deal. That it is a side show, if you will. And the examples he cites in the way the Republicans have addressed the issue recently actually supports his case.
But instead of running away and ignoring the issue, hoping against hope that it will go away, I think that the newspaper article is a great starting point in how GOPers need to address the problem of illegal immigration.
For me, I will say this. There is a middle ground.
I have layed out a three-pronged plan that recognizes this reality.
One, there are a lot of bad people involved in illegal immigration. Including many illegals themselves. Clearly not a majority and not a large minority. But enough to cause problems in the United States.
Thus anyone here in the United States illegally five years or less, goodbye. Go back home. Never come back. Never think you will ever have a chance to become a citizen or anything of that nature.
That alone would deport a sizable number of illegal immigrants.
People that are here illegally six to ten years have to go back to the country of origin and begin an expedited process to become a guest worker, a green-card carrier or start the process under one of the two ways to become an American citizen. But they must go home.
Now there are illegal immigrants that have been here 10 plus years. These are the people that, more than likely, want to become citizens. While they should not be anywhere near the front of the line, they should be in the line. They should be given at the very least green cards and begin the process to become citizens.
Now, all of the above does several things.
One, there will be a lot of people here in the United States illegally deported. Pure and simple.
Two, those that are here will get some legal protection. What they do not have now. People like those living in the squalor of the "trailer parks" in these communities in Riverside county would have some real and legal recourse. And is that not a way to solve a problem with a sense of humanity yet provide a need for less expensive employment in the farm fields?
And really, does anyone really think that the majority of those that have been here illegally a decade or more are totally loyal to their country of origin? I do not. Overwhelmingly, the majority want to be Americans. And many are not just doing the jobs that Americans "won't" do.
But how do serious people running for president of the United States speak on this issue without deteriorating into bufoonishness?
That is the 64,000 peso question.
Well for one, do not make those of us who are seriously concerned about a very serious problem out to be whack jobs. We are worried about a nation that will allow laws to be flaunted and allowing people to not just be here illegally but suffering in many cases.
Two, do not promote anything that even appears to be something that gives illegals any appearance of a deal. The so-called DREAM act at the state and federal level is one such situation. States nor the federal government need to give an unfair advantage of students from illegal parents. They can go a college or university, just have to pay the out of state tuition. Especially in these tough economic times, that is not a wise thing to do.
Third, remember that these are human beings. Most are decent and good and do not want to come to the United States but for the reason of the thought of a better life.
Sorry but this article by Susan Straight is right. If we Americans were in the same dire straits that most Mexican and or Central American illegal aliens are in, we would be doing the same thing.
In talking about the subject of illegal immigration especially from Mexico, we need to pressure the politicians to make the kind of political and economic reforms that will move the poor into the middle class. If there is a strong middle class in Mexico, that will dramatically curtail illegal immigration.
Until the politicians figure out how to discuss the problem of illegal immigration, we will continue to see the situations in Riverside county. And have people basically cover their eyes to one of the most vexing long-term problems in the United States.
The dreaded subject is illegal immigration.
This story in the Riverside Press-Enterprise over this past weekend highlighted the plight of farm workers in one of the wealthiest areas of the United States.
Now, before you think your humble blogger has gone all bleeding-heart on you, read on.
In reading the article, I wondered if these people would be better off as seasonal workers that come to the United States, do the farm work, and return to Mexico. While they are here under a guest-worker program, they would be subject to the laws of the United States. Many of those laws would protect these people from the clear abuse they suffer in these so-called trailer parks. And one thing the article did not address is how many of the people were in fact illegal aliens.
I suppose to some people, it is not relevant.
But I strongly disagree.
Does anyone really think that if these people had a form of legal immigration status, this clear abuse would happen? I doubt that at the scale we see in this article.
Yet we have people such as conservative radio talker Michael Medved insisting that illegal immigration is not a big deal. That it is a side show, if you will. And the examples he cites in the way the Republicans have addressed the issue recently actually supports his case.
But instead of running away and ignoring the issue, hoping against hope that it will go away, I think that the newspaper article is a great starting point in how GOPers need to address the problem of illegal immigration.
For me, I will say this. There is a middle ground.
I have layed out a three-pronged plan that recognizes this reality.
One, there are a lot of bad people involved in illegal immigration. Including many illegals themselves. Clearly not a majority and not a large minority. But enough to cause problems in the United States.
Thus anyone here in the United States illegally five years or less, goodbye. Go back home. Never come back. Never think you will ever have a chance to become a citizen or anything of that nature.
That alone would deport a sizable number of illegal immigrants.
People that are here illegally six to ten years have to go back to the country of origin and begin an expedited process to become a guest worker, a green-card carrier or start the process under one of the two ways to become an American citizen. But they must go home.
Now there are illegal immigrants that have been here 10 plus years. These are the people that, more than likely, want to become citizens. While they should not be anywhere near the front of the line, they should be in the line. They should be given at the very least green cards and begin the process to become citizens.
Now, all of the above does several things.
One, there will be a lot of people here in the United States illegally deported. Pure and simple.
Two, those that are here will get some legal protection. What they do not have now. People like those living in the squalor of the "trailer parks" in these communities in Riverside county would have some real and legal recourse. And is that not a way to solve a problem with a sense of humanity yet provide a need for less expensive employment in the farm fields?
And really, does anyone really think that the majority of those that have been here illegally a decade or more are totally loyal to their country of origin? I do not. Overwhelmingly, the majority want to be Americans. And many are not just doing the jobs that Americans "won't" do.
But how do serious people running for president of the United States speak on this issue without deteriorating into bufoonishness?
That is the 64,000 peso question.
Well for one, do not make those of us who are seriously concerned about a very serious problem out to be whack jobs. We are worried about a nation that will allow laws to be flaunted and allowing people to not just be here illegally but suffering in many cases.
Two, do not promote anything that even appears to be something that gives illegals any appearance of a deal. The so-called DREAM act at the state and federal level is one such situation. States nor the federal government need to give an unfair advantage of students from illegal parents. They can go a college or university, just have to pay the out of state tuition. Especially in these tough economic times, that is not a wise thing to do.
Third, remember that these are human beings. Most are decent and good and do not want to come to the United States but for the reason of the thought of a better life.
Sorry but this article by Susan Straight is right. If we Americans were in the same dire straits that most Mexican and or Central American illegal aliens are in, we would be doing the same thing.
In talking about the subject of illegal immigration especially from Mexico, we need to pressure the politicians to make the kind of political and economic reforms that will move the poor into the middle class. If there is a strong middle class in Mexico, that will dramatically curtail illegal immigration.
Until the politicians figure out how to discuss the problem of illegal immigration, we will continue to see the situations in Riverside county. And have people basically cover their eyes to one of the most vexing long-term problems in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)