The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Court Discovers Zeroth, Infinityeth, and Negative First Amendments
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

From today’s decision by a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit in Washington v. Trump:

As everybody knows, the Zeroth Amendment to the Bill of Rights is “That if anybody anywhere wants to move to America for any reason, it would be racist to stop them.”

But less known is the Infinityeth Amendment: “There’s no limit to how many foreigners have the civil right to move to America, and it’s racist to even think about the subject.”

And then there’s the Negative First Amendment: “The First Amendment doesn’t apply to the Zeroth and the Inifinityeth Amendments, which take precedence. Saying anything negative about immigration is unconstitutional.”

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Why can’t we just admit that the first 10 amendments are cancers that need repeal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @San Fernando Curt
    Whole lotta baby in that bath water.
    , @SFG
    Then when the Democrats get in, they can arrest you for posting that. They're already moving toward speech codes.
    , @Rifleman
    Might be worth a post:

    Bill Kristol: Lazy White Working Class Americans Should be Replaced by Immigrants

    https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/829676988302577669

    Note the fixation on the White working class and not the high percentage of black, American Indian and Latino citizens who are also "working class".

    It seems framing the issue around contempt for White America workers as in need of replacement is within the bounds of American discourse but showing similar contempt for other races of "working class" status is verboten.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/court-discovers-zeroth-infinityeth-and-negative-first-amendments/#comment-1761872
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Don’t forget the negative second amendment:
    As more immigrants bring more gun violence, it will finally make sense to ban firearms outright.

    Read More
    • Replies: @415 reasons
    Other than San Bernadino, Orlando, Virginia Tech, Binghamton, Fort Hood, Fort Lauderdale, the Washington mall shooting, Chatanooga, Fort Hood 2, Santa Monica, and a few I missed, very few recent mass shootings are attributable to recent immigrants or their families.
  3. My favorite Amendment is the Second.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The Second is the keystone. The rest ain’t squat without it.
    , @mobi

    My favorite Amendment is the Second.
     
    I would clean it up a bit by removing the subordinate clause. Purely out of concern for all the stress and confusion it causes to the left, you understand.

    Just "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


    They want 'a living, breathing document' - they should get it, good and hard.

  4. This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson’s refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. So egregious is the decision, so nonsensical its reasoning, the executive’s completely disregarding this decision is absolutely justified. Indeed it is obligatory. The only conceivable reason for abiding by the decision is an argument for awaiting a final decision on the underlying merits of the case by the intermediate appellate court sitting en banc, or, should they also make up fantastical things from whole cloth, by the federal supreme court.

    If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A., it necessarily follows that some five billion and seven hundred million persons are entitled to a trial on the merits of their case should they wish to enter the U.S.A. In other words, it is an actual finding of the Zeroth Amendment, in some penumbra or other, precisely as that concept has been articulated by Steve.

    This is madness. It is the very epitome of a failed state.

    If this situation persists, war is imminent.

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG, MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The 9th Circuit doesn't really have any credibility left to lose, because it is thoroughly Californicated. But the Supreme Court does. If Gorsuch was seated this would be a no brainer, but even with the court as it is, I don't think they want to endorse such novel, hare-brained and politicized legal reasoning. The easiest (and wisest) thing for them to do would be to punt and dismiss on the basis that the states have no standing (i.e. that they are not the proper parties to a suit). This way they could avoid making any decision on the merits and keep their powder dry.

    PS, I see this as a win either way situation for Trump. If the decision stands and then later there is a terrorist incident (as there surely be with Trump Luck) then he can pin the whole thing on the leftist court system and then maybe push thru some kind of judicial reform so that this never happens again. Maybe a National Security court so that such decisions never get shipped out to the most liberal circuit.

    , @415 reasons
    I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can't Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively? Why are they letting the lefties in state hustle refugees through?

    Seems like if you had robust enforcement of people over-staying visas combined with not issuing any refugee visas, it would be good enough to prevent any appreciable number of people from these countries from settling here.

    Would it necessarily keep out any potential ISIS jihadi wanting to suicide bomb on a one week tourist visa to NYC? No. But at least it would cripple (until a Democrat becomes President) the growth of a perennially troublemaking substantial muslim underclass like they have in France.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Excepting your comment and a few others, many pf the comments here leave me with a sense of despair. "Trump needs more lawyers (!!!)" "Gotta wait for Gorsuch to to be confirmed." "Gotta wait for a trial on the merits." I think that the issue was characterized brilliantly by MasterBlaster in Beyond Thunderdome:

    "Who run Bartertown,"
    , @Almost Missouri
    A reminder to all elected officials:

    Your oath is to the Constitution, not to some overgrown hippies in black robes.

    The judges do not own the Constitution nor the Country. We The People do.

    That is all.
    , @Nigerian Nationalist
    Your own guys aren't even on your side.

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-10/trumps-deplorable-travel-ban
    , @Corvinus
    "This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson’s refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia."

    No, it is not the equivalent. In the Jackson case, he defied a court order. His decision was unprecedented. Congress did not intervene in this matter, largely because they also agreed with Jackson's action, which was ultimately a dereliction of his duty to enforce the law of the land. In the immigration case, the Court's order is in line with past legal decisions when it comes to the war on terror. The DOJ is arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States on the basis to prevent terrorism, and that national security policies are unreviewable. Think about that point for a moment. The executive branch has the ultimate say on the war of terrorism. How has that worked out? The Court has the authority to review this particular decision in light of past cases involving terrorism. The DOJ stated there are "imminent threats" by incoming Muslims to carry out nefarious acts without submitting into evidence--as far as I know--that a single alien from any of the countries named in the order is prone to such conduct. Remember, the war on terrorism has been subject to Congressional consent and oversight. The Court is acting proper here given the nature of the legal argument.

    Personally, Congress should intervene. They should thoroughly rewrite the laws regarding immigration to reflect the current will of the people, mindful that there will be legal challenges.

    "If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A...."

    The question before the court is NOT that a "Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process", but whether the legal argument of the DOJ has merit and whether the ban is a religious litmus test.

    "If this situation persists, war is imminent."

    Are you ready to play soldier, dear? Go ahead.
  5. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    OT: So… Dr. Udge has the TV news ratings up tonight and I think almost every single host is white or white/Jewish. The lefty channels are not getting any ratings with their non-white hosts we can assume. Don Lemon’s numbers must be highly classified. And no, there is not a lot of Hispanic diversity hosting the news! Claro que si!

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    FEB 8, 2017

    FOXNEWS O’REILLY 4,251,000
    FOXNEWS TUCKER 3,326,000
    FOXNEWS THE FIVE 3,141,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,081,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 3,080,000
    FOXNEWS MACCALLUM 2,888,000
    FOXNEWS FOX FRIENDS 2,165,000
    FOXNEWS CAVUTO 2,082,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 2,013,000
    MSNBC O’DONNELL 1,678,000
    CNN COOPER 1,448,000
    MSNBC HAYES 1,437,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 1,359,000
    CNN TAPPER 1,260,000
    CMDY DAILY SHOW 989,000
    MSNBC MORNING JOE 782,000

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfred1860
    I hate to do this, but I care not about the colour of a newscasters skin, but rather the content of his character.
  6. Donald Trump is about to face a very difficult decision. Steve has called for the “rule of law,” but what we now have is the rule of judges. Donald Trump needs to invoke the (possibly apocryphal) statement of Andrew Jackson following the Worcester v. Georgia: “Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Jeff Sessions needs to issue an immediate Attorney General’s opinion saying essentially that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is itself unconstitutinal and that the Trump executive order will be enforced. Any attempt by Federal Marshalls should be disregarded; any attempt by Federal Marshalls to arrest a person enforcing the order will itself result in the disarmament of the Federal Marshall and the arrest of the Federal Marshall for interfering with the lawful processes of government. The House of Representatives should begin expedited impeachment proceedings against all the judges involved.

    I think that it was at Lexington that an American commander said something like: “If they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” If an American President, duly elected on a promise to restrict immigration, cannot do so, then we no longer have a country anyway. Perhaps it’s time for Americans to fire another shot heard round the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski
    This would be a hasty course. What Trump should do is wait until Gorsuch is confirmed, which may take a few months, and then appeal. The ban itself is small potatoes. The ruling's precedent is what matters, as always with constitutional legal decisions (Roe v. Wade, for example). If the Supreme Court ignores the law and constitution for some reason (Gorsuch turns out to be Souter redux, for example), then perhaps the nation's the cold civil war -- made apparent by the election and its aftermath -- will evolve.

    The 4 lefty judges, of course, would ignore the law and constitution in a second to create the new rights Steve enumerated. That is why Trump must wait for Gorsuch. Otherwise, the Supremes will rule 4-4 and the Ninth Circuit's ruling will stand.
    , @trilobite
    I doubt trump will do it.
    , @Ed
    No need for that. Take it to the Supreme Court first. The courts need serious reform though or they may not last going forward. The sappy language for one of the highest courts in the land is a disgrace. It points to the fact that the judges are more concerned with maintaining elite opinion then sticking to the rule of law.
  7. That’s hyperbole, because nothing has been decided on the merits yet. There are though definitely a number of worrisome points in this order. The court is allowing standing to a state to sue the federal government on the basis of illegal immigrants (!!) in the state and putative benefits to the state. It also may be reading Trump’s campaign comments in as a basis to find that this order was motivated by discrimination, which raises the question as to whether Trump could ever issue an order that in any way would restrict immigration in a way affecting Muslims.

    Even having said that, this entire executive order episode is looking more and more like a major, major blunder by the administration, undertaken by non-lawyers (presumably, Bannon and Miller), and probably not substantively reviewed by lawyers. They didn’t even have their Attorney General in place, and their acting AG refused to defend it.

    To begin with, as a practical matter, it would have been extremely easy for the order to include Presidential findings, based on classified information, justifying this order factually and justifying it as a matter of imminent necessity to protect public safety and national security. (You can refer to the Bush-43 Administration’s justifications for the Iraq War for how easy it is to get intelligence sources to justify what you need.) Just having those would have bolstered the Administration’s case considerably, and also considerably slowed down the courts from interfering. (The procedures to allow the courts and opposing parties to get access to classified information can be torturous, and would probably have prevented any emergency restraining order). As things stand the Administration has had very little, largely an inapposite exclusion of these countries from the Visa Waiver Program, and the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago, to justify this order.

    This episode with the order is looking more and more like a major own goal that the Administration ought to seriously consider just vacating and starting fresh on. The risk is if they get a bad ruling and a precedent that seriously curtails the power of the President over immigration or foreign affairs, Trump will have basically broken the edges off some of the sharpest instruments he might have had by using them stupidly. They’re going forward into a Supreme Court that might not even be able to come to a decision (and, my guess, Anthony Kennedy won’t side with the Administration, and possibly Roberts wouldn’t either). Unfortunately, I’m worried that Trump doesn’t have the sense to beat a tactical retreat and counterattack from higher ground.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Disagree: eah
    • Replies: @MG
    See -

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy
    , @AndrewR
    How dare you criticize Dear Leader on this site? That's heresy.
    , @bomag

    this entire executive order episode is looking more and more like a major, major blunder by the administration...
     
    Time will tell, but this deal is exposing the court as a completely politicized body, so we know now better than ever the enemy and their tactics.

    A reckless cavalry charge can be a useful thing when it causes the enemy to deploy his forces and let the generals know the shape of the battlefield. Let us hope we have some heavy infantry in the wings to press on.
    , @JerryC
    Very well argued, however you seem to be assuming that the courts are acting in good faith and evaluating the EO on the legal merits and I don't believe that to be the case. I doubt that even a perfectly lawyered EO would have passed muster with these judges.
  8. @Thomas
    That's hyperbole, because nothing has been decided on the merits yet. There are though definitely a number of worrisome points in this order. The court is allowing standing to a state to sue the federal government on the basis of illegal immigrants (!!) in the state and putative benefits to the state. It also may be reading Trump's campaign comments in as a basis to find that this order was motivated by discrimination, which raises the question as to whether Trump could ever issue an order that in any way would restrict immigration in a way affecting Muslims.

    Even having said that, this entire executive order episode is looking more and more like a major, major blunder by the administration, undertaken by non-lawyers (presumably, Bannon and Miller), and probably not substantively reviewed by lawyers. They didn't even have their Attorney General in place, and their acting AG refused to defend it.

    To begin with, as a practical matter, it would have been extremely easy for the order to include Presidential findings, based on classified information, justifying this order factually and justifying it as a matter of imminent necessity to protect public safety and national security. (You can refer to the Bush-43 Administration's justifications for the Iraq War for how easy it is to get intelligence sources to justify what you need.) Just having those would have bolstered the Administration's case considerably, and also considerably slowed down the courts from interfering. (The procedures to allow the courts and opposing parties to get access to classified information can be torturous, and would probably have prevented any emergency restraining order). As things stand the Administration has had very little, largely an inapposite exclusion of these countries from the Visa Waiver Program, and the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago, to justify this order.

    This episode with the order is looking more and more like a major own goal that the Administration ought to seriously consider just vacating and starting fresh on. The risk is if they get a bad ruling and a precedent that seriously curtails the power of the President over immigration or foreign affairs, Trump will have basically broken the edges off some of the sharpest instruments he might have had by using them stupidly. They're going forward into a Supreme Court that might not even be able to come to a decision (and, my guess, Anthony Kennedy won't side with the Administration, and possibly Roberts wouldn't either). Unfortunately, I'm worried that Trump doesn't have the sense to beat a tactical retreat and counterattack from higher ground.
    Read More
  9. I’m worried that the rest of the Republican Party would be happy to let Trump fumble the immigration issue away permanently to the courts as a matter of Constitutional law and precedent, and will basically use him to get a few wish list items through and then be done with him. Once they get Gorsuch and maybe one more SCOTUS justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a big tax cut, a roll back of regulations, agencies they hate in chaos, and a rollback of Obamacare, they can toss Trump and the immigration issue out after one term (or less…) like a used Kleenex. Pence, just a heartbeat away, seems to be cozying up to Ryan and McConnell. It would hardly be a stretch watching politics the last two years to view such a scenario – Trump gives them 2 Supreme Court appointments, a tax cut, rolls back Obamacare and a bunch of regulations and agencies, permanently jams the borders wide open, and then just goes away – as the best of all possible worlds for the establishment GOP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MG
    True, indeed. Note how the weasels Paul Ryan and McConnell haven't uttered a single word supporting Trump on immigration.
    , @El Dato
    Very astute.

