Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts

Thursday, February 1, 2018

When Dreamer Platitudes Whitewash Bloody Reality

From Michelle Malkin, "'Dreamers' and Demons":


Xinran Ji, 24, had big dreams. But demons demolished them.

The bright hopes of young Xinran Ji, a University of Southern California engineering student from Inner Mongolia, died in 2014 at the hands of a then-19-year-old "Dreamer" and his thug pals. Mexican illegal alien Jonathan DelCarmen, who first jumped the southern border at age 12, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last summer in the savage robbery and fatal beating of Ji -- who was walking home from a study group after midnight.

No, it wasn't President Trump, ICE agents, Republicans or conservative talk show hosts who racially profiled Xinran Ji. It was "Dreamer" DelCarmen and his partners in crime: Alberto Ochoa, 17, Andrew Garcia, 18, and Alejandra Guerrero, 16. The gangsters targeted Ji because he was Asian and assumed he "must have money." Guerrero had sent Facebook messages about wanting to "flock" (rob) white and Chinese people. Off-campus neighborhoods around USC are dominated by Mexican Mafia affiliates that target foreign students and shake down local businesses owned by law-abiding immigrants.

"Dreamer" DelCarmen and his friends stalked Ji on a street corner in south central L.A. before bashing him in the head with a baseball bat and a wrench. The attack was caught on multiple security cameras. Ji managed to stagger home to his apartment, leaving a quarter-mile trail of blood behind him.

Sometime during the night, Xinran Ji died in his bed. And the aspirations of his family, who sacrificed everything to send him to America to pursue his studies, perished with him.

"Dreamer" DelCarmen and his friends drove off to a nearby beach to rob two more innocent people in a city and state that have defiantly declared themselves "sanctuaries" for people in the United States illegally -- not for the best and brightest like Xinran Ji, but for lawless barbarians like Jonathan DelCarmen.

"It's like heaven fell down," Ji's father told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge George Lomeli at Garcia's sentencing hearing.

"His life was taken by these demons," Ji's aunt added. "They robbed and killed an innocent youth with very vicious means, and this was inhuman."

Garcia received life in prison without the possibility of parole. Ji's parents' sentence was far worse: a brutal, violent and permanent separation from their only child. In Washington, D.C., however, some families matter more than others. And victims of indiscriminate open borders, like Xinran Ji, don't exist.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, proud promoter of sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants, led more than two dozen Democrats in turning the State of the Union address into "Take an Illegal Alien to Work Day."

Platitudes whitewash bloody reality.

"I want to be clear: DREAMers are Americans," declared Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who invited an illegal alien from El Salvador who now works at Apple. "They contribute to our economy, our communities and our strength and stability as a nation."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., brought a Mexican illegal alien, Cesar Montelongo, now enrolled in the M.D.-Ph.D. program at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

"I hope Cesar's presence reminds President Trump what's at stake in the debate over DACA: the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent young people who want to contribute to our country's future."

Democrats and pro-amnesty radicals protest any glint of sunlight shed on the destructive consequences of not enforcing our nation's immigration laws. They claim it's unfair to focus on single cases or "anecdotes," even as they promote DACA recipients as a holy, unassailable class of "honor roll students, star athletes, talented artists and valedictorians."

This propaganda, to which open-borders Republicans have fecklessly capitulated, is an offense to decency and truth...
More.

This is What the Democratic Party Has Become

From Ann Coulter, "Democrats Boo America":



Unlike the president, I don't call everything "incredible," but Trump's State of the Union address was incredible, beautifully delivered. (This guy could have a future in television!)

As proof, I cite every single media outlet bitterly complaining after the speech that, as MSNBC's chyron put it: "TRUMP FAILS TO MENTION RUSSIA'S ELECTION MEDDLING IN STATE OF THE UNION."

He did not address the elephant in the room!

A lot of people don't like Trump, but no one was thinking that. It's only an elephant in your room, media. This is the very definition of solipsistic.

What did they want him to say? "I confess!"? Then they would have complained that the speech was all about him. There would be five Mueller deputies going over the speech, line by line.

If that's all they got, it was a great speech.

The media claimed that Trump tricked them into reporting that his address was going to be bipartisan -- and then double-crossed them by delivering a "divisive" speech.


To be sure, there were a few partisan flourishes, galling to both sides.

Points Liberals Hate:

-- "Beautiful clean coal";

-- The end of Obamacare's individual mandate;

-- Keeping Guantanamo open; and

-- Firing useless government employees working for the Veterans Administration.

Points Conservatives Hate:

-- Amnesty;

-- Pointless wars; and

-- Any policy Trump mentioned when the camera flashed to Ivanka.

Altogether, these partisan remarks consumed about seven minutes of an 80-minute speech.

The bulk of Trump's address celebrated:

-- A booming economy;


-- Companies bringing jobs home;

-- Low black unemployment;

-- The flag;

-- The national motto;

-- God;

-- Rebuilding roads and bridges;

-- Law enforcement;

-- The life of a child born to an opioid addict;

-- The military;

-- Veterans; and

-- Getting the best immigrants we can.

I'm trying to imagine FDR opposing any of that. But according to today's Democrats, those issues are "divisive." (Calling the president a "racist" 2 million times a day -- that's not particularly divisive.)