    The Kremlin indeed is now on the Potomac.
    , @ben tillman

    I’m worried that the rest of the Republican Party would be happy to let Trump fumble the immigration issue away permanently to the courts as a matter of Constitutional law and precedent, and will basically use him to get a few wish list items through and then be done with him. Once they get Gorsuch and maybe one more SCOTUS justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a big tax cut, a roll back of regulations, agencies they hate in chaos, and a rollback of Obamacare, they can toss Trump and the immigration issue out after one term (or less…) like a used Kleenex.
     
    That all presumes they have principles. They support immigration because they want to get elected, and pro-immigration donors give them lots of money. But the point is to get elected. If they can get elected advocating other policies, then no problem.
  10. @Thomas
    I'm worried that the rest of the Republican Party would be happy to let Trump fumble the immigration issue away permanently to the courts as a matter of Constitutional law and precedent, and will basically use him to get a few wish list items through and then be done with him. Once they get Gorsuch and maybe one more SCOTUS justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a big tax cut, a roll back of regulations, agencies they hate in chaos, and a rollback of Obamacare, they can toss Trump and the immigration issue out after one term (or less...) like a used Kleenex. Pence, just a heartbeat away, seems to be cozying up to Ryan and McConnell. It would hardly be a stretch watching politics the last two years to view such a scenario – Trump gives them 2 Supreme Court appointments, a tax cut, rolls back Obamacare and a bunch of regulations and agencies, permanently jams the borders wide open, and then just goes away – as the best of all possible worlds for the establishment GOP.

    True, indeed. Note how the weasels Paul Ryan and McConnell haven’t uttered a single word supporting Trump on immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas
    I heard someone say today that they never thought they'd say they wish there were more lawyers in the White House! Part of the issue with Trump is he ran against the establishments of both parties. Obviously that spoke to the bankruptcy of both of those establishments, but it's left him with a problem that's persisted since the campaign: a dearth of experience and competence on his team. Most of the people who know how to get things done in this country, whether they were getting the right things done or not, were already working for somebody else when Trump came along. He's been running from behind getting people into place ever since. I'm assuming (and hoping) that the situation is probably significantly improved as of today from what it was two weeks ago when the executive order was issued. But it still seems, from the outside looking in, that the Trump White House is still very much of a work in progress, and since the inauguration he's had about 4,000 Senate-confirmable jobs to fill throughout the government. State attorney generals' offices, corporate legal departments, and biglaw firms... to say nothing of, say, hostile foreign governments, don't have this same personnel deficiency right now.
  11. @Autochthon
    This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. So egregious is the decision, so nonsensical its reasoning, the executive's completely disregarding this decision is absolutely justified. Indeed it is obligatory. The only conceivable reason for abiding by the decision is an argument for awaiting a final decision on the underlying merits of the case by the intermediate appellate court sitting en banc, or, should they also make up fantastical things from whole cloth, by the federal supreme court.

    If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A., it necessarily follows that some five billion and seven hundred million persons are entitled to a trial on the merits of their case should they wish to enter the U.S.A. In other words, it is an actual finding of the Zeroth Amendment, in some penumbra or other, precisely as that concept has been articulated by Steve.

    This is madness. It is the very epitome of a failed state.

    If this situation persists, war is imminent.

    The 9th Circuit doesn’t really have any credibility left to lose, because it is thoroughly Californicated. But the Supreme Court does. If Gorsuch was seated this would be a no brainer, but even with the court as it is, I don’t think they want to endorse such novel, hare-brained and politicized legal reasoning. The easiest (and wisest) thing for them to do would be to punt and dismiss on the basis that the states have no standing (i.e. that they are not the proper parties to a suit). This way they could avoid making any decision on the merits and keep their powder dry.

    PS, I see this as a win either way situation for Trump. If the decision stands and then later there is a terrorist incident (as there surely be with Trump Luck) then he can pin the whole thing on the leftist court system and then maybe push thru some kind of judicial reform so that this never happens again. Maybe a National Security court so that such decisions never get shipped out to the most liberal circuit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I agree with you calling it a punt to dismiss the Washington case on standing. The problem with this is residents of the USA, even illegals, do have standing. So parts of the current order and future broader orders targeted at overturning Obama's and Bush's mass Muslim migration policies involving current residents will still need to be affirmed on their merits.

    Moreover, the next Democrat president will likely have his own executive orders. Denying standing to states to block such orders hurts us more than them. It was only state plaintiffs who blocked the Obama DAPA order, but Trump's orders can be blocked by the people they apply to if they are already residents.

    I suppose you could go further and say not all residents of the USA have standing to assert due process rights. The problem is the Constitution speaks of persons, not citizens, in describing these rights. I also highly doubt Kennedy and Roberts would ever go for this.

  12. @Diversity Heretic
    Donald Trump is about to face a very difficult decision. Steve has called for the "rule of law," but what we now have is the rule of judges. Donald Trump needs to invoke the (possibly apocryphal) statement of Andrew Jackson following the Worcester v. Georgia: "Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it." Jeff Sessions needs to issue an immediate Attorney General's opinion saying essentially that the Ninth Circuit's decision is itself unconstitutinal and that the Trump executive order will be enforced. Any attempt by Federal Marshalls should be disregarded; any attempt by Federal Marshalls to arrest a person enforcing the order will itself result in the disarmament of the Federal Marshall and the arrest of the Federal Marshall for interfering with the lawful processes of government. The House of Representatives should begin expedited impeachment proceedings against all the judges involved.

    I think that it was at Lexington that an American commander said something like: "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." If an American President, duly elected on a promise to restrict immigration, cannot do so, then we no longer have a country anyway. Perhaps it's time for Americans to fire another shot heard round the world.

    This would be a hasty course. What Trump should do is wait until Gorsuch is confirmed, which may take a few months, and then appeal. The ban itself is small potatoes. The ruling’s precedent is what matters, as always with constitutional legal decisions (Roe v. Wade, for example). If the Supreme Court ignores the law and constitution for some reason (Gorsuch turns out to be Souter redux, for example), then perhaps the nation’s the cold civil war — made apparent by the election and its aftermath — will evolve.

    The 4 lefty judges, of course, would ignore the law and constitution in a second to create the new rights Steve enumerated. That is why Trump must wait for Gorsuch. Otherwise, the Supremes will rule 4-4 and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will stand.

    Read More
  13. The Ninth Circuit action made me think of World War T. When any sub identity of anyone on earth has imputed American rights then nobody really has any rights.

    T raised to the Zero power, the new Prog math.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    No one tried to jam Obama up like this when he started his whole "phone and pen" schtick.

    How easy is it to remove these lower judges from the bench?
  14. This is hilarious – Assad admitting that some refugees are terrorists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    This needs to forwarded to Sessions, great find.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, if you pay attention to what Assad says, he means some of the refugees are "terrorists" vis-a-vis Syria. Ie, the conversation was:

    Q: "Are some of the refugees coming to America to commit acts of terror?"

    A: "Yes, some of the refugees committed 'acts of terror' against my regime."

    Not quite the answer we'd like.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    You won't be surprised to learn that Bashar Assad defended Trump's right to impose a travel ban in a recent interview:

    "Every country has the right to put any regulations to enter their country. We can disagree or agree, but if you ask me as president, as official in the Syrian state, my responsibility is not to go and ask any president to allow the Syrians to go there and to have refuge in that country. My responsibility is to restore the stability, in order to bring them back to Syria and find refuge in their country. So, I’m not going to discuss that this is right or wrong; this is American issue."
     
    Source: http://sana.sy/en/?p=99872
  15. @Neil Templeton
    Why can't we just admit that the first 10 amendments are cancers that need repeal?

    Whole lotta baby in that bath water.

    Read More
  16. @Flinders Petrie
    Don't forget the negative second amendment:
    As more immigrants bring more gun violence, it will finally make sense to ban firearms outright.

    Other than San Bernadino, Orlando, Virginia Tech, Binghamton, Fort Hood, Fort Lauderdale, the Washington mall shooting, Chatanooga, Fort Hood 2, Santa Monica, and a few I missed, very few recent mass shootings are attributable to recent immigrants or their families.

    Read More
  17. @Autochthon
    This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. So egregious is the decision, so nonsensical its reasoning, the executive's completely disregarding this decision is absolutely justified. Indeed it is obligatory. The only conceivable reason for abiding by the decision is an argument for awaiting a final decision on the underlying merits of the case by the intermediate appellate court sitting en banc, or, should they also make up fantastical things from whole cloth, by the federal supreme court.

    If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A., it necessarily follows that some five billion and seven hundred million persons are entitled to a trial on the merits of their case should they wish to enter the U.S.A. In other words, it is an actual finding of the Zeroth Amendment, in some penumbra or other, precisely as that concept has been articulated by Steve.

    This is madness. It is the very epitome of a failed state.

    If this situation persists, war is imminent.

    I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can’t Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively? Why are they letting the lefties in state hustle refugees through?

    Seems like if you had robust enforcement of people over-staying visas combined with not issuing any refugee visas, it would be good enough to prevent any appreciable number of people from these countries from settling here.

    Would it necessarily keep out any potential ISIS jihadi wanting to suicide bomb on a one week tourist visa to NYC? No. But at least it would cripple (until a Democrat becomes President) the growth of a perennially troublemaking substantial muslim underclass like they have in France.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Sound points. I expect the trouble at State is one of two (or both):

    1. Tillerson, being new to not just the job but to government at all, and used to having his policies implemented with minimal nonsense (you defy tbe CEO in the real world, you pretty much invariably get a severance for your trouble – if that), is not hip to subversion in the ranks or still figuring out how to root it out and address it.

    2. As others have suggested, Mr. Trump may be shaping up to be a kind of Julius Caesar, embattled by even those he trusts; cf. Tillerson's remarks about the Crimea, Gorsuch's about demoralisation, the deafening silence of McConnell and Ryan, etc.

    The last example in the previous paragraph is edpecially salient, because Madison's ingenius rochambeau places the remedy for judicial usurpation of the executive squarely in the hands of the legislature (via powers to impeach). If the legislature weren't serpents, three judges would discover a surfeit of time for the lecture circuit within a couple of weeks.

    The masks and gloves continue to come off....

    , @Lot

    I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can’t Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively? I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can’t Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively?
     
    Simple answer: Nothing is stopping Tillerson from stopping or slow-walking the refugee program, he just does not want to. A lot of Trump's cabinet picks were awful. I was prepared to like Tillerson based on his general biography: rising up the ranks in Exxon from a middle class background.

    I'm not sure we can blame Trump though. The Senate has 48 Democrats plus 5 of 6 Republicans who hate Trump. He also requires at least some GOPe establishment support. DeVos, Pudzer, etc may have been the price to get Sessions.
  18. @Diversity Heretic
    Donald Trump is about to face a very difficult decision. Steve has called for the "rule of law," but what we now have is the rule of judges. Donald Trump needs to invoke the (possibly apocryphal) statement of Andrew Jackson following the Worcester v. Georgia: "Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it." Jeff Sessions needs to issue an immediate Attorney General's opinion saying essentially that the Ninth Circuit's decision is itself unconstitutinal and that the Trump executive order will be enforced. Any attempt by Federal Marshalls should be disregarded; any attempt by Federal Marshalls to arrest a person enforcing the order will itself result in the disarmament of the Federal Marshall and the arrest of the Federal Marshall for interfering with the lawful processes of government. The House of Representatives should begin expedited impeachment proceedings against all the judges involved.

    I think that it was at Lexington that an American commander said something like: "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." If an American President, duly elected on a promise to restrict immigration, cannot do so, then we no longer have a country anyway. Perhaps it's time for Americans to fire another shot heard round the world.

    I doubt trump will do it.

    Read More
  19. Unless Congress reigns in the Courts, this will make it through the Supreme Court with 5 votes, which sets the stage for full permanent ongoing judicial amnesty a couple of years later. We’re pretty far off the deep end here already, and we’re not so far off from things that seem insane.

    Justice reform likely won’t happen because far too many on the right are conditioned to view law enforcement and judges as inherently virtuous and worth obeying without question. Notice how police rarely get criticized from the right and how the talk on the right about judges is always about fetishizing “originalists” and decrying lefty judicial activism as some aberration from the norm, instead of just being the norm. Even now, the bigger controversy on the right isn’t that the 9th Circuit is trying to legalize Constitutional protections to anyone in the world, it’s that Trump dared to criticize the judges for doing so. I don’t see the right getting their act together quickly enough to get this fixed.

    That being said, maybe having this happen would be good in a roundabout way. People need to be shocked out of their stupor to see what is really going on in a clear manner. A slow and managed decline won’t wake enough people into action, but having 100+ million new neighbors in a couple of years (the gov’t can’t say no and it’s a big payday for billions of people), with all the consequences that will come about, is far more likely to get the average American in a realistic mindset to do what needs to be done while liberty is still alive in this country and we have numbers and a president on our side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    If I remember, the estimate for first year immigration in the case of open borders is 20-30 million.

    Anyhow, if there were 100+ million immigrants, it would be immediate game over. I would go "red dawn," but I'm under 50 and work out. You have to remember there are a lot of Trump supporters who can't resist, not to mention those without the will. My dear dad would go down from a single punch and taking up arms would be out of the question.

    We have to hope the issue is resolved in pur favor through the channels.
    , @bomag

    A slow and managed decline won’t wake enough people into action, but having 100+ million new neighbors in a couple of years (the gov’t can’t say no and it’s a big payday for billions of people), with all the consequences that will come about, is far more likely to get the average American in a realistic mindset to do what needs to be done while liberty is still alive in this country and we have numbers and a president on our side.
     
    Well stated, but allied against us are the courts; the academy; the press; and the legislature is lukewarm. Things have slipped farther than they should have, but I'm curious as to if it can be turned around.
  20. What happens if a major terrorist strike, or even just something like Orlando, is pulled off while we’re waiting for the Supremes to rule against the existence of the country? And that strike were pulled off by one of the relevant “refugees” (i.e., our superiors, according to the Jew Bill Kristol and his nation-wrecking ilk)?

    The POTUS should in that case hold all the judges involved responsible for the attack, even in spite of Gorsuch’s hysterical Harvard Establishment tears.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The True and Original David
    By the way, what is up with Gorsuch? Isn't Trump suspicious of an applicant with a "perfect resume" (any manager should be)?

    Call me crazy, but I would be narrow-eyed about his being a Colorado idol, too -- if I'm intent on hiring a reliable nationalist or even just a conservative.

    One of Gorsuch's schools was Columbia, and Trump emphasized that fact today to the cameras prior to a meeting. "He went to COLUMBIA." His Queens accent was more pronounced on that phrase (which he left hanging in the air, as if it spoke for itself, like a medal of honor worn prominently on a shirt pocket) than I've heard it in a while. He went to COLUMBIA.
  21. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    In honor of refugees around the world, I call upon CONGRESS to commemorate NAKBA REFUGEE DAY in honor of 800,000 Palestinian victims.

    Since Jews claim to love Muslim refugees, they should lead this cause since no people have been forced into refugee-hood since the end of WWII than the Palestinians. If Jews love refugees, they must love Palestinians above all.

    Statue of Liberty is weeping about Palestinians refugees of the Nakba. She weeps for all such poor refugees without a home.
    A people with homes and families were turned into huddled refugees yearning to be free, scattered and homeless.

    Call for Nakba Refugee Day. Write to your Congressman.
    And along with the Emma Lazarus Poem on the Statue of Liberty, we need to add a poem about Palestinian refugees yearning to RETURN HOME.

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/watch-remi-kanazis-new-poem-nakba-about-his-grandmothers-expulsion-1948

    We will return.
    That is not a threat
    not a wish
    a hope
    or a dream
    but a promise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    There have actually been quite a few left-wing Jewish groups showing support for the Palestinians. Read the Forward and you hear about some silly left wing rabbi opposing the Muslim ban every other day, similarly.

    I'd actually argue the fact that they're being lobbied by their own diaspora to kick it down a notch shows either (a) Jews are (mostly) a bunch of liberal weenies or (b) the Israelis really are going too far.

    Or both.

  22. @MG
    True, indeed. Note how the weasels Paul Ryan and McConnell haven't uttered a single word supporting Trump on immigration.

    I heard someone say today that they never thought they’d say they wish there were more lawyers in the White House! Part of the issue with Trump is he ran against the establishments of both parties. Obviously that spoke to the bankruptcy of both of those establishments, but it’s left him with a problem that’s persisted since the campaign: a dearth of experience and competence on his team. Most of the people who know how to get things done in this country, whether they were getting the right things done or not, were already working for somebody else when Trump came along. He’s been running from behind getting people into place ever since. I’m assuming (and hoping) that the situation is probably significantly improved as of today from what it was two weeks ago when the executive order was issued. But it still seems, from the outside looking in, that the Trump White House is still very much of a work in progress, and since the inauguration he’s had about 4,000 Senate-confirmable jobs to fill throughout the government. State attorney generals’ offices, corporate legal departments, and biglaw firms… to say nothing of, say, hostile foreign governments, don’t have this same personnel deficiency right now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    That's the perennial problem of anti-establishment candidates (or one of them). When there were more lawyers in the White House, or rather more people who knew what they're doing (even though what they were doing was running the country into the ground), nothing good got done. It required someone else in charge to do something different.

    But there aren't enough of the other kind of people to run the government. You're not exactly left with Joe Schmos; you can pull from Big Business, the military, and other relatively un-SJW-ed/"cucked" institutions. But mostly you're left with second-class at best. Which is okay, because first class doesn't know what it's doing, anyway. There are no experts in governance in modern times--though there are some specialist--just a bunch of people screwing up in different ways. Problem is, while Trump moves in a handful of his kind of people, entire oceans full of other kinds are still there. They don't go away, especially judges.

    There aren't enough people to replace them, even if you could. And the only kind of people who can possibly change things are apt to be inexperienced, as I've been saying, and are likely to do things bluntly, full steam ahead, because they don't know the game. Or rather they're playing a different game, which looks like incompetence from the perspective of normal government. Actually, it is incompetent as regards normal government, because it disdain what has passed for normal, as do I.

    This has a tendency to be mistaken for stupidity. But I believe the most ingenious lawyer in American history would've slapped down by the 9th circuit court of appeals had he written the executive order. Because that's what they were going to do, because politics.

    What burns me is how lawlessly former administrations ran themselves, and how thoroughly they got away with it. Sorta like how Nixon got slammed for pulling the exact sane tricks in play since at least the FDR administration. (And I don't even like Nixon.) Granted, Obama did get slapped down occasionally, but Trump's failures are FAILURES, and call into question on a daily basis his very presidency. Not that I take it seriously, because everything he did on the campaign trail was a fatal mistake, too. But it does wear on me.

    Well, he has the Establishment, the permanent government, the Deep State, the MSM, the intellectual class, and basically everything else against him. Which naturally makes it harder, and almost inevitably means he's going to have to do it stupidly. I'm content with that.

    Onward, stupidity! Save us from experience.

  23. @The True and Original David
    What happens if a major terrorist strike, or even just something like Orlando, is pulled off while we're waiting for the Supremes to rule against the existence of the country? And that strike were pulled off by one of the relevant "refugees" (i.e., our superiors, according to the Jew Bill Kristol and his nation-wrecking ilk)?

    The POTUS should in that case hold all the judges involved responsible for the attack, even in spite of Gorsuch's hysterical Harvard Establishment tears.

    By the way, what is up with Gorsuch? Isn’t Trump suspicious of an applicant with a “perfect resume” (any manager should be)?

    Call me crazy, but I would be narrow-eyed about his being a Colorado idol, too — if I’m intent on hiring a reliable nationalist or even just a conservative.

    One of Gorsuch’s schools was Columbia, and Trump emphasized that fact today to the cameras prior to a meeting. “He went to COLUMBIA.” His Queens accent was more pronounced on that phrase (which he left hanging in the air, as if it spoke for itself, like a medal of honor worn prominently on a shirt pocket) than I’ve heard it in a while. He went to COLUMBIA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Gorsuch looks very solid to me. He was trolling the left before it was cool when he was in high school. His mother was one of the most conservative members of Reagan's administration and hated on by the left. There is a supposed statistical analysis of his opinions out there that says he is between Alito and Thomas in ideology.
    , @Jack D
    I think he was trying to emphasize that Gorsuch cannot be criticized based on a lack of intellectual credentials. Columbia undergrad (when Gorsuch went) was a lesser Ivy and Harvard Law is the more impressive credential, but for a Queens guy Columbia embodies intellectual respectability.
  24. I was certainly wrong thinking the 9th Circuit would not endorse Judge Robart’s order. Note that Robart and one of the three Ninth Circuit judges were GW Bush appointees.

    This was likely a blunder. Not everything in the opinion was wrong, and a lot of the points are debatable. As this was a request for “an emergency stay” the normal burdens shifted from Washington to the USA. The 9th Circuit further blundered because it could have reached the same result, but just said “sorry it may be a close call in some respects, but the USA failed to meet its high burden.” And they did say that a lot.

    But they went further and said that the principle that one person can sometimes having standing to represent another (doctor represents a patient, parent represents a child) extends to allow the University of Washington to represent every potential migrant on planet Earth as a potential student. That absurdity is likely to offend Kennedy, another unreliable Republican, and conceivably even Breyer, who has voted to overturn plenty of left-wing 9th Circuit opinions.

    Read More
  25. @Ivy
    The Ninth Circuit action made me think of World War T. When any sub identity of anyone on earth has imputed American rights then nobody really has any rights.

    T raised to the Zero power, the new Prog math.

    No one tried to jam Obama up like this when he started his whole “phone and pen” schtick.

    How easy is it to remove these lower judges from the bench?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas
    Actually, Obama got jammed up a reasonable amount (one of the worst records before the Supreme Court of any President in recent history). Ironically, one of the cases last year smacking down DAPA (one of his administrative amnesties), U.S. v. Texas, was cited as precedent by the 9th Circuit today.

    And the standard to remove any sitting Article III federal judge remains impeachment by Congress, basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.

    , @Jack D
    Federal judges are appointed for life and can only be impeached by Congress, same as the President. In 200+ years, 8 Federal judges have been impeached.
  26. @415 reasons
    I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can't Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively? Why are they letting the lefties in state hustle refugees through?

    Seems like if you had robust enforcement of people over-staying visas combined with not issuing any refugee visas, it would be good enough to prevent any appreciable number of people from these countries from settling here.

    Would it necessarily keep out any potential ISIS jihadi wanting to suicide bomb on a one week tourist visa to NYC? No. But at least it would cripple (until a Democrat becomes President) the growth of a perennially troublemaking substantial muslim underclass like they have in France.

    Sound points. I expect the trouble at State is one of two (or both):

    1. Tillerson, being new to not just the job but to government at all, and used to having his policies implemented with minimal nonsense (you defy tbe CEO in the real world, you pretty much invariably get a severance for your trouble – if that), is not hip to subversion in the ranks or still figuring out how to root it out and address it.

    2. As others have suggested, Mr. Trump may be shaping up to be a kind of Julius Caesar, embattled by even those he trusts; cf. Tillerson’s remarks about the Crimea, Gorsuch’s about demoralisation, the deafening silence of McConnell and Ryan, etc.

    The last example in the previous paragraph is edpecially salient, because Madison’s ingenius rochambeau places the remedy for judicial usurpation of the executive squarely in the hands of the legislature (via powers to impeach). If the legislature weren’t serpents, three judges would discover a surfeit of time for the lecture circuit within a couple of weeks.

    The masks and gloves continue to come off….

    Read More
  27. I can only say: think of how different America would be if Trump had not been elected.

    The judiciary is already running wild, and even the SC looks to be effectively ruled by the liberals, literally by default. If 4 of them always decide by politics — which increasingly looks like their bent — then, from what I understand, it will be hard to resist or undo shamelessly political rulings from the 9th circuit. And of course had Hillary won, the SC would be tilted likely for decades toward such activist rulings.

    We just wouldn’t be the same country after this process as we are now — immigration would be the biggest part of it, but the complete undoing of basic Constitution balance and rights would be another large part.

    But as it is, Trump will certainly get to put Gorsuch on the SC, and there’s quite good reason to believe he will replace one or two others.

    Ginsburg would be a big one, of course. And I do hope that Trump just decides to stick it to the left on Ginsburg, and replace her with someone who leans far enough right that he/she will actually respect the law and the Constitution. Of course, the left will howl as never before if he replaces her with someone who’s not a liberal. But the behavior of liberals on that court and others demonstrates the grave danger to our Republic of keeping liberals even at their current numbers.

    Trump can turn this around — and only someone as resistant to smear attacks as Trump has proven himself to be would have the resolve to turn it around.

    Trump may have many faults. But his strength to endure insult and come back fighting is like nothing we’ve seen in politics in our entire lives. Truly, he is the man for our times.

    Read More
    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    Trump is the only one who can do it
    , @res

    Of course, the left will howl as never before if he replaces her with someone who’s not a liberal.
     
    I think Obama's attempt to replace Scalia with Merrick Garland gives a good baseline for what "is reasonable." (and Obama was trying to be more reasonable than he would have been in the middle of his term).

    This WaPo article tried to estimate how liberal/conservative Garland and the sitting justices are:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is/
    Despite trying to spin him as moderate, the graphic makes clear how far removed he was from Scalia ideologically.
  28. @BenKenobi
    No one tried to jam Obama up like this when he started his whole "phone and pen" schtick.

    How easy is it to remove these lower judges from the bench?

    Actually, Obama got jammed up a reasonable amount (one of the worst records before the Supreme Court of any President in recent history). Ironically, one of the cases last year smacking down DAPA (one of his administrative amnesties), U.S. v. Texas, was cited as precedent by the 9th Circuit today.

    And the standard to remove any sitting Article III federal judge remains impeachment by Congress, basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor"

    There is precedence for removing judges for political cause, as there oughtta be. Anyway, all we'd need to start doing so is to discover the will. If judges can pull the right to gay marriage out of their asses, Congress can pull impeachment because I don't like the cut of your jib out of their 's.
  29. Some time ago — well before the election — I posted a comment asking if people thought there were still political solutions to the problems and divisions in America — I think the answer ought to be clearer than ever now — those who think it may have helped if Trump had tweaked his order in some way or other are massively deluded, and have not been paying attention at all.

    Bloomberg — Trump Dealt Major Setback as Appeals Court Sides With Immigrants — note the patent absurdity of the headline, as if “immigrants” have some sort of judicial standing vis-a-vis a President — Trump’s order set off chaos as companies, universities, citizens and refugees struggled with the ramifications… — yes, it was pure chaos.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @eah
    No reasoning with that.

    https://twitter.com/JBurtonXP/status/829902076645883907
  30. It really does not matter how “solid” Trump’s order was. There is NO WAY EVER that Judges will allow Trump to ban anyone from coming here and getting on welfare, and shooting the place up. More dead Americans is just more dead BadWhites. It won’t be THEM that gets shot. Just us. Heck Judges will argue we should remove Trump because he made Muslims angry. And we must let more in and abase ourselves.

    Forget about Gorsuch. He’d vote Zeroth Amendment in a minute, as would Roberts, and pretty much every Supreme Court Judge save maybe Thomas. I could easily see a 8-1 vote in favor of the Zeroth Amendment.

    Lets be honest, this has how Government has been run since the 1950s. Judges make the law, that elites want anyway (they NEVER do things like ban gay marriage). It screws over Joe Average. Which is the point. There is no recourse. Trump is about one Judge away from being summarily removed for “being racist” or it being Tuesday or whatever reason they want.

    America has had Open Borders since 1965 and that’s the way it will always be. In about two or three years this will be a White minority nation, with an overwhelming amount of Muslims and Africans here. That’s how its going to be, applauded by Nice White Ladies, Cuckservatives, Liberal Aholes, and the like.

    The goal is survival. Network. Be situationally aware. Be prepared to fight or flight at a moment’s notice. We live in South Africa meets Pakistan now. Your life, mine, any White persons is forfeit because we are BadWhites.