Democrats have apparently decided that the magic of immigration-created demographic transformation means the future is theirs! They no longer have to worry about middle-of-the-road voters, independents, undecideds -- or really any Americans at all.

The entire party has embraced Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet's advice (offered back when he thought Trump was going to lose): "The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. ... F*ck Anthony Kennedy." (No asterisk in the original.)

Drawing on his family's mystique, Rep. Joseph Kennedy III delivered the Democratic rebuttal while standing in an auto body shop in front of a broken-down car. The only thing missing was a wet girl in the back seat, seaweed in her hair, desperately scratching at the windshield.

To drive home the point that the Democratic Party is not a moribund carcass with nothing but memories, next year Chelsea Clinton should give the response. Then Hillary, followed by Amy Carter.

Kennedy began by unironically denouncing privilege and celebrity. (As everyone knows, Democrats cannot STAND celebrity!) He then devoted the lion's share of his speech to the Democrats' pet issues: transgenders and foreigners. This is a party so completely insulated from the concerns of normal people that it is now dedicating itself to exotic micro-issues...
More.

President Trump is Winning

Well, it's been a terrible week for Democrats, and it's going to be a lot worse for them if the memo comes out tomorrow, and that's looking likely. I loved the State of the Union. President Trump was a master, a great communicator if there ever was one, and he trolled the Democrats hard. The Nancy Pelosi memes alone were priceless.

More on that in a bit. Meanwhile, from Thomas Edsall, at the New York Times, "Trump Has Got Democrats Right Where He Wants Them" (also at Memeorandum):

President Trump’s immigration proposal has put Democrats in a bind; they know it and he knows it.

Trump’s immigration “framework” — first outlined on Jan. 25 — represents an unusually sophisticated strategy. He proposes to more than double the number of Dreamers granted a path to citizenship, a significant concession to Democrats.

In return, he seeks approval of a set of policies strongly opposed by the left, each of which is designed to stem what Trump sees as a threatening increase in the nonwhite population of the United States.

What kind of numbers are we talking about? According to the Pew Research Center:
In 2014, immigrant women accounted for about 901,000 U.S. births, which marked a threefold increase from 1970 when immigrant women accounted for about 274,000 births. Meanwhile, the annual number of births to U.S.-born women dropped by 11 percent during that same time period, from 3.46 million in 1970 to 3.10 million in 2014.
There are now an estimated 690,000 registered Dreamers in the United States, all of whom were brought to this country as children before 2007. Trump’s offer would increase the number offered a path to citizenship to 1.8 million by adding those who are eligible for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), but who never registered.

For a Democratic Party whose electoral strength depends on Hispanic support (64 percent of Latinos identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party in 2016) preventing the deportation of the Dreamers and providing them with legal status has become a matter of political necessity.

Trump, acutely aware of the importance of DACA to Democrats, deliberately turned the status of Dreamers into a crisis on Sept. 5 when he ended the Dreamers program.

Since then, DACA has been the subject of constant debate and negotiation. Democrats have continued to threaten to shut down the government, when the Treasury runs out of money on Feb. 8, if no favorable agreement can be reached.

Trump’s proposal more than meets Democratic demands on DACA. But in return Trump wants Democrats to swallow three proposals of varying unpalatability.

First, the creation of a $25 billion fund for construction of a southern border wall to prevent illegal entry to the United States, primarily by undocumented Hispanics.

Second, a shift in immigration priorities from family reunification to a merit system granting entry to workers with relatively high skills. This would require limiting reunification preferences to minor children and spouses, while eliminating them for parents, siblings and adult children, what critics call “chain migration.” These steps would reduce immigration from developing countries: The two top countries of origin benefiting from family reunification policies are Mexico and the Dominican Republic.

Third, an end to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. The countries providing the largest numbers of immigrants under the lottery visa program, according to the State Department, are Cameroon, Congo, Liberia, Egypt, Iran, Nepal, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

The greatest unknown is how immigration reform will influence the voting behavior of the white working class.

In a Jan. 29 Vox essay, “The math is clear: Democrats need to win more working-class white votes,” Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, writes that Democrats seeking to regain control of Congress may be forced to mute their opposition to Trump immigration provisions they find offensive.

Teixeira argues that:
The view that Democrats can get along without working-class white voters is simply wrong. It reflects wishful thinking and a rigid set of political priors — namely, that Democrats’ political problems always stem from insufficient motivation of base voters — more than a cold, hard look at what the electoral and demographic data say.
The problem for Democrats is that not only do they need to improve margins among white working-class voters but they cannot allow a repetition of the minority voting patterns in 2016. That year, black turnout fell to 59.6 percent from 66.6 percent in 2012; and Clinton won 66 percent of the Latino vote, five percentage points less than President Barack Obama in 2012.

Doug Jones’s December victory in the Alabama Senate race demonstrated how crucial black voters are to Democrats: In that close contest, African-Americans, 92 percent of whom voted for Jones, made up 29 percent of the electorate. They are 26 percent of the voting age population.

The conflicts the Trump proposals present for Democrats are most painful to Hispanic and black elected officials.
Brilliant. Freakin' brilliant. I love this president. I really do.