    So some Muslim will shoot up the place and he could have been prevented by Trump’s order. So what? Judges don’t care. They can’t be removed. If Trump ignored the ruling the Marshals, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and Pentagon would all converge on the White House to remove him. This is not Andrew Jackson’s time. ALL the media, government, NGOs, lawyers, Top Military Brass, Higher Rank Officers, and Federal Law Enforcement brass HATE HATE HATE BadWhites and you and Trump. They were appointed by Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. Why wouldn’t they?

    The LAW is whatever a Judge says it is. That is all. The LAW exists to put the Third World here and kill you and me. A jihadi from Yemen has more rights than you (because you have none). THAT will never ever change.

    Stop hoping. Stop believing. Start surviving. Hopium is the enemy of survival.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Something tells me that you're not optimistic, Whiskey. But I'm inclined to agree--better start scouting that bolt hole now. Better if you've already picked it and made preparations.
    , @Autochthon
    Holy shit, Whiskey, you are lucid deep down. I'd have never thunk it.
  31. As for a response, it is a little early to be taking the Andrew Jackson option. Better for Team Trump to state it will comply with Judge Robart’s order for now, but direct CBP to “implement” it to keep as much of the Executive Order as possible.

    I don’t think Trump needs any formal executive order to stop the refugee program either. Just change the number of designated refuges from Trump’s current proposal of 50,000 to 0 and/or call up the head of the program and tell him to stop issuing visas.

    Better still is to take other executive actions of immigration. First and foremost, withdraw both of Obama’s executive amnesty orders, one of which is blocked (DAPA) and the other of which is still in effect and giving hundreds of illegals work permits per day (DACA).

    Next in importance is removing every single country from the TPS list.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_protected_status

    Read More
  32. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What is worse? Refusing refugees or turning people into refugees?

    To turn people into refugees, you have to make their nations unlivable through invasion, bombing, and supporting Jihadis. It’s a horrible process.

    But the leaders who did that aren’t made to face justice.

    The media boiled it down to Trump has no heart.
    The media ignore who used the hammer to smash and smite the MENA.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @bomag

    What is worse? Refusing refugees or turning people into refugees?
     
    These are not really refugees, these are flat out immigrants, and they are coming anyway, no matter what we do overseas. They are coming because their countries are overpopulated relative to the US; or they see us as patsies in a place where they can come and grab a slice of economic pie that would otherwise go the current inhabitants and their posterity.
  33. @BenKenobi
    No one tried to jam Obama up like this when he started his whole "phone and pen" schtick.

    How easy is it to remove these lower judges from the bench?

    Federal judges are appointed for life and can only be impeached by Congress, same as the President. In 200+ years, 8 Federal judges have been impeached.

    Read More
  34. @415 reasons
    I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can't Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively? Why are they letting the lefties in state hustle refugees through?

    Seems like if you had robust enforcement of people over-staying visas combined with not issuing any refugee visas, it would be good enough to prevent any appreciable number of people from these countries from settling here.

    Would it necessarily keep out any potential ISIS jihadi wanting to suicide bomb on a one week tourist visa to NYC? No. But at least it would cripple (until a Democrat becomes President) the growth of a perennially troublemaking substantial muslim underclass like they have in France.

    I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can’t Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively? I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can’t Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively?

    Simple answer: Nothing is stopping Tillerson from stopping or slow-walking the refugee program, he just does not want to. A lot of Trump’s cabinet picks were awful. I was prepared to like Tillerson based on his general biography: rising up the ranks in Exxon from a middle class background.

    I’m not sure we can blame Trump though. The Senate has 48 Democrats plus 5 of 6 Republicans who hate Trump. He also requires at least some GOPe establishment support. DeVos, Pudzer, etc may have been the price to get Sessions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @415 reasons
    Is Trump really that uninformed about government that he would pick Tillerson without making sure he was on the same page with regard to resettling Muslims here? Seems like Bannon or Miller would be cagey enough to realize the importance of the State pick to this issue
  35. @The True and Original David
    By the way, what is up with Gorsuch? Isn't Trump suspicious of an applicant with a "perfect resume" (any manager should be)?

    Call me crazy, but I would be narrow-eyed about his being a Colorado idol, too -- if I'm intent on hiring a reliable nationalist or even just a conservative.

    One of Gorsuch's schools was Columbia, and Trump emphasized that fact today to the cameras prior to a meeting. "He went to COLUMBIA." His Queens accent was more pronounced on that phrase (which he left hanging in the air, as if it spoke for itself, like a medal of honor worn prominently on a shirt pocket) than I've heard it in a while. He went to COLUMBIA.

    Gorsuch looks very solid to me. He was trolling the left before it was cool when he was in high school. His mother was one of the most conservative members of Reagan’s administration and hated on by the left. There is a supposed statistical analysis of his opinions out there that says he is between Alito and Thomas in ideology.

    Read More
  36. @Lot

    I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can’t Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively? I saw a thing about how the State Department is hurrying through hundreds of Syrian and other travel ban country refugees. Even if the ban is prevented by left wing justices, why can’t Tillerson just stop issuing any visas to people from these countries administratively?
     
    Simple answer: Nothing is stopping Tillerson from stopping or slow-walking the refugee program, he just does not want to. A lot of Trump's cabinet picks were awful. I was prepared to like Tillerson based on his general biography: rising up the ranks in Exxon from a middle class background.

    I'm not sure we can blame Trump though. The Senate has 48 Democrats plus 5 of 6 Republicans who hate Trump. He also requires at least some GOPe establishment support. DeVos, Pudzer, etc may have been the price to get Sessions.

    Is Trump really that uninformed about government that he would pick Tillerson without making sure he was on the same page with regard to resettling Muslims here? Seems like Bannon or Miller would be cagey enough to realize the importance of the State pick to this issue

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I don't think Trump is as solid on these issues as Bannon Miller and Sessions, but even then he was constrained by his need to appease the McCain wing of the party.

    Tillerson might have been the best he could get past the Senate.

    Supposedly the only reason Sessions was approved is that he is a very nice person who is well liked on a personal level by moderates and open borders Republicans like Collins and Graham.
  37. @The True and Original David
    By the way, what is up with Gorsuch? Isn't Trump suspicious of an applicant with a "perfect resume" (any manager should be)?

    Call me crazy, but I would be narrow-eyed about his being a Colorado idol, too -- if I'm intent on hiring a reliable nationalist or even just a conservative.

    One of Gorsuch's schools was Columbia, and Trump emphasized that fact today to the cameras prior to a meeting. "He went to COLUMBIA." His Queens accent was more pronounced on that phrase (which he left hanging in the air, as if it spoke for itself, like a medal of honor worn prominently on a shirt pocket) than I've heard it in a while. He went to COLUMBIA.

    I think he was trying to emphasize that Gorsuch cannot be criticized based on a lack of intellectual credentials. Columbia undergrad (when Gorsuch went) was a lesser Ivy and Harvard Law is the more impressive credential, but for a Queens guy Columbia embodies intellectual respectability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Columbia is "lesser"only compared to Harvard and Yale as an Insider school. I don't know about among the Ivies, which presumably still have social and financial cachet not directly related to government. But among the schools that have impact on actual policy, it leaves most of the others in the dust. Columbia is ground zero for our national nightmare known as edjukashun, and yugely involved in training the judicial oligarchy which rules over us all.
    , @ben tillman

    I think he was trying to emphasize that Gorsuch cannot be criticized based on a lack of intellectual credentials. Columbia undergrad (when Gorsuch went) was a lesser Ivy and Harvard Law is the more impressive credential, but for a Queens guy Columbia embodies intellectual respectability.
     
    Thirty years ago the law school was clearly a top-5 school.
  38. Pam Geller finds three Muslim migrant attacks in just one day:

    (Germany) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/muslim-refugee-slashes-bus-passenger-face.html/

    (Sweden) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/swedish-terror-town-of-gottingen.html/

    (Canada) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/canada-muslim-sex-attacks-water-park-trudeau.html/

    The last link is a reminder of one of the many nice things the left’s Muslimification policy means we can’t have: public swimming pools and water parks.

    It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incent, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incest, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.
     
    Absolutely.

    We seem to have misplayed the Hegelian dialectic here. We should be able to keep anyone from immigrating here just as a normal, expected thing. Even if they are the nicest, most productive person in the world, we should have no remorse about denying them entrance. But our thesis has been, "let us keep some out because they might be terrorists"; the open border crowd comes back with the anti-thesis of "we want everyone, especially terrorists. We should actively seek out and import terrorists to demonstrate our cred." So the synthesis has been, "let everyone in unless they are an active shooter", and here we are with this demographic subsumption of the West.
    , @Corvinus
    "It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incent, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it."

    Congratulations. You have just offered evidence why immigration is evil personified, at least according to an aware winning author. Unless you are able to directly trace your ancestors to the English and the first colonies, you are not a "true American". Never have been, never will be.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/immigration-and-transformation.html
  39. @Jack D
    The 9th Circuit doesn't really have any credibility left to lose, because it is thoroughly Californicated. But the Supreme Court does. If Gorsuch was seated this would be a no brainer, but even with the court as it is, I don't think they want to endorse such novel, hare-brained and politicized legal reasoning. The easiest (and wisest) thing for them to do would be to punt and dismiss on the basis that the states have no standing (i.e. that they are not the proper parties to a suit). This way they could avoid making any decision on the merits and keep their powder dry.

    PS, I see this as a win either way situation for Trump. If the decision stands and then later there is a terrorist incident (as there surely be with Trump Luck) then he can pin the whole thing on the leftist court system and then maybe push thru some kind of judicial reform so that this never happens again. Maybe a National Security court so that such decisions never get shipped out to the most liberal circuit.

    I agree with you calling it a punt to dismiss the Washington case on standing. The problem with this is residents of the USA, even illegals, do have standing. So parts of the current order and future broader orders targeted at overturning Obama’s and Bush’s mass Muslim migration policies involving current residents will still need to be affirmed on their merits.

    Moreover, the next Democrat president will likely have his own executive orders. Denying standing to states to block such orders hurts us more than them. It was only state plaintiffs who blocked the Obama DAPA order, but Trump’s orders can be blocked by the people they apply to if they are already residents.

    I suppose you could go further and say not all residents of the USA have standing to assert due process rights. The problem is the Constitution speaks of persons, not citizens, in describing these rights. I also highly doubt Kennedy and Roberts would ever go for this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    All of the aggrieved persons can sue one by one in an American court. I'm fine with that 99% of them could not afford/arrange counsel especially if you cut off the spigot of government/tax deductible funding.
  40. @415 reasons
    Is Trump really that uninformed about government that he would pick Tillerson without making sure he was on the same page with regard to resettling Muslims here? Seems like Bannon or Miller would be cagey enough to realize the importance of the State pick to this issue

    I don’t think Trump is as solid on these issues as Bannon Miller and Sessions, but even then he was constrained by his need to appease the McCain wing of the party.

    Tillerson might have been the best he could get past the Senate.

    Supposedly the only reason Sessions was approved is that he is a very nice person who is well liked on a personal level by moderates and open borders Republicans like Collins and Graham.

    Read More
  41. @Diversity Heretic
    Donald Trump is about to face a very difficult decision. Steve has called for the "rule of law," but what we now have is the rule of judges. Donald Trump needs to invoke the (possibly apocryphal) statement of Andrew Jackson following the Worcester v. Georgia: "Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it." Jeff Sessions needs to issue an immediate Attorney General's opinion saying essentially that the Ninth Circuit's decision is itself unconstitutinal and that the Trump executive order will be enforced. Any attempt by Federal Marshalls should be disregarded; any attempt by Federal Marshalls to arrest a person enforcing the order will itself result in the disarmament of the Federal Marshall and the arrest of the Federal Marshall for interfering with the lawful processes of government. The House of Representatives should begin expedited impeachment proceedings against all the judges involved.

    I think that it was at Lexington that an American commander said something like: "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." If an American President, duly elected on a promise to restrict immigration, cannot do so, then we no longer have a country anyway. Perhaps it's time for Americans to fire another shot heard round the world.

    No need for that. Take it to the Supreme Court first. The courts need serious reform though or they may not last going forward. The sappy language for one of the highest courts in the land is a disgrace. It points to the fact that the judges are more concerned with maintaining elite opinion then sticking to the rule of law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I appreciate where you appear to be coming from, but the Supreme Court as presently constituted is highly likely to uphold the 9th Circuit by a 4-4 vote. If we have to wait for judicial reform before we can do anything about the courts setting immigration policy it's over.
  42. @Autochthon
    This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. So egregious is the decision, so nonsensical its reasoning, the executive's completely disregarding this decision is absolutely justified. Indeed it is obligatory. The only conceivable reason for abiding by the decision is an argument for awaiting a final decision on the underlying merits of the case by the intermediate appellate court sitting en banc, or, should they also make up fantastical things from whole cloth, by the federal supreme court.

    If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A., it necessarily follows that some five billion and seven hundred million persons are entitled to a trial on the merits of their case should they wish to enter the U.S.A. In other words, it is an actual finding of the Zeroth Amendment, in some penumbra or other, precisely as that concept has been articulated by Steve.

    This is madness. It is the very epitome of a failed state.

    If this situation persists, war is imminent.

    Excepting your comment and a few others, many pf the comments here leave me with a sense of despair. “Trump needs more lawyers (!!!)” “Gotta wait for Gorsuch to to be confirmed.” “Gotta wait for a trial on the merits.” I think that the issue was characterized brilliantly by MasterBlaster in Beyond Thunderdome:

    “Who run Bartertown,”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Yes, We live in the most litigious society ever known. Lawfare has been our undoing at least since the 1960s.

    If we have no common culture, language or religion, no borders, and now no constitution for just us, we do not exist as a country. Neither America nor Americans exist.
  43. @MG
    This is hilarious - Assad admitting that some refugees are terrorists.

    https://twitter.com/davenyviii/status/829933540460548096

    This needs to forwarded to Sessions, great find.

    Read More
  44. @Ed
    No need for that. Take it to the Supreme Court first. The courts need serious reform though or they may not last going forward. The sappy language for one of the highest courts in the land is a disgrace. It points to the fact that the judges are more concerned with maintaining elite opinion then sticking to the rule of law.