More.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Trump's Challenge is to Unify the Nation?

I don't think so.

If he could rally his base with red meat he'd be better off in the long run. As we saw with the left's reaction to the administration's offer of legalizing 1.8 so-called "Dreamers," nothing's going to satisfy the fanatical hate-addled left.

But see David Fahrenthold, at the Washington Post, FWIW (via Memeorandum), "Trump's steep challenge in his first State of the Union address: Uniting a fractured country":
President Trump will give his first State of the Union address at 9 p.m. Eastern time, talking up the U.S. economy and calling for bipartisanship — after a year in office during which his aggressive, mercurial politics often overshadowed the former and undermined the latter.

“For the last year we have sought to restore the bonds of trust between our citizens and their government,” Trump plans to say, in a speech excerpt released by the White House on Tuesday evening.

In another excerpt, Trump will say “This is our New American Moment. There has never been a better time to start living the American dream.

Trump also intends to use the speech to call for a bipartisan deal on immigration. On Thursday he proposed a deal that would allow “dreamers” — young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children — to be given a path to citizenship, in exchange for an increase in border-security funding and large cuts to legal immigration.

“So tonight I am extending an open hand to work with members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our citizens, of every background, color, and creed,” Trump will say, according to the excerpts.

That tone will be markedly different from the one that Trump used in a Twitter messages earlier last week, in which he taunted the Senate’s top Democrat, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) for not agreeing to a bipartisan immigration deal. That tweet came after a short-lived government shutdown, which ended when Democrats backed down.

“Cryin’ Chuck Schumer fully understands, especially after his humiliating defeat, that if there is no Wall, there is no DACA,” Trump wrote. “DACA” is an acronym for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that allowed some “Dreamers” to avoid deportation.

And Trump’s call for bipartisanship and an end to division seemed unlikely to change the tone in Washington — where, in the hours leading up to Trump’s address, lawmakers seemed more divided than ever. One major cause was the fight over a House Intelligence Committee “memo” that purportedly raises questions about federal investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Many Republicans have used that memo, which was written by staff members of the committee chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), as a reason to question the validity of scrutiny of Trump and his staff by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

The divisions over immigration will be visible in the gallery that overlooks the House chamber. More than 50 Democratic lawmakers have invited “dreamers” to attend as guests to dramatize their demand for legal status. In response, Republican Rep. Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.) tweeted that he had asked the Capitol Police to check all guests’ IDs, and arrest “any illegal aliens in attendance.”

In Trump’s box, he has guests who will highlight the threat posed by MS-13, a criminal gang active in both the United States and Central America. Trump’s guests will include a federal immigration agent who has investigated the gang, and two sets of parents whose children were killed by MS-13 members...
More at that top link.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

What If Diversity Isn't America's Strength?

From Jonah Goldberg, at LAT, "This should elicit some fun email":
Sen. Lindsey Graham says he scolded the president for saying something scatological about certain countries and their immigrants. "Diversity has always been our strength," he allegedly said. By my count, this makes Graham the bazillionth person to proclaim some variant of "diversity is strength."

Is it true? I think the only close to right answer is, "it depends." Specifically, it depends on what — often clichéd — analogy you have in mind. Diverse stock portfolios are more resilient. Diverse diets are healthier. But that doesn't mean picking bad stocks will make you richer or that eating spoiled foods is good for you.

I once heard Jesse Jackson explain that racial integration of the NBA made it stronger and better. He was right. But would gender integration of the NBA have the same effect? Would diversifying professional basketball by height? Probably not.

All of these analogies can take you only so far. Thomas Sowell once said, "The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department."

There's a growing body of evidence that even if diversity— the kind that results from immigration — once made America stronger, it may not be doing so anymore. Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist at Harvard, found that increased diversity corrodes civil society by eroding shared values, customs and institutions. People tend to "hunker down" and retreat from civil society, at least in the short and medium term.

I think the real culprit here isn't immigration or diversity in general, but the rising stigma against assimilation. Particularly on college campuses, but also in large swaths of mainstream journalism and in the louder corners of the fever swamp right, the idea that people of all backgrounds should embrace a single conception of "Americanism" is increasingly taboo.

Anyone of any race or national origin can be an American, but it requires effort and desire from both the individual and the larger society. There's a shortage of both these days...
More.

Friday, January 5, 2018

Farms Facing Shrinking Immigrant Labor Pool

First thing I thought when I started reading this piece, is, "No, American workers worked Central Valley fields in the 1930s and '40s, workers escaping the devastation of Dust Bowl America (the Okies).

The piece does mention them, as a sop to history.

I just know that if wages were high enough, Americans would take these jobs. I would have picked cantaloupes in the 1980s if owners were paying me $12.00 an hour. The Times had a piece last year where growers near Sacramento were paying $15.00 and up (with some growers expecting to pay wages from $18.00 to $20.00 an hour).

It's simple economics. There's no shame in working an honest job. The fact that dark-skinned people have done it for so long doesn't mean that hard-working U.S. citizens won't work the fields. Immigrant labor drags down wages. Growers like it that way, giving the shiv to regular citizens.

At LAT, "Born in the U.S.A. and working in the fields — what gives?":

Nicholas Andrew Flores swatted at the flies orbiting his sweat-drenched face as he picked alongside a crew of immigrants through a cantaloupe field in California's Central Valley.

The 21-year-old didn't speak Spanish, but he understood the essential words the foreman barked out: Puro amarillo. And rapido, rapido! Quickly, Flores picked only yellow melons and flung them onto a moving platform.

It was hard and repetitive work, and there were days under the searing sun that Flores regretted not going to a four-year college. But he liked that to get the job he just had to "show up." And at $12 an hour, it paid better than slinging fast food.

For Joe Del Bosque of Del Bosque Farms in the San Joaquin Valley, American-born pickers like Flores, though rare, are always welcome.

For generations, rural Mexico has been the primary source of hired farm labor in the U.S. According to a federal survey, nine out of 10 agricultural workers in places like California are foreign-born, and more than half are in the U.S. illegally.

But farm labor from Mexico has been on the decline in California. And under the Trump administration, many in the agricultural industry worry that deportations — and the fear of them — could further cut the supply of workers.

But try as they have to entice workers with better salaries and benefits, companies have found it impossible to attract enough U.S.-born workers to make up for a shortage from south of the border.

Del Bosque said he'll hire anyone who shows up ready to work. But that rarely means someone born in the U.S.

"Americans will say, 'You can't pay me enough to do this kind of work,'" Del Bosque said. "They won't do it. They'll look for something easier."

For some immigrants working the fields, people like Flores are a puzzle — their sweating next to them represents a kind of squandering of an American birthright.

"It's hard to be here under the sun. It's a waste of time and their talents in the fields," said Norma Felix, 58, a Mexican picker for almost three decades. "They don't take advantage of their privilege and benefit of being born here. They could easily work in an office."

Most don't last long, she said.

"There is always one or two who show up every season," Felix said. "They show up for three or four days and turn around and leave."

Agriculture's reliance on immigrant labor, especially in the American West, goes back to the late 1800s, after the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad, said J. Edward Taylor, a UC Davis rural economist.

"The domestic farm workforce was simply not big enough to support the growth of labor-intensive fruit and vegetable crops," he said...

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Increase in Border Attacks, Smuggling, and Deaths at Texas’ Big Bend Region

Build the freakin' wall already, sheesh.

 At LAT, "Could the Big Bend in Texas be the border's weakest link? Smuggling of drugs and migrants is on the rise":
Two Border Patrol agents bent to study the sandy dirt like animal trackers — what they call "cutting for sign."

They didn't have to look far.

Just yards from the Rio Grande, Agent Lee Smith pointed to footprints and scraps of carpet. Smugglers tie carpet to their shoes in hopes of covering their tracks, he said. Smith followed the rough trail through thick brush, his fellow agent close behind, wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a long gun.

They saw no one. But the agents sensed smugglers watching, waiting.

"They come right across. What's here to stop them?" Smith said.

Sometimes smuggler scouts cross on horseback: The muddy banks are pocked with human and horse tracks. The river here, about 60 miles east of El Paso, is just a few yards wide, one of the reasons Border Patrol agents in Texas' Big Bend region have seen troubling increases in smuggling, attacks on agents and migrant deaths in recent years.

"There's hundreds of these crossings just in our area of operation," Smith said. "The drug cartels, they own this part of the land. We have conceded large swaths of the border. There are areas where there are not agents for days."

He called the vast Big Bend "the absolute weakest link on the southern border."

The natural barriers beyond the river that made the landscape a stunning backdrop for "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood" and "Giant" were also supposed to protect it. Or at least that was long the assumption of U.S.officials. There's the river. There are mountains — the snow-covered Chinati, Chisos and Davis ranges.

There's the Chihuahuan high desert, the land full of prickly cat claw and temperatures that soar above 100 degrees on summer days and dip to below freezing on winter nights. And for many years, smugglers avoided Big Bend, that part of Texas where the border makes a gentle swoop south before swinging back north.

But smuggling routes shift according to the dictates of criminal organizations, often in response to border enforcement. In the late 1990s, border traffic moved from Southern California to remote desert stretches of Arizona; by 2013, it moved east again to Texas' Rio Grande Valley, the epicenter of migration and enforcement ever since.

But now new routes are opening up to the west, in Big Bend.

"As things in the Rio Grande Valley get tougher to cross, they're looking for other places, and this is a spot that over the past few years has become established for smuggling," said Border Patrol Agent Rush Carter, a spokesman for the agency in Big Bend.

Just as migrants once tried to cross the Arizona desert unprepared, Central Americans are arriving in Big Bend without cold weather gear, abandoned to the elements by smugglers. Migrants tell agents that smugglers advertise the area as an easy crossing, the least patrolled stretch of border.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection divides the southern border into nine sectors. Big Bend is the largest: 135,000 square miles, 510 miles of river, a quarter of the entire southern border.

The sector stretches north to include 118 counties in Texas and all of Oklahoma. Yet it has the smallest staff of any southern border sector, about 500 agents assigned to a dozen stations and several highway checkpoints including one in Sierra Blanca, notorious for large drug busts. That's fewer agents than have been assigned to a single station in the Tucson sector, Smith said.

President Trump has promised to add 5,000 Border Patrol agents, potentially doubling Big Bend staffing, but with high turnover, agents said that they would still be spread thin.