    I appreciate where you appear to be coming from, but the Supreme Court as presently constituted is highly likely to uphold the 9th Circuit by a 4-4 vote. If we have to wait for judicial reform before we can do anything about the courts setting immigration policy it’s over.

    Read More
  45. @Thomas
    That's hyperbole, because nothing has been decided on the merits yet. There are though definitely a number of worrisome points in this order. The court is allowing standing to a state to sue the federal government on the basis of illegal immigrants (!!) in the state and putative benefits to the state. It also may be reading Trump's campaign comments in as a basis to find that this order was motivated by discrimination, which raises the question as to whether Trump could ever issue an order that in any way would restrict immigration in a way affecting Muslims.

    Even having said that, this entire executive order episode is looking more and more like a major, major blunder by the administration, undertaken by non-lawyers (presumably, Bannon and Miller), and probably not substantively reviewed by lawyers. They didn't even have their Attorney General in place, and their acting AG refused to defend it.

    To begin with, as a practical matter, it would have been extremely easy for the order to include Presidential findings, based on classified information, justifying this order factually and justifying it as a matter of imminent necessity to protect public safety and national security. (You can refer to the Bush-43 Administration's justifications for the Iraq War for how easy it is to get intelligence sources to justify what you need.) Just having those would have bolstered the Administration's case considerably, and also considerably slowed down the courts from interfering. (The procedures to allow the courts and opposing parties to get access to classified information can be torturous, and would probably have prevented any emergency restraining order). As things stand the Administration has had very little, largely an inapposite exclusion of these countries from the Visa Waiver Program, and the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago, to justify this order.

    This episode with the order is looking more and more like a major own goal that the Administration ought to seriously consider just vacating and starting fresh on. The risk is if they get a bad ruling and a precedent that seriously curtails the power of the President over immigration or foreign affairs, Trump will have basically broken the edges off some of the sharpest instruments he might have had by using them stupidly. They're going forward into a Supreme Court that might not even be able to come to a decision (and, my guess, Anthony Kennedy won't side with the Administration, and possibly Roberts wouldn't either). Unfortunately, I'm worried that Trump doesn't have the sense to beat a tactical retreat and counterattack from higher ground.

    How dare you criticize Dear Leader on this site? That’s heresy.

    Read More
  46. @Thomas
    That's hyperbole, because nothing has been decided on the merits yet. There are though definitely a number of worrisome points in this order. The court is allowing standing to a state to sue the federal government on the basis of illegal immigrants (!!) in the state and putative benefits to the state. It also may be reading Trump's campaign comments in as a basis to find that this order was motivated by discrimination, which raises the question as to whether Trump could ever issue an order that in any way would restrict immigration in a way affecting Muslims.

    Even having said that, this entire executive order episode is looking more and more like a major, major blunder by the administration, undertaken by non-lawyers (presumably, Bannon and Miller), and probably not substantively reviewed by lawyers. They didn't even have their Attorney General in place, and their acting AG refused to defend it.

    To begin with, as a practical matter, it would have been extremely easy for the order to include Presidential findings, based on classified information, justifying this order factually and justifying it as a matter of imminent necessity to protect public safety and national security. (You can refer to the Bush-43 Administration's justifications for the Iraq War for how easy it is to get intelligence sources to justify what you need.) Just having those would have bolstered the Administration's case considerably, and also considerably slowed down the courts from interfering. (The procedures to allow the courts and opposing parties to get access to classified information can be torturous, and would probably have prevented any emergency restraining order). As things stand the Administration has had very little, largely an inapposite exclusion of these countries from the Visa Waiver Program, and the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago, to justify this order.

    This episode with the order is looking more and more like a major own goal that the Administration ought to seriously consider just vacating and starting fresh on. The risk is if they get a bad ruling and a precedent that seriously curtails the power of the President over immigration or foreign affairs, Trump will have basically broken the edges off some of the sharpest instruments he might have had by using them stupidly. They're going forward into a Supreme Court that might not even be able to come to a decision (and, my guess, Anthony Kennedy won't side with the Administration, and possibly Roberts wouldn't either). Unfortunately, I'm worried that Trump doesn't have the sense to beat a tactical retreat and counterattack from higher ground.

    this entire executive order episode is looking more and more like a major, major blunder by the administration…

    Time will tell, but this deal is exposing the court as a completely politicized body, so we know now better than ever the enemy and their tactics.

    A reckless cavalry charge can be a useful thing when it causes the enemy to deploy his forces and let the generals know the shape of the battlefield. Let us hope we have some heavy infantry in the wings to press on.

    Read More
  47. All three can be boiled down to the 7 Billionth Amendment.

    All 7 billion humans on Planet Earth are natural born citizens of the United States and have right of entry.

    The numbering of this particular Amendment is periodically revised—whenever the UN releases global population numbers.

    Read More
  48. @MG
    This is hilarious - Assad admitting that some refugees are terrorists.

    https://twitter.com/davenyviii/status/829933540460548096

    Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, if you pay attention to what Assad says, he means some of the refugees are “terrorists” vis-a-vis Syria. Ie, the conversation was:

    Q: “Are some of the refugees coming to America to commit acts of terror?”

    A: “Yes, some of the refugees committed ‘acts of terror’ against my regime.”

    Not quite the answer we’d like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Assad family has never been real big on empathy.
    , @res
    If you are going to use quote marks (those are paraphrases, not actual quotes, right?) please give a time stamp so we can check. At 1:20 the interviewer says: "The question was, are some of these refugees in your view aligned with terrorists?"

    Given that, Assad's answer was a direct response to the question. Unlike US politicians who take any question as a license to talk about whatever spin they are trying to apply. What kind of answer were you looking for? How can Assad know if any given refugees are going to commit terror in the US? He can only know whether or not they have already in Syria.

    MG, good find. I especially liked the point about how few terrorists it takes to commit atrocities in response to the interviewer's attempt to talk about "significant numbers."
  49. @Anon
    What is worse? Refusing refugees or turning people into refugees?

    To turn people into refugees, you have to make their nations unlivable through invasion, bombing, and supporting Jihadis. It's a horrible process.

    But the leaders who did that aren't made to face justice.

    The media boiled it down to Trump has no heart.
    The media ignore who used the hammer to smash and smite the MENA.

    What is worse? Refusing refugees or turning people into refugees?

    These are not really refugees, these are flat out immigrants, and they are coming anyway, no matter what we do overseas. They are coming because their countries are overpopulated relative to the US; or they see us as patsies in a place where they can come and grab a slice of economic pie that would otherwise go the current inhabitants and their posterity.

    Read More
  50. @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, if you pay attention to what Assad says, he means some of the refugees are "terrorists" vis-a-vis Syria. Ie, the conversation was:

    Q: "Are some of the refugees coming to America to commit acts of terror?"

    A: "Yes, some of the refugees committed 'acts of terror' against my regime."

    Not quite the answer we'd like.

    The Assad family has never been real big on empathy.

    Read More
  51. @Thomas
    I'm worried that the rest of the Republican Party would be happy to let Trump fumble the immigration issue away permanently to the courts as a matter of Constitutional law and precedent, and will basically use him to get a few wish list items through and then be done with him. Once they get Gorsuch and maybe one more SCOTUS justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a big tax cut, a roll back of regulations, agencies they hate in chaos, and a rollback of Obamacare, they can toss Trump and the immigration issue out after one term (or less...) like a used Kleenex. Pence, just a heartbeat away, seems to be cozying up to Ryan and McConnell. It would hardly be a stretch watching politics the last two years to view such a scenario – Trump gives them 2 Supreme Court appointments, a tax cut, rolls back Obamacare and a bunch of regulations and agencies, permanently jams the borders wide open, and then just goes away – as the best of all possible worlds for the establishment GOP.

    Very astute.

    The Kremlin indeed is now on the Potomac.

    Read More
  52. @AndrewR
    How dare you criticize Dear Leader on this site? That's heresy.

    I didn’t know we have arrived in North Korea?

    Read More
  53. @Lot
    Pam Geller finds three Muslim migrant attacks in just one day:

    (Germany) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/muslim-refugee-slashes-bus-passenger-face.html/

    (Sweden) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/swedish-terror-town-of-gottingen.html/

    (Canada) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/canada-muslim-sex-attacks-water-park-trudeau.html/

    The last link is a reminder of one of the many nice things the left's Muslimification policy means we can't have: public swimming pools and water parks.

    It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incent, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.

    It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incest, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.

    Absolutely.

    We seem to have misplayed the Hegelian dialectic here. We should be able to keep anyone from immigrating here just as a normal, expected thing. Even if they are the nicest, most productive person in the world, we should have no remorse about denying them entrance. But our thesis has been, “let us keep some out because they might be terrorists”; the open border crowd comes back with the anti-thesis of “we want everyone, especially terrorists. We should actively seek out and import terrorists to demonstrate our cred.” So the synthesis has been, “let everyone in unless they are an active shooter”, and here we are with this demographic subsumption of the West.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Exactly. Now that America's 'full' and we no longer have free land for the grabbing or jobs for the asking, immigration should become the exception rather than the rule. We should never have to justify keeping anyone out; we should have to justify letting people in.
    , @Ivy
    The Hegelian dialectic turns into Die, electorate! way too readily. Manipulation of Thesis and Antithesis allow chosen Synthesis.
  54. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    the judges have effectively declared civil war

    my guess is Trump’s supporters are hardening their position by the minute and will want a real Muslim ban or total moratorium before long

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    Timing isn't right, it's been awhile since last major attack. The first suicide bombing attack should move things along.
  55. @Neil Templeton
    Why can't we just admit that the first 10 amendments are cancers that need repeal?

    Then when the Democrats get in, they can arrest you for posting that. They’re already moving toward speech codes.

    Read More
  56. @Anon
    In honor of refugees around the world, I call upon CONGRESS to commemorate NAKBA REFUGEE DAY in honor of 800,000 Palestinian victims.

    Since Jews claim to love Muslim refugees, they should lead this cause since no people have been forced into refugee-hood since the end of WWII than the Palestinians. If Jews love refugees, they must love Palestinians above all.

    Statue of Liberty is weeping about Palestinians refugees of the Nakba. She weeps for all such poor refugees without a home.
    A people with homes and families were turned into huddled refugees yearning to be free, scattered and homeless.

    Call for Nakba Refugee Day. Write to your Congressman.
    And along with the Emma Lazarus Poem on the Statue of Liberty, we need to add a poem about Palestinian refugees yearning to RETURN HOME.

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/watch-remi-kanazis-new-poem-nakba-about-his-grandmothers-expulsion-1948

    We will return.
    That is not a threat
    not a wish
    a hope
    or a dream
    but a promise.

    There have actually been quite a few left-wing Jewish groups showing support for the Palestinians. Read the Forward and you hear about some silly left wing rabbi opposing the Muslim ban every other day, similarly.

    I’d actually argue the fact that they’re being lobbied by their own diaspora to kick it down a notch shows either (a) Jews are (mostly) a bunch of liberal weenies or (b) the Israelis really are going too far.

    Or both.

    Read More
  57. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    it seems to me there are two possibilities

    either

    1) the administration thought the judges would delay around the edges but wouldn’t go so far as completely betray their oaths of office and upend the constitution

    or

    2) it’s all part of the polarization program

    robart’s wife is a swedish artist – the other open borders cliche – i bet she bullied him into it

    Read More
  58. You know you can use fractions and irrational numbers, right? There probably ought to be a 3.14159th Amendment governing Lena Dunham and Melissa McCarthy or something.

    Read More
  59. @MG
    This is hilarious - Assad admitting that some refugees are terrorists.

    https://twitter.com/davenyviii/status/829933540460548096

    You won’t be surprised to learn that Bashar Assad defended Trump’s right to impose a travel ban in a recent interview:

    “Every country has the right to put any regulations to enter their country. We can disagree or agree, but if you ask me as president, as official in the Syrian state, my responsibility is not to go and ask any president to allow the Syrians to go there and to have refuge in that country. My responsibility is to restore the stability, in order to bring them back to Syria and find refuge in their country. So, I’m not going to discuss that this is right or wrong; this is American issue.”

    Source: http://sana.sy/en/?p=99872

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That's covering the same interview. Thanks for the partial transcript.
    , @Jack D
    You know your country is in trouble when:

    A crazed foreign dictator sounds more sane than your own Federal judges.
  60. @Autochthon
    This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. So egregious is the decision, so nonsensical its reasoning, the executive's completely disregarding this decision is absolutely justified. Indeed it is obligatory. The only conceivable reason for abiding by the decision is an argument for awaiting a final decision on the underlying merits of the case by the intermediate appellate court sitting en banc, or, should they also make up fantastical things from whole cloth, by the federal supreme court.

    If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A., it necessarily follows that some five billion and seven hundred million persons are entitled to a trial on the merits of their case should they wish to enter the U.S.A. In other words, it is an actual finding of the Zeroth Amendment, in some penumbra or other, precisely as that concept has been articulated by Steve.

    This is madness. It is the very epitome of a failed state.

    If this situation persists, war is imminent.

    A reminder to all elected officials:

    Your oath is to the Constitution, not to some overgrown hippies in black robes.

    The judges do not own the Constitution nor the Country. We The People do.

    That is all.

    Read More
  61. @Archon
    Unless Congress reigns in the Courts, this will make it through the Supreme Court with 5 votes, which sets the stage for full permanent ongoing judicial amnesty a couple of years later. We're pretty far off the deep end here already, and we're not so far off from things that seem insane.

    Justice reform likely won't happen because far too many on the right are conditioned to view law enforcement and judges as inherently virtuous and worth obeying without question. Notice how police rarely get criticized from the right and how the talk on the right about judges is always about fetishizing "originalists" and decrying lefty judicial activism as some aberration from the norm, instead of just being the norm. Even now, the bigger controversy on the right isn't that the 9th Circuit is trying to legalize Constitutional protections to anyone in the world, it's that Trump dared to criticize the judges for doing so. I don't see the right getting their act together quickly enough to get this fixed.