With such a small staff, agents usually patrol alone, with hand-me-down technology from other areas, including radios so spotty agents have erected makeshift cell towers in the brush to boost reception. Sometimes they just yell.

They don't have observation towers along the border as in the Rio Grande Valley, and their single aerostat blimp hovering overhead, unlike those used in the Valley, is not equipped with infrared technology, Smith said...
More.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Today's Political Divisions as Bad as Vietnam Era

I don't think is "just Trump," but this is interesting nevertheless.

At WaPo, "‘It’s just messed up’: Most think political divisions as bad as Vietnam era, new poll shows: The Post-U. Md. survey reveals a starkly pessimistic view of the U.S. political system under President Trump":


Seven in 10 Americans say the nation’s political divisions are at least as big as during the Vietnam War, according to a new poll, which also finds nearly 6 in 10 saying Donald Trump’s presidency is making the U.S. political system more dysfunctional.

The Washington Post-University of Maryland poll — conducted nine months into Trump’s tumultuous presidency — reveals a starkly pessimistic view of U.S. politics, widespread distrust of the nation’s political leaders and their ability to compromise, and an erosion of pride in the way democracy works in America.

Trump’s arrival in the White House in January ushered in a period of big political fights — over issues including health care, taxes and immigration — and a sharp escalation in personal attacks on political opponents, over social media and elsewhere.

Seven in 10 Americans say the nation’s politics have reached a dangerous low point, and a majority of those believe the situation is a “new normal” rather than temporary, according to the poll.

The poll finds that 7 in 10 Americans view the Trump administration as dysfunctional. But dissatisfaction extends well beyond the executive branch: Even more Americans, 8 in 10, say Congress is dysfunctional, and there is limited trust in other institutions, including the media.

“It’s just messed up now,” said Patty Kasbeck, 37, a veterinary technician in Bartlesville, Okla., and a Democrat. “It’s not even a political system. It’s a reality show.”

In the poll, 14 percent of Americans say they view ethics and honesty of politicians as excellent or good, down from 25 percent in 1997 and 39 percent in 1987. And 12 percent say members of Congress base their policies on a set of core values, while 87 percent say they mainly “do whatever is need to win reelection.”

By and large, Americans are feeling frustrated not only with the country’s politics but their ability to talk about politics in a civil way.

“It seems the country is being divided on so many topics and on so many fronts at one time,” said Gene Gardner, a retired communications specialist in Blacksburg, Va., who said American democracy has become “a rock-throwing contest.”

“When people have an opinion, they don’t just say it to their spouse across the dinner table anymore,” said Gardner, 68, who is not registered with either political party. “They put it on Facebook. Everything gets amplified and more angry.”

Recent surveys have shown consumer confidence is up this year and stands at the highest levels in the past decade, so it does not appear that economic concerns are driving discontent with the nation’s political system.

Rather, Trump’s presidency appears to be a more critical factor in informing the way people feel about the state of American democracy.

While the poll finds similar levels of distrust in the federal government as before Trump took office, it also finds that pride in U.S. democracy is eroding. The share of Americans who are not proud of the way the country’s democracy is working has doubled since three years ago — from 18 percent to 36 percent in the new survey conducted among a nationwide sample of more than 1,600 adults by The Post and U-Md.’s Center for American Politics and Citizenship.

And nearly half of those who say they “strongly disapprove” of Trump’s job performance say they are not proud of American democracy today. That’s about twice as high among as those who “somewhat disapprove” of the president’s performance.

Doubts about democracy are not limited, however, to strong Trump critics. The poll finds that 25 percent of his supporters are not proud of the way democracy is working. That’s a higher figure than for the general public since at least the 1990s, polling shows.

“I think that since Trump’s election, there’s a spotlight on Washington and how it really works: that politicians are out for themselves and beholden to special interests,” said Nola Sayne, a paralegal in Logansville, Ga., who supported Trump and says she tends to vote Republican.

Sayne, 54, partly blames the dysfunction on how the Washington establishment has reacted to Trump. “People just flip out at everything he says,” Sayne said.

Elizabeth Johnston, a worker benefits specialist in Paradise, Calif., said she’s “embarrassed for the country” and primarily blames Democrats for the nation’s current political dysfunction.

“They’re acting like the mean kids in junior high,” Johnston said. “They’re all helping to make sure that the president doesn’t succeed.”

Johnston, 58, a registered independent, said there are some things she doesn’t like about Trump, like his “childish tweets.” But she said the country needs to give him a chance. “I love it that he hears us,” she said. “I love it that he wants to cut taxes.”

Strong majorities in both parties say the political divisions today are at least as strong as during the Vietnam War, a period of protest and unrest that is widely viewed as a dark chapter in American political history.

Seven in 10 Americans overall hold that view, but it is particularly strong among those who experienced the Vietnam War era firsthand. Among those who were adults in the 1970s, more than three-quarters say political divisions today are at least as big.

“I’m old enough that I remember the Vietnam War,” said Ed Evans, 67, a lawyer in Sioux Falls, S.D., and a Democrat who was a college student in Missouri at the time. “With Vietnam, at least it was focused on one issue. Here, it’s all over the place. In some ways, this is deeply more troubling.”

Ellen Collins, a retired data architect in Dayton, Ohio, said she remembers hearing her brother, who was in the Army returning from Vietnam, say that he was spit upon in the airport during a layover in San Francisco in March 1968. Still, she is among those who say political divisions in the country are worse today.

“This country is a mess,” said Collins, 69. “There’s no civility. Friends are now enemies. These issues have made people angry.”

She blames Trump in large part, saying he has used divisions “to his benefit, to play on people’s fears.”

Collins cited Trump’s recent sparring with Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.) over the president’s condolence call to the widow of a soldier killed in Niger.

“He has an inability to say, ‘My bad,’ and he just keeps going and going,” Collins said. “He’s childish, and he’s a bully.”

Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans say America’s politics have reached a dangerous low point, though more Democrats (81 percent) than Republicans (56 percent) hold that view.
More.


Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Sebastian Kurz's People's Party Wins Parliamentary Elections in Austria - UPDATED!

At the Guardian U.K., "Conservative Sebastian Kurz on track to become Austria’s next leader: Centre of political gravity shifts right as projections put 31-year-old Kurz’s Austrian People’s party ahead in election with 31.7%."

And at WaPo, "Austria turns sharply to the right in an election shaped by immigration":
Early exit polls of Austria's Oct. 15 election, suggest Sebastian Kurz, will take his party into a very narrow majority — positioning himself as the next chancellor. The 31-year old conservative is known for his pledge to take the country into a more hard line stance against the influx of refugees and migrants.

BERLIN — Austria became the latest European country to take a sharp turn right on Sunday, with the conservative People’s Party riding a hard-line position on immigration to victory in national elections and likely to form a government with a nationalist party that has long advocated for an even tougher stance.

The result puts the 31-year-old foreign minister and People’s Party leader, Sebastian Kurz, in line to become Austria’s next chancellor after a campaign in which he emphasized the need to strengthen border controls, reduce caps on refugees and slash benefits for newcomers.

Much of Kurz’s rhetoric echoed positions long held by the Freedom Party, which for decades has anchored the far right of politics in this nation of 8.7 million.

With nearly all results counted as of Monday morning, the Freedom Party was in second place at 27.4 percent, with the ruling Social Democrats trailing close behind at 26.7 percent. The People’s Party was the decisive winner, at 31.6 percent.

“I’ll fight with all my strength for change in this country,” Kurz told cheering supporters — many clad in turquoise, the color he adopted to signal a new era for the People’s Party after decades of identification with black. “There’s a lot to do.”

Two years after Austria was among the more welcoming nations in Europe for refugees fleeing en masse across the continent, the results revealed just how sour public sentiment has turned. Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war, oppression and poverty passed through the central European nation on their way to destinations farther north and west in late 2015 and early 2016. Tens of thousands stayed in the country and applied for asylum protection.

“Austrians are fearful because of immigration and the refugee crisis,” said Reinhard Heinisch, a political scientist at the University of Salzburg. “Kurz addressed these fears, and played with these fears.”

As in other elections across Europe this year, the far right made significant progress, but not enough to triumph.

In France this spring, National Front leader Marine Le Pen made it to the final round of the presidential election. Just last month, the Alternative for Germany Party took 13 percent of the vote — putting a far-right party in the German Parliament for the first time in more than half a century.

But unlike in those nations, in Austria the far right is expected to become part of the government. Kurz will need a coalition partner to form a majority in the parliament, and the Freedom Party is considered the most likely option.

If he goes that route, it would end a “grand coalition” between Austria’s center left and center right that has led the country for the past decade, and for much of its modern history.

Some on Sunday called on Kurz to avoid teaming up with the Freedom Party...
A lot of good that'll do. Kurz himself is a former neo-Nazi, according to Sunday's report at the New York Times. I don't care for anyone with that kind of background and I denounce them. But I think it's just deserts for the radical left, who opened up Europe to the Muslim invasion, and thus opened up the European democracies to a resurgence of nativist, even racist, political parties.

More.

UPDATE: Correction, it's not Kurz who belonged to neo-Nazi groups previously, but Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, which came in second in Sunday's election and is likely to enter the government in a coalition with Kurz's People's Party.

Monday, October 9, 2017

Domestic Violence Victims Avoid the Police, Fearing Deportation

This is why people hate the media. We're supposed to feel bad for battered illegals? Go back to Mexico and report your illegal domestic abuser, sheesh.

At the stupid Los Angeles Times, "Fearing deportation, many domestic violence victims are steering clear of police and courts."


Sunday, October 8, 2017

Illegals Have Definitely Taken Over

I tweeted.

Far left Robin Abcarian wasn't pleased.


Saturday, September 16, 2017

Trump Supporters Learn to Be Flexible

At LAT, "Dealing with Democrats? Protecting 'Dreamers'? Here in Arizona that's just fine with these Trump supporters."

Actually, lots of supporters are pissed off by this. Me? Not so much. I want Trump to get some stuff done. I don't love amnesty, but it's not the political killer some think it is.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Mexican Pride!