    That being said, maybe having this happen would be good in a roundabout way. People need to be shocked out of their stupor to see what is really going on in a clear manner. A slow and managed decline won't wake enough people into action, but having 100+ million new neighbors in a couple of years (the gov't can't say no and it's a big payday for billions of people), with all the consequences that will come about, is far more likely to get the average American in a realistic mindset to do what needs to be done while liberty is still alive in this country and we have numbers and a president on our side.

    If I remember, the estimate for first year immigration in the case of open borders is 20-30 million.

    Anyhow, if there were 100+ million immigrants, it would be immediate game over. I would go “red dawn,” but I’m under 50 and work out. You have to remember there are a lot of Trump supporters who can’t resist, not to mention those without the will. My dear dad would go down from a single punch and taking up arms would be out of the question.

    We have to hope the issue is resolved in pur favor through the channels.

    Read More
  62. Opining that states have standing in this case because universities have an economic interest in immigrants and illegal residents, is a contemporary restatement of the thesis that by growing and consuming wheat on my own farm I affect interstate commerce.

    Read More
  63. I’m surprised there hasn’t been discussion in this thread of the temporarily rudderless Justice Dept. now having some guy named Sessions in charge.

    Read More
  64. The charge that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is Lefty Lunatic is a slanderous one. Although it appears that foreign nationals can enter the United States unchallenged, the court’s decision omits any mention of Extra Terrestrials, who are traveling without valid entry-visas. There is room to manoeuvre here.

    President Trump could still issue a travel-ban against Martians and Venusians, who might attempt to cross the US border without valid entry-visas, and it’s even money that the 9th Circuit will back up President Trump to the hilt, in forbidding any strange looking group of Martians or Venusians from landing in New York without his written permission or say-so!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Martians and Venusians are no doubt registered to vote in significant numbers in the great states of Washington, Oregon, California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, etc.

    Exit polls indicate that 99.99972% of extraterrestrials voted a straight Rat ticket.

    Hillary's alleged majority of the popular vote is due in no small part to the steadfast support of extraterrestrials.

  65. @bomag

    It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incest, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.
     
    Absolutely.

    We seem to have misplayed the Hegelian dialectic here. We should be able to keep anyone from immigrating here just as a normal, expected thing. Even if they are the nicest, most productive person in the world, we should have no remorse about denying them entrance. But our thesis has been, "let us keep some out because they might be terrorists"; the open border crowd comes back with the anti-thesis of "we want everyone, especially terrorists. We should actively seek out and import terrorists to demonstrate our cred." So the synthesis has been, "let everyone in unless they are an active shooter", and here we are with this demographic subsumption of the West.

    Exactly. Now that America’s ‘full’ and we no longer have free land for the grabbing or jobs for the asking, immigration should become the exception rather than the rule. We should never have to justify keeping anyone out; we should have to justify letting people in.

    Read More
  66. Steve, I notice that you have not written about CALEXIT.

    That’s probably because you feel that it is simply going to go nowhere so why bother …

    After all, CA-based tech companies do a lot of business with the FedGov, and all that will be gone if they manage to secede, and then there are large CA employers who are headquartered in other states.

    Also, those claims about CA being able to shut of Federal revenue. Probably only possible in the minds of those who do not understand how the revenue ends up in the hands of the IRS.

    Then there’s the pesky little issue of 55 EC votes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    Well, I imagine that the Feds could also force the NasDaq to deregister CA-based companies as well.

    That might cause some billionaires to squeal and think twice about whether or not Calexit was a good idea.
  67. @Lot
    I agree with you calling it a punt to dismiss the Washington case on standing. The problem with this is residents of the USA, even illegals, do have standing. So parts of the current order and future broader orders targeted at overturning Obama's and Bush's mass Muslim migration policies involving current residents will still need to be affirmed on their merits.

    Moreover, the next Democrat president will likely have his own executive orders. Denying standing to states to block such orders hurts us more than them. It was only state plaintiffs who blocked the Obama DAPA order, but Trump's orders can be blocked by the people they apply to if they are already residents.

    I suppose you could go further and say not all residents of the USA have standing to assert due process rights. The problem is the Constitution speaks of persons, not citizens, in describing these rights. I also highly doubt Kennedy and Roberts would ever go for this.

    All of the aggrieved persons can sue one by one in an American court. I’m fine with that 99% of them could not afford/arrange counsel especially if you cut off the spigot of government/tax deductible funding.

    Read More
  68. @candid_observer
    I can only say: think of how different America would be if Trump had not been elected.

    The judiciary is already running wild, and even the SC looks to be effectively ruled by the liberals, literally by default. If 4 of them always decide by politics -- which increasingly looks like their bent -- then, from what I understand, it will be hard to resist or undo shamelessly political rulings from the 9th circuit. And of course had Hillary won, the SC would be tilted likely for decades toward such activist rulings.

    We just wouldn't be the same country after this process as we are now -- immigration would be the biggest part of it, but the complete undoing of basic Constitution balance and rights would be another large part.

    But as it is, Trump will certainly get to put Gorsuch on the SC, and there's quite good reason to believe he will replace one or two others.

    Ginsburg would be a big one, of course. And I do hope that Trump just decides to stick it to the left on Ginsburg, and replace her with someone who leans far enough right that he/she will actually respect the law and the Constitution. Of course, the left will howl as never before if he replaces her with someone who's not a liberal. But the behavior of liberals on that court and others demonstrates the grave danger to our Republic of keeping liberals even at their current numbers.

    Trump can turn this around -- and only someone as resistant to smear attacks as Trump has proven himself to be would have the resolve to turn it around.

    Trump may have many faults. But his strength to endure insult and come back fighting is like nothing we've seen in politics in our entire lives. Truly, he is the man for our times.

    Trump is the only one who can do it

    Read More
  69. @Archon
    Unless Congress reigns in the Courts, this will make it through the Supreme Court with 5 votes, which sets the stage for full permanent ongoing judicial amnesty a couple of years later. We're pretty far off the deep end here already, and we're not so far off from things that seem insane.

    Justice reform likely won't happen because far too many on the right are conditioned to view law enforcement and judges as inherently virtuous and worth obeying without question. Notice how police rarely get criticized from the right and how the talk on the right about judges is always about fetishizing "originalists" and decrying lefty judicial activism as some aberration from the norm, instead of just being the norm. Even now, the bigger controversy on the right isn't that the 9th Circuit is trying to legalize Constitutional protections to anyone in the world, it's that Trump dared to criticize the judges for doing so. I don't see the right getting their act together quickly enough to get this fixed.

    That being said, maybe having this happen would be good in a roundabout way. People need to be shocked out of their stupor to see what is really going on in a clear manner. A slow and managed decline won't wake enough people into action, but having 100+ million new neighbors in a couple of years (the gov't can't say no and it's a big payday for billions of people), with all the consequences that will come about, is far more likely to get the average American in a realistic mindset to do what needs to be done while liberty is still alive in this country and we have numbers and a president on our side.

    A slow and managed decline won’t wake enough people into action, but having 100+ million new neighbors in a couple of years (the gov’t can’t say no and it’s a big payday for billions of people), with all the consequences that will come about, is far more likely to get the average American in a realistic mindset to do what needs to be done while liberty is still alive in this country and we have numbers and a president on our side.

    Well stated, but allied against us are the courts; the academy; the press; and the legislature is lukewarm. Things have slipped farther than they should have, but I’m curious as to if it can be turned around.

    Read More
  70. @Thomas
    That's hyperbole, because nothing has been decided on the merits yet. There are though definitely a number of worrisome points in this order. The court is allowing standing to a state to sue the federal government on the basis of illegal immigrants (!!) in the state and putative benefits to the state. It also may be reading Trump's campaign comments in as a basis to find that this order was motivated by discrimination, which raises the question as to whether Trump could ever issue an order that in any way would restrict immigration in a way affecting Muslims.

    Even having said that, this entire executive order episode is looking more and more like a major, major blunder by the administration, undertaken by non-lawyers (presumably, Bannon and Miller), and probably not substantively reviewed by lawyers. They didn't even have their Attorney General in place, and their acting AG refused to defend it.

    To begin with, as a practical matter, it would have been extremely easy for the order to include Presidential findings, based on classified information, justifying this order factually and justifying it as a matter of imminent necessity to protect public safety and national security. (You can refer to the Bush-43 Administration's justifications for the Iraq War for how easy it is to get intelligence sources to justify what you need.) Just having those would have bolstered the Administration's case considerably, and also considerably slowed down the courts from interfering. (The procedures to allow the courts and opposing parties to get access to classified information can be torturous, and would probably have prevented any emergency restraining order). As things stand the Administration has had very little, largely an inapposite exclusion of these countries from the Visa Waiver Program, and the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago, to justify this order.

    This episode with the order is looking more and more like a major own goal that the Administration ought to seriously consider just vacating and starting fresh on. The risk is if they get a bad ruling and a precedent that seriously curtails the power of the President over immigration or foreign affairs, Trump will have basically broken the edges off some of the sharpest instruments he might have had by using them stupidly. They're going forward into a Supreme Court that might not even be able to come to a decision (and, my guess, Anthony Kennedy won't side with the Administration, and possibly Roberts wouldn't either). Unfortunately, I'm worried that Trump doesn't have the sense to beat a tactical retreat and counterattack from higher ground.

    Very well argued, however you seem to be assuming that the courts are acting in good faith and evaluating the EO on the legal merits and I don’t believe that to be the case. I doubt that even a perfectly lawyered EO would have passed muster with these judges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas
    That may be true but one purpose of good lawyering is to leave as little opportunity for biased courts to do that, so they get smacked down at the next level of review. In this case, I was surprised that this was a per curiam opinion (issued on behalf of the entire panel without any separate opinions), that that Judge Clifton, the George W. Bush appointee who showed some sympathy with the government's case on a few points at the oral argument, didn't issue a separate opinion on any point. That sends a message.

    At some point, it becomes a question of basic competence. If Trump's administration isn't willing or able to handle the basics and work competently within the system as it exists, I'm not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts, and I imagine that other Republicans might not either.

  71. @eah
    Some time ago -- well before the election -- I posted a comment asking if people thought there were still political solutions to the problems and divisions in America -- I think the answer ought to be clearer than ever now -- those who think it may have helped if Trump had tweaked his order in some way or other are massively deluded, and have not been paying attention at all.

    Bloomberg -- Trump Dealt Major Setback as Appeals Court Sides With Immigrants -- note the patent absurdity of the headline, as if "immigrants" have some sort of judicial standing vis-a-vis a President -- Trump’s order set off chaos as companies, universities, citizens and refugees struggled with the ramifications... -- yes, it was pure chaos.

    No reasoning with that.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @eah
    This is actually the way they think.

    https://twitter.com/GodfreyElfwick/status/830059953486438400
    , @eah
    I don't know -- maybe the 9th will one day rule on it.

    https://twitter.com/RMConservative/status/829882433222885380
  72. Congress should resize the 9th district to a single building. And then create a new district, covering the rest of the 9th’s current territory, and pack it with new judges. They can do the same with other offending districts.

    Alternatively, they can start removing offending judges from the 9th district, and anywhere else.

    then he can pin the whole thing on the leftist court system and then maybe push thru some kind of judicial reform so that this never happens again.

    This. We need it in any case, terrorist attack or no. Time for Congress to put these unelected lords and ladies in their proper places.

    And the standard to remove any sitting Article III federal judge remains impeachment by Congress, basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.

    Cite? That’s the “standard.” What does the law say? The impression I get is that Congress can remove whomever they like, for whatever reasons they like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lovernios X
    I would think the best way to register disapproval would be for Congress to radically cut the 9th Circuit's budget. Reduce their pay to minimum wage and prohibit any outside income. Cut their staff to zero. Cut maintenance by half. Zero out the budget for supplies.

    Congress could also require all judges to be present in a specific location when deliberating. Force them to travel and have zero dollars allocated for travel in the budget.

    And for good measure, require them to wear harlequin robes, white grease paint, orange wigs and clown noses when holding hearings.
    , @Jack d
    It's in the Constitution and that's what it says. A "high crime or misdemeanor" is whatever Congress says it is.
    , @Autochthon
    All federal courts save the federal supreme court can effectively be abolished by the legislature.

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
     
    That's all an academic question, though. Yesterday the federal judiciary wiped its ass with that document and, as an earliet commenter noted, invited a civil war.
  73. @Whiskey
    It really does not matter how "solid" Trump's order was. There is NO WAY EVER that Judges will allow Trump to ban anyone from coming here and getting on welfare, and shooting the place up. More dead Americans is just more dead BadWhites. It won't be THEM that gets shot. Just us. Heck Judges will argue we should remove Trump because he made Muslims angry. And we must let more in and abase ourselves.

    Forget about Gorsuch. He'd vote Zeroth Amendment in a minute, as would Roberts, and pretty much every Supreme Court Judge save maybe Thomas. I could easily see a 8-1 vote in favor of the Zeroth Amendment.

    Lets be honest, this has how Government has been run since the 1950s. Judges make the law, that elites want anyway (they NEVER do things like ban gay marriage). It screws over Joe Average. Which is the point. There is no recourse. Trump is about one Judge away from being summarily removed for "being racist" or it being Tuesday or whatever reason they want.

    America has had Open Borders since 1965 and that's the way it will always be. In about two or three years this will be a White minority nation, with an overwhelming amount of Muslims and Africans here. That's how its going to be, applauded by Nice White Ladies, Cuckservatives, Liberal Aholes, and the like.

    The goal is survival. Network. Be situationally aware. Be prepared to fight or flight at a moment's notice. We live in South Africa meets Pakistan now. Your life, mine, any White persons is forfeit because we are BadWhites.

    So some Muslim will shoot up the place and he could have been prevented by Trump's order. So what? Judges don't care. They can't be removed. If Trump ignored the ruling the Marshals, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and Pentagon would all converge on the White House to remove him. This is not Andrew Jackson's time. ALL the media, government, NGOs, lawyers, Top Military Brass, Higher Rank Officers, and Federal Law Enforcement brass HATE HATE HATE BadWhites and you and Trump. They were appointed by Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. Why wouldn't they?

    The LAW is whatever a Judge says it is. That is all. The LAW exists to put the Third World here and kill you and me. A jihadi from Yemen has more rights than you (because you have none). THAT will never ever change.