From Lauren Southern:


Sunday, September 10, 2017

President Trump Shows How it's Done

From Jill Lawrence, at USA Today, "Trump shows GOP how it's done: Scrap absolutism, deal with reality" (at Memeorandum):
The Freedom Caucus is the tail that aspires to wag a whole country though it represents just a sliver of Americans. Even within the House it's outnumbered by moderate centrists.

President Trump wrote a book on deals, and so did I. Mine is shorter and didn’t sell quite as many copies, but it was a deep dig into how political agreements are born. The process — slow, plodding, painstaking, strategic, and did I mention slow? — is nothing like what went on with Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Nothing at all.

As a citizen, I’m thrilled by the lightning round between the Republican president and his two Democratic amigos. It feels strange but wonderful to get hurricane aid, keep the government in business and increase the U.S. borrowing limit (sparing the world a financial crisis) — all before we even began to type our traditional angst-ridden headlines about polarization, paralysis and brinksmanship.

As a liberal, I’m also pretty psyched. If Pelosi (the House Democratic leader) and Schumer (her Senate counterpart) are even half the geniuses Republicans seem to think they are, Democrats may be well positioned to help protect undocumented young immigrants in a program Trump just canceled, and to keep a lid on the deliverables to rich people who are anticipating huge tax cuts.

If I were a centrist Republican, I’d be intrigued by this hint of bipartisanship. Could it be that the GOP fever is finally breaking, five long years after Barack Obama predicted it would? If so, all it has taken is Obama’s exit from the stage, absolute Republican power, and a president like Trump.

It turns out that a lot of what Obama did wasn’t so god-awful. The problem was who did it (him) and in some cases how he did it — executive actions or, heaven forbid, party-line votes. Quick, pass the smelling salts.

The latest of many examples is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. In the absence of congressional action on a new immigration law, Obama unilaterally started a permit system so people brought here illegally as children could work and study without fear of deportation. The conservative backlash was ferocious.

But now that Trump has canceled it, with a six-month grace period for Congress to “do your job,” as he put it, a growing number of Republicans — including Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan — are looking for an escape hatch.  Whose idea was it, anyway, to destroy the lives of some 800,000 young people who are working, studying and have never broken the law? Who are engines of our economy, or could be, if we let them stay? It turns out it’s not popular to kick the “dreamers” out of America.

Turns out as well that repealing the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is not popular either — especially when the Congressional Budget Office has found that every variation on a replacement would cost people more, take away consumer protections, and insure far fewer — up to 24 million fewer in one case. Those protesting repeal at town meetings included conservatives and Trump voters as well as liberal Democrats. Those seeking a bipartisan compromise to stabilize markets and improve the law include more than a few Republican senators and governors. Those trying to get Congress to abandon repeal and move on include … Trump. At least as of Friday.

It wasn’t popular to pull America out of the Paris climate agreement, as Trump has done. It wouldn’t be popular to weaken fuel efficiency standards developed by the Obama administration, with consumers or even apparently with the auto industry.

And it won’t be popular if, as expected, the tax “reform” push by Trump and congressional Republicans turns out to be mostly about tax cuts for the rich. Three-quarters of Americans say Trump should not lower taxes on the wealthy and close to that many said a year ago that taxes should be raised on the wealthy.

Buoyed by gerrymandering and cultural shifts, Republicans have had years of success winning elections at every level. They have mistaken that as popular support for free-market health care, trickle-down economics, extensive deregulation and callous social policies. Will months of failure on Obamacare repeal, capped perhaps by a groundswell of support for DACA, finally drive the message home?

The aggressively conservative House Freedom Caucus has been like the tail wagging the GOP and aspiring to wag the whole country. But its three dozen hard-core conservatives don’t represent anything close to a majority of Americans. Even within the House, they may be outnumbered by the moderate centrists of the Tuesday Group, estimated to have as many as 50 members...
Trump needs to get Democrats to bend toward his will, not the other way around.

Bipartisanship is fine, as long as it tilts conservative.

That said, I like how Trump is going rogue. He's amazing sometimes.

More.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

President Trump Orders End to #DACA (VIDEO)

If there was any one policy that was likely to turn the "cold civil war" into a hot one, it's gotta be this one.

Literally to the one, leftists from top of the establishment to the bottom of the far-left fever swamps have excoriated the president for his move on restoring law and order on immigration policy.

Things are gonna get hot in the weeks and months ahead. The anger at Trump's election last November 9th will begin to burn again. It's been bad all along, but I'm seeing a new seething hatred. Things are coming to a head.

At WaPo (FWIW), "Trump and Republicans face ‘a defining moment’ on immigration":

President Trump is hurtling toward a crossroads on immigration — his signature campaign issue and a key source of his law-and-order reputation — where each path before him comes with significant political risks.

Trump has temporarily placed the fates of roughly 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children in the hands of Congress, buying himself time and shunting responsibility.

Should Congress act, the president will have to choose whether to sign on to a legislative solution granting the “dreamers” legal status — or to let the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, expire, which would impede the ability of beneficiaries to find work and leave them vulnerable to deportation.

The choice cuts to the core of his presidency and could have long-term ramifications for the Republican Party.

“From a Republican Party point of view, this is a defining moment,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), co-author of a bipartisan dreamers bill, told reporters Tuesday. As if addressing Trump, Graham added, “You have a chance to show the nation, as the president of all of us, where your heart’s at.”

Trump’s hard-line base, which demands purity and expects results, recoils at DACA as illegal amnesty and will look to him to veto any such legislation. But allies said Trump also is eager to prove that he has the “great heart” he has touted, and he is under pressure from his party’s establishment, the business community and many of his own advisers to find a way to let dreamers stay.

Trump’s 901-word statement on Tuesday explaining his decision zigzagged between those instincts. By the afternoon, when he sat down to a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders, Trump appeared to loosely come down on the side of the dreamers, saying he was confident lawmakers would achieve “the right solution.”

“I have a love for these people and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly,” Trump said. “And I can tell you, speaking to members of Congress, they want to be able to do something and do it right. And really, we have no choice.”

On Tuesday night, Trump tweeted that he wanted to “legalize DACA,” another call to action that further muddled where the administration stood and what it would do.

“Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do),” Trump wrote. “If they can’t, I will revisit the issue!”

Trump’s tone sharply contrasted with the harsher approach taken by Attorney General Jeff Sessions hours earlier at a news conference where he did not take questions. The difference highlighted the murkiness of the administration’s position...
Still more.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Trump Administration to 'Weaponize' #DACA Data

You just gotta love Trump. I mean, he's more committed to Alinsky than radical Alinskyite leftists, lol.

From Betsy Woodruff, at the far-left Daily Beast, "The Trump Administration Now Has Tons of DACA Data and is Poised to Weaponize It."


Saturday, August 26, 2017

Hysteria Over Monuments Metastasizes

Leftist hysteria is like a cancer, so it's spread is tantamount to metastasis of cancer.

At the New York Times, "Far From Dixie, Outcry Grows Over a Wider Array of Monuments" (safe link):
It began with calls to remove Confederate generals.

But since the violence in Charlottesville, Va., two weeks ago, the anger from the left over monuments and public images deemed racist, insensitive or inappropriate has quickly spread to statues of Christopher Columbus and the former Philadelphia tough cop mayor Frank Rizzo, Boston’s landmark Faneuil Hall, a popular Chicago thoroughfare and even Maryland’s state song. An Asian-American sportscaster named Robert Lee was pulled from broadcasting a University of Virginia football game so as not to offend viewers.

The disputes over America’s racial past and public symbols have proliferated with dizzying speed, spreading to states far beyond the Confederacy and inspiring campaigns by minorities and political progressives across the country. But along the way, they have become to some an example of politically correct sentiments gone too far, with the potential to mobilize the right and alienate the center.

Paul Begala, the Democratic strategist, said his party was “driving straight into a trap Trump has set,” because the president seeks to shift the focus away from comments he made about white supremacists to his charge that opponents are trying to “take away our history.”

“While I understand the pain those monuments cause,” said Mr. Begala, who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton, “I just think it in some ways dishonors the debate to allow Trump to hijack it.”

New disputes seem to be springing up daily.

In a Democratic mayoral candidates’ debate in New York on Wednesday, Mayor Bill de Blasio did not rule out removing Manhattan’s 76-foot Columbus Circle monument as the city reviews “symbols of hate.”

Philadelphia placed barricades and guards around a statue of Mr. Rizzo, loathed by some African-Americans for his harsh tactics toward blacks in the city, after protesters surrounded the bronze edifice and a city councilwoman, Helen Gym, wrote on Twitter, “Take the Rizzo statue down.”

Mr. Rizzo, who died in 1991, cultivated a law-and-order image as a police commissioner that included raiding gay clubs and once forcing Black Panthers to strip naked in the street.

“Just because Philadelphia wasn’t a part of the Confederacy doesn’t mean we get a pass,” Ms. Gym said in an interview. She is less concerned about turning off voters who support the president than in rousing members of the Democratic base, including minorities, who did not vote in November.

“My concern is about the number of people who stayed home, who felt government doesn’t speak for them,” she said. “I’m trying to show government can be reflective in a time of anguish.”

In Chicago, a campaign is underway to remove a monument to Italo Balbo, an Italian air marshal, which the Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini presented to the city in 1933. Balbo Drive is a well-known street in the heart of downtown.

In Boston, there are calls for renaming historic Faneuil Hall because Peter Faneuil, who donated the building to the city in 1743, was a slave owner and trader.

Columbus, who, most Americans learn rather innocently, in 1492 sailed the ocean blue until he discovered the New World, has undergone a revisionist treatment in recent decades because of his impact on native peoples...

See that?

It's all about "rousing the Democratic base." Or, it's all about politics.

Leftists care about power. They don't care about the well-being of any of the so-called victims of "racism." They care about raw power and they'll destroy the country --- totally destroy this once-great nation --- in order to get it.

Still more (FWIW).

President Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

I met Sheriff Joe in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2010. Everybody loves Sheriff Joe. The only people who don't are the treasonous racist MSM fifth columnists out to destroy our great country!

Here's the headline at NYT, via Memeorandum, "Trump Pardons Joe Arpaio, Who Became Face of Crackdown on Illegal Immigration."

I don't care what these leftist media hacks say. Sheriff Joe's a freakin' patriot.

Here's my report from 2010. I had so much fun! See, "Sheriff Joe Arpaio Headlines 'Stand With Arizona' Rally in Tempe."