    Stop hoping. Stop believing. Start surviving. Hopium is the enemy of survival.

    Something tells me that you’re not optimistic, Whiskey. But I’m inclined to agree–better start scouting that bolt hole now. Better if you’ve already picked it and made preparations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    I plan on staying in society BUT I'm going to have a getaway in rural Kansas or some such....
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Actually, a semi-autonomous zone a la Spencer's white homeland is not such a bad idea. Too bad Spencer is a joke and a "white nationalist" enclave would never fly with the powers that be.

    The model could be Indian Reservations. In addition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we add a Bureau of Founding Stock Affairs, a Bureau of Wretched Refuse Affairs, etc. Then the whites get permanent land grants.
  74. Steve, I think the inverse First Amendment as applied in this case seems to be that the exclusion of some people of one religion from immigration automatically and Unconstitutionally establishes Christianity in the United States. The First Amendment requires the replacement of white Christians, like the founders intended.

    I’m imagining a Court telling President Jefferson that not all of the Barbary Pirates are bad, so he can’t exclude any of them and President Jefferson obeying the Court’s Order. It’s a very difficult thing to conceive.

    Read More
  75. @Neil Templeton
    Why can't we just admit that the first 10 amendments are cancers that need repeal?

    Might be worth a post:

    Bill Kristol: Lazy White Working Class Americans Should be Replaced by Immigrants

    Note the fixation on the White working class and not the high percentage of black, American Indian and Latino citizens who are also “working class”.

    It seems framing the issue around contempt for White America workers as in need of replacement is within the bounds of American discourse but showing similar contempt for other races of “working class” status is verboten.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    The irony of effete Dems co-opting the terms "resistance" for their hysterical opposition to Trump is that WWC are the only group that is truly resisting.
    , @Autochthon
    Never trust a fat man who characterises anyone else as lazy.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Kristol has put on a lot of avoirdupois! Trump's election has had the opposite effect on him that it had on Ms Dunham.
  76. Article III of the Constitution of the United States:

    Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish….

    Read More
  77. Trump needs to start holding the left’s and establishment’s agendas hostage wherever he can, to gain leverage on immigration.

    Read More
  78. Already More Syrian refugees have been allowed into America in 2017 than from 2011 thru 2015….While Obama rated he would allow in 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 , only 5,000 were actually admitted that year. Why did the courts allow Obama to ban 99% of the Muslim refugees ?

    Read More
  79. “That if anybody anywhere wants to move to America for any reason, it would be racist to stop them.”

    Steve, surely you recognize that Trump went out of his way to go to the other extreme. He seemed determined to find out whether you can stop people from coming to the US with virtually no justification.

    This isn’t a criticism, it seems to be his style. Rather than just push the boundary of a taboo, he likes to start way out on the other side of the line. Which explains the initial decision to deliberately include green card holders and ambiguity about the status of dual citizens.

    He made it easy for the court — all they had to decide was that you can’t revoke visas en masse for no reason. It’ll be interesting to see the end game.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Have you heard of this thing called "Law?" The law gives Presidents total discretion, used by Carter ,for example, to shut down all travel to Iran and deport 7,000 Iranian students without the slightest showing of "justification."
    , @guest
    I don't think he does need a reason. Not one he needs to explain to the judiciary, anyway, and with which they have to agree. But even so, he did give a reason: national security. Which is a stupid, blunt reason, but it has worked for a panoply of executive privileges, especially since the Cold War. Why doesn't it work here? Why does the judiciary get to weigh in on policy decisions and demand further "reason" on the issue of immigration, in particular?

    Could it possibly be because their political opinions are in opposition to the president on this issue? Naw, that can't be. Because they're impartial, or something. Only the other two branches are political. Judges are objective; with us, but not of us. Like angels among men, almost.

    , @CAL

    Steve, surely you recognize that Trump went out of his way to go to the other extreme. He seemed determined to find out whether you can stop people from coming to the US with virtually no justification.
     
    Maybe because we can keep anyone out for no reason at all at the theoretical level. At the practical level, the executive has pretty broad powers laid out by Congress. The courts have absolutely no say in this unless they can cite a statute that the EO violated. Even then, previous courts have been reluctant, and wisely so, to interfere.

    The TRO is a joke followed by the 9th supporting the joke. None of the plaintiffs have standing and none of their reasoning shows a violation of the law.
  80. Some people have speculated that part of the reason the 9th Circuit is so left wing is that is is physically based in San Francisco (in extremely expensive real estate) surrounded by rich left-wingers.

    Time for Congress to pass a funding bill relocating the 9th to Fresno, California, so the Justices and all their staff can live in a town where the effects of unlimited immigration are obvious.

    Read More
  81. I think all rapefugees should be flown directly to that Washington judge’s residence, judging by his background he wouldn’t mind.

    Read More
  82. @Anonymous
    OT: So... Dr. Udge has the TV news ratings up tonight and I think almost every single host is white or white/Jewish. The lefty channels are not getting any ratings with their non-white hosts we can assume. Don Lemon's numbers must be highly classified. And no, there is not a lot of Hispanic diversity hosting the news! Claro que si!

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    FEB 8, 2017

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,251,000
    FOXNEWS TUCKER 3,326,000
    FOXNEWS THE FIVE 3,141,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,081,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 3,080,000
    FOXNEWS MACCALLUM 2,888,000
    FOXNEWS FOX FRIENDS 2,165,000
    FOXNEWS CAVUTO 2,082,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 2,013,000
    MSNBC O'DONNELL 1,678,000
    CNN COOPER 1,448,000
    MSNBC HAYES 1,437,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 1,359,000
    CNN TAPPER 1,260,000
    CMDY DAILY SHOW 989,000
    MSNBC MORNING JOE 782,000

    I hate to do this, but I care not about the colour of a newscasters skin, but rather the content of his character.

    Read More
  83. @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, if you pay attention to what Assad says, he means some of the refugees are "terrorists" vis-a-vis Syria. Ie, the conversation was:

    Q: "Are some of the refugees coming to America to commit acts of terror?"

    A: "Yes, some of the refugees committed 'acts of terror' against my regime."

    Not quite the answer we'd like.

    If you are going to use quote marks (those are paraphrases, not actual quotes, right?) please give a time stamp so we can check. At 1:20 the interviewer says: “The question was, are some of these refugees in your view aligned with terrorists?”

    Given that, Assad’s answer was a direct response to the question. Unlike US politicians who take any question as a license to talk about whatever spin they are trying to apply. What kind of answer were you looking for? How can Assad know if any given refugees are going to commit terror in the US? He can only know whether or not they have already in Syria.

    MG, good find. I especially liked the point about how few terrorists it takes to commit atrocities in response to the interviewer’s attempt to talk about “significant numbers.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    I was paraphrasing their conversation.

    I disagree with your interpretation. I think it is obvious that the interviewer is trying to get Assad to address the issue of whether or not, among the refugees, there are people coming to commit acts of terror. Assad's answer is that some of the people who fought his regime are now living peaceful lives in Europe. If he doesn't know, a direct answer would be to say, "I don't know." His answer conflates rebels and terrorists. The Syrian rebels may not be our friends, but rebel does not equal terrorist.

    Assad may not answer like our politicians, but part of human conversation is understanding the point of a question and answering appropriately. The question was directed at the intentions of migrants and Assad gave an entirely self-absorbed answer about how terrible it is to oppose him.

    I reiterate my previous point, which was that Assad did not give us the answer we'd like, which of course would have been a soundbite in which he said, "Yes! The Syrian refugees are covering up the infiltration of terrorists into Europe and the US!" That would have been much more effective/helpful for us and for him.
  84. @candid_observer
    I can only say: think of how different America would be if Trump had not been elected.

    The judiciary is already running wild, and even the SC looks to be effectively ruled by the liberals, literally by default. If 4 of them always decide by politics -- which increasingly looks like their bent -- then, from what I understand, it will be hard to resist or undo shamelessly political rulings from the 9th circuit. And of course had Hillary won, the SC would be tilted likely for decades toward such activist rulings.

    We just wouldn't be the same country after this process as we are now -- immigration would be the biggest part of it, but the complete undoing of basic Constitution balance and rights would be another large part.

    But as it is, Trump will certainly get to put Gorsuch on the SC, and there's quite good reason to believe he will replace one or two others.

    Ginsburg would be a big one, of course. And I do hope that Trump just decides to stick it to the left on Ginsburg, and replace her with someone who leans far enough right that he/she will actually respect the law and the Constitution. Of course, the left will howl as never before if he replaces her with someone who's not a liberal. But the behavior of liberals on that court and others demonstrates the grave danger to our Republic of keeping liberals even at their current numbers.

    Trump can turn this around -- and only someone as resistant to smear attacks as Trump has proven himself to be would have the resolve to turn it around.

    Trump may have many faults. But his strength to endure insult and come back fighting is like nothing we've seen in politics in our entire lives. Truly, he is the man for our times.

    Of course, the left will howl as never before if he replaces her with someone who’s not a liberal.

    I think Obama’s attempt to replace Scalia with Merrick Garland gives a good baseline for what “is reasonable.” (and Obama was trying to be more reasonable than he would have been in the middle of his term).

    This WaPo article tried to estimate how liberal/conservative Garland and the sitting justices are:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is/

    Despite trying to spin him as moderate, the graphic makes clear how far removed he was from Scalia ideologically.

    Read More
  85. @Diversity Heretic
    Excepting your comment and a few others, many pf the comments here leave me with a sense of despair. "Trump needs more lawyers (!!!)" "Gotta wait for Gorsuch to to be confirmed." "Gotta wait for a trial on the merits." I think that the issue was characterized brilliantly by MasterBlaster in Beyond Thunderdome:

    "Who run Bartertown,"

    Yes, We live in the most litigious society ever known. Lawfare has been our undoing at least since the 1960s.

    If we have no common culture, language or religion, no borders, and now no constitution for just us, we do not exist as a country. Neither America nor Americans exist.

    Read More
  86. @Autochthon
    This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. So egregious is the decision, so nonsensical its reasoning, the executive's completely disregarding this decision is absolutely justified. Indeed it is obligatory. The only conceivable reason for abiding by the decision is an argument for awaiting a final decision on the underlying merits of the case by the intermediate appellate court sitting en banc, or, should they also make up fantastical things from whole cloth, by the federal supreme court.

    If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A., it necessarily follows that some five billion and seven hundred million persons are entitled to a trial on the merits of their case should they wish to enter the U.S.A. In other words, it is an actual finding of the Zeroth Amendment, in some penumbra or other, precisely as that concept has been articulated by Steve.

    This is madness. It is the very epitome of a failed state.

    If this situation persists, war is imminent.

    Read More
  87. @Seamus Padraig
    You won't be surprised to learn that Bashar Assad defended Trump's right to impose a travel ban in a recent interview:

    "Every country has the right to put any regulations to enter their country. We can disagree or agree, but if you ask me as president, as official in the Syrian state, my responsibility is not to go and ask any president to allow the Syrians to go there and to have refuge in that country. My responsibility is to restore the stability, in order to bring them back to Syria and find refuge in their country. So, I’m not going to discuss that this is right or wrong; this is American issue."
     
    Source: http://sana.sy/en/?p=99872

    That’s covering the same interview. Thanks for the partial transcript.

    Read More
  88. Ginsburg would be a big one, of course. And I do hope that Trump just decides to stick it to the left on Ginsburg, and replace her with someone who leans far enough right that he/she will actually respect the law and the Constitution. Of course, the left will howl as never before if he replaces her with someone who’s not a liberal. But the behavior of liberals on that court and others demonstrates the grave danger to our Republic of keeping liberals even at their current numbers.

    I’m not really up on the history of SC appointments; has a majority-Democrat Congress appointed anything other than a leftist activist to the SC in the last 75 years?

    How easy is it to remove these lower judges from the bench?

    Same as passing a law through Congress. I’d go with mass removals or sweeping reform, given the current state of Congress.

    Read More
  89. @eah
    No reasoning with that.

    https://twitter.com/JBurtonXP/status/829902076645883907

    This is actually the way they think.

    Read More
  90. Lots of good stuff here:

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/ninth-circuits-stolen-sovereignty-should-serve-as-final-wakeup-call

    The options open to Congress are basically unlimited. The problem is not a legal one, but political: Congress is full of cowards and traitors, and the electorate is full of idiots.

    The best option would be for Congress & the President to enact laws removing most of the Judicial Branch’s usurped powers. Better optics than my previous suggestions (though perhaps technically inferior, because subject to subsequent reversal via further judicial usurpation). Also, laws forbidding State and Federal law enforcement from enforcing illegitimate Judicial actions would be nice. Trump could do some of this on his own, by removing federal employees who enforce these illegitimate Judicial actions.

    Read More
  91. @bomag

    It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incest, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.
     
    Absolutely.

    We seem to have misplayed the Hegelian dialectic here. We should be able to keep anyone from immigrating here just as a normal, expected thing. Even if they are the nicest, most productive person in the world, we should have no remorse about denying them entrance. But our thesis has been, "let us keep some out because they might be terrorists"; the open border crowd comes back with the anti-thesis of "we want everyone, especially terrorists. We should actively seek out and import terrorists to demonstrate our cred." So the synthesis has been, "let everyone in unless they are an active shooter", and here we are with this demographic subsumption of the West.

    The Hegelian dialectic turns into Die, electorate! way too readily. Manipulation of Thesis and Antithesis allow chosen Synthesis.

    Read More
  92. @Vinay
    "That if anybody anywhere wants to move to America for any reason, it would be racist to stop them."

    Steve, surely you recognize that Trump went out of his way to go to the other extreme. He seemed determined to find out whether you can stop people from coming to the US with virtually no justification.

    This isn't a criticism, it seems to be his style. Rather than just push the boundary of a taboo, he likes to start way out on the other side of the line. Which explains the initial decision to deliberately include green card holders and ambiguity about the status of dual citizens.

    He made it easy for the court -- all they had to decide was that you can't revoke visas en masse for no reason. It'll be interesting to see the end game.

    Have you heard of this thing called “Law?” The law gives Presidents total discretion, used by Carter ,for example, to shut down all travel to Iran and deport 7,000 Iranian students without the slightest showing of “justification.”

    Read More
  93. @Autochthon
    This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia. So egregious is the decision, so nonsensical its reasoning, the executive's completely disregarding this decision is absolutely justified. Indeed it is obligatory. The only conceivable reason for abiding by the decision is an argument for awaiting a final decision on the underlying merits of the case by the intermediate appellate court sitting en banc, or, should they also make up fantastical things from whole cloth, by the federal supreme court.

    If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A., it necessarily follows that some five billion and seven hundred million persons are entitled to a trial on the merits of their case should they wish to enter the U.S.A. In other words, it is an actual finding of the Zeroth Amendment, in some penumbra or other, precisely as that concept has been articulated by Steve.

    This is madness. It is the very epitome of a failed state.

    If this situation persists, war is imminent.

    “This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson’s refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia.”

    No, it is not the equivalent. In the Jackson case, he defied a court order. His decision was unprecedented. Congress did not intervene in this matter, largely because they also agreed with Jackson’s action, which was ultimately a dereliction of his duty to enforce the law of the land. In the immigration case, the Court’s order is in line with past legal decisions when it comes to the war on terror. The DOJ is arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States on the basis to prevent terrorism, and that national security policies are unreviewable. Think about that point for a moment. The executive branch has the ultimate say on the war of terrorism. How has that worked out? The Court has the authority to review this particular decision in light of past cases involving terrorism. The DOJ stated there are “imminent threats” by incoming Muslims to carry out nefarious acts without submitting into evidence–as far as I know–that a single alien from any of the countries named in the order is prone to such conduct. Remember, the war on terrorism has been subject to Congressional consent and oversight. The Court is acting proper here given the nature of the legal argument.

    Personally, Congress should intervene. They should thoroughly rewrite the laws regarding immigration to reflect the current will of the people, mindful that there will be legal challenges.

    “If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A….”

    The question before the court is NOT that a “Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process”, but whether the legal argument of the DOJ has merit and whether the ban is a religious litmus test.

    “If this situation persists, war is imminent.”

    Are you ready to play soldier, dear? Go ahead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Having learned of your brilliance from experience, I didn't read your drivel, but in skimming it I noted a challenge for me to "play soldier," which reveals you don't read my comments either. How many campaign medals do you have, asshole?

    I'm not twelve and Steve's blog isn't a schoolyard, so I'm leaving it at that and employing Mr. Unz' software to make you effectively disappear.
    , @peterike

    but whether the legal argument of the DOJ has merit and whether the ban is a religious litmus test.
     
    It doesn't matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens. There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason. Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are.

    Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?

    Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage.
  94. @Lot
    Pam Geller finds three Muslim migrant attacks in just one day:

    (Germany) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/muslim-refugee-slashes-bus-passenger-face.html/

    (Sweden) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/swedish-terror-town-of-gottingen.html/

    (Canada) http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/canada-muslim-sex-attacks-water-park-trudeau.html/

    The last link is a reminder of one of the many nice things the left's Muslimification policy means we can't have: public swimming pools and water parks.

    It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incent, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.

    “It is not just about the terrorism, it is the welfare abuse, the low IQ, the backward culture, the normalization of incent, polygamy, and pedophilia, the low level violence, the reckless driving, the dirty looks, the physical claiming of public spaces, and the economic decline that mass Muslim immigration brings to every single country that has allowed it.”

    Congratulations. You have just offered evidence why immigration is evil personified, at least according to an aware winning author. Unless you are able to directly trace your ancestors to the English and the first colonies, you are not a “true American”. Never have been, never will be.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/immigration-and-transformation.html

    Read More
  95. @The most deplorable one
    Steve, I notice that you have not written about CALEXIT.

    That's probably because you feel that it is simply going to go nowhere so why bother ...

    After all, CA-based tech companies do a lot of business with the FedGov, and all that will be gone if they manage to secede, and then there are large CA employers who are headquartered in other states.

    Also, those claims about CA being able to shut of Federal revenue. Probably only possible in the minds of those who do not understand how the revenue ends up in the hands of the IRS.

    Then there's the pesky little issue of 55 EC votes.

    Well, I imagine that the Feds could also force the NasDaq to deregister CA-based companies as well.

    That might cause some billionaires to squeal and think twice about whether or not Calexit was a good idea.

    Read More
  96. @anon
    the judges have effectively declared civil war

    my guess is Trump's supporters are hardening their position by the minute and will want a real Muslim ban or total moratorium before long

    Timing isn’t right, it’s been awhile since last major attack. The first suicide bombing attack should move things along.

    Read More
  97. @Rifleman
    Might be worth a post:

    Bill Kristol: Lazy White Working Class Americans Should be Replaced by Immigrants

    https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/829676988302577669

    Note the fixation on the White working class and not the high percentage of black, American Indian and Latino citizens who are also "working class".

    It seems framing the issue around contempt for White America workers as in need of replacement is within the bounds of American discourse but showing similar contempt for other races of "working class" status is verboten.

    The irony of effete Dems co-opting the terms “resistance” for their hysterical opposition to Trump is that WWC are the only group that is truly resisting.

    Read More
  98. @Whiskey
    It really does not matter how "solid" Trump's order was. There is NO WAY EVER that Judges will allow Trump to ban anyone from coming here and getting on welfare, and shooting the place up. More dead Americans is just more dead BadWhites. It won't be THEM that gets shot. Just us. Heck Judges will argue we should remove Trump because he made Muslims angry. And we must let more in and abase ourselves.

    Forget about Gorsuch. He'd vote Zeroth Amendment in a minute, as would Roberts, and pretty much every Supreme Court Judge save maybe Thomas. I could easily see a 8-1 vote in favor of the Zeroth Amendment.

    Lets be honest, this has how Government has been run since the 1950s. Judges make the law, that elites want anyway (they NEVER do things like ban gay marriage). It screws over Joe Average. Which is the point. There is no recourse. Trump is about one Judge away from being summarily removed for "being racist" or it being Tuesday or whatever reason they want.

    America has had Open Borders since 1965 and that's the way it will always be. In about two or three years this will be a White minority nation, with an overwhelming amount of Muslims and Africans here. That's how its going to be, applauded by Nice White Ladies, Cuckservatives, Liberal Aholes, and the like.

    The goal is survival. Network. Be situationally aware. Be prepared to fight or flight at a moment's notice. We live in South Africa meets Pakistan now. Your life, mine, any White persons is forfeit because we are BadWhites.

    So some Muslim will shoot up the place and he could have been prevented by Trump's order. So what? Judges don't care. They can't be removed. If Trump ignored the ruling the Marshals, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and Pentagon would all converge on the White House to remove him. This is not Andrew Jackson's time. ALL the media, government, NGOs, lawyers, Top Military Brass, Higher Rank Officers, and Federal Law Enforcement brass HATE HATE HATE BadWhites and you and Trump. They were appointed by Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. Why wouldn't they?

    The LAW is whatever a Judge says it is. That is all. The LAW exists to put the Third World here and kill you and me. A jihadi from Yemen has more rights than you (because you have none). THAT will never ever change.

    Stop hoping. Stop believing. Start surviving. Hopium is the enemy of survival.

    Holy shit, Whiskey, you are lucid deep down. I’d have never thunk it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    Nah, whiskey just understands what "who/whom" means.

    And he's smart enough to see thru all the fancy pants "don't mind the man behind the curtain" theatrics.

    We live in a fascist oligarchy/plutocracy.

    But it's a weird sort of police state because our law enforcement apparatus is decentralized. It's just devolved enough to make you believe in the delusion of states rights and freedoms and all that libertarian hocus pocus mumbojumbo that deluded you into thinking you're free when younarent.

    America is like Mexico now.

    In America freedom is money. If you ain't got money then you ain't got shit as my redneck relatives would say.

    You only truly have freedom in America if you have money and can pay off the crooked police state oligarchs
  99. @Thomas
    I heard someone say today that they never thought they'd say they wish there were more lawyers in the White House! Part of the issue with Trump is he ran against the establishments of both parties. Obviously that spoke to the bankruptcy of both of those establishments, but it's left him with a problem that's persisted since the campaign: a dearth of experience and competence on his team. Most of the people who know how to get things done in this country, whether they were getting the right things done or not, were already working for somebody else when Trump came along. He's been running from behind getting people into place ever since. I'm assuming (and hoping) that the situation is probably significantly improved as of today from what it was two weeks ago when the executive order was issued. But it still seems, from the outside looking in, that the Trump White House is still very much of a work in progress, and since the inauguration he's had about 4,000 Senate-confirmable jobs to fill throughout the government. State attorney generals' offices, corporate legal departments, and biglaw firms... to say nothing of, say, hostile foreign governments, don't have this same personnel deficiency right now.

    That’s the perennial problem of anti-establishment candidates (or one of them). When there were more lawyers in the White House, or rather more people who knew what they’re doing (even though what they were doing was running the country into the ground), nothing good got done. It required someone else in charge to do something different.

    But there aren’t enough of the other kind of people to run the government. You’re not exactly left with Joe Schmos; you can pull from Big Business, the military, and other relatively un-SJW-ed/”cucked” institutions. But mostly you’re left with second-class at best. Which is okay, because first class doesn’t know what it’s doing, anyway. There are no experts in governance in modern times–though there are some specialist–just a bunch of people screwing up in different ways. Problem is, while Trump moves in a handful of his kind of people, entire oceans full of other kinds are still there. They don’t go away, especially judges.

    There aren’t enough people to replace them, even if you could. And the only kind of people who can possibly change things are apt to be inexperienced, as I’ve been saying, and are likely to do things bluntly, full steam ahead, because they don’t know the game. Or rather they’re playing a different game, which looks like incompetence from the perspective of normal government. Actually, it is incompetent as regards normal government, because it disdain what has passed for normal, as do I.

    This has a tendency to be mistaken for stupidity. But I believe the most ingenious lawyer in American history would’ve slapped down by the 9th circuit court of appeals had he written the executive order. Because that’s what they were going to do, because politics.

    What burns me is how lawlessly former administrations ran themselves, and how thoroughly they got away with it. Sorta like how Nixon got slammed for pulling the exact sane tricks in play since at least the FDR administration. (And I don’t even like Nixon.) Granted, Obama did get slapped down occasionally, but Trump’s failures are FAILURES, and call into question on a daily basis his very presidency. Not that I take it seriously, because everything he did on the campaign trail was a fatal mistake, too. But it does wear on me.

    Well, he has the Establishment, the permanent government, the Deep State, the MSM, the intellectual class, and basically everything else against him. Which naturally makes it harder, and almost inevitably means he’s going to have to do it stupidly. I’m content with that.

    Onward, stupidity! Save us from experience.

    Read More
  100. @Jack D
    I think he was trying to emphasize that Gorsuch cannot be criticized based on a lack of intellectual credentials. Columbia undergrad (when Gorsuch went) was a lesser Ivy and Harvard Law is the more impressive credential, but for a Queens guy Columbia embodies intellectual respectability.

    Columbia is “lesser”only compared to Harvard and Yale as an Insider school. I don’t know about among the Ivies, which presumably still have social and financial cachet not directly related to government. But among the schools that have impact on actual policy, it leaves most of the others in the dust. Columbia is ground zero for our national nightmare known as edjukashun, and yugely involved in training the judicial oligarchy which rules over us all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Yep, Columbia's journalism and education schools have produced many people who are part of the problem.
  101. @JerryC
    Very well argued, however you seem to be assuming that the courts are acting in good faith and evaluating the EO on the legal merits and I don't believe that to be the case. I doubt that even a perfectly lawyered EO would have passed muster with these judges.

    That may be true but one purpose of good lawyering is to leave as little opportunity for biased courts to do that, so they get smacked down at the next level of review. In this case, I was surprised that this was a per curiam opinion (issued on behalf of the entire panel without any separate opinions), that that Judge Clifton, the George W. Bush appointee who showed some sympathy with the government’s case on a few points at the oral argument, didn’t issue a separate opinion on any point. That sends a message.

    At some point, it becomes a question of basic competence. If Trump’s administration isn’t willing or able to handle the basics and work competently within the system as it exists, I’m not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts, and I imagine that other Republicans might not either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I’m not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts
     
    For better or worse, your country's fate is for the moment inextricably entwined with that of the Trump administration. If they fail, you won't have a country anymore, much less a constitution. Arguably, you already have no constitution, given how courts are now inventing laws out of thin air (gay marriage? right to abortion?) or abolishing laws they don't like (the president's right to exclude aliens from the nation).

    But you can go muh constitution all you like, there are guys like you all over the Western world, who care more for the already broken "rule of law" than the survival of their countries or ethnic groups.

    Those who value an already broken constitution over the survival of their people will be doomed to lose both.
    , @anon

    I’m not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts
     
    You've made that clear - the question is how many Trump supporters feel differently.

    On a separate note - if the objections are on specific details could von Trump do a new one that gets round those objections by making the ban wider?
  102. @Thomas
    Actually, Obama got jammed up a reasonable amount (one of the worst records before the Supreme Court of any President in recent history). Ironically, one of the cases last year smacking down DAPA (one of his administrative amnesties), U.S. v. Texas, was cited as precedent by the 9th Circuit today.

    And the standard to remove any sitting Article III federal judge remains impeachment by Congress, basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.

    “basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor”

    There is precedence for removing judges for political cause, as there oughtta be. Anyway, all we’d need to start doing so is to discover the will. If judges can pull the right to gay marriage out of their asses, Congress can pull impeachment because I don’t like the cut of your jib out of their ‘s.

    Read More
  103. @Rifleman
    Might be worth a post:

    Bill Kristol: Lazy White Working Class Americans Should be Replaced by Immigrants

    https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/829676988302577669

    Note the fixation on the White working class and not the high percentage of black, American Indian and Latino citizens who are also "working class".

    It seems framing the issue around contempt for White America workers as in need of replacement is within the bounds of American discourse but showing similar contempt for other races of "working class" status is verboten.

    Never trust a fat man who characterises anyone else as lazy.

    Read More
  104. @Svigor
    Congress should resize the 9th district to a single building. And then create a new district, covering the rest of the 9th's current territory, and pack it with new judges. They can do the same with other offending districts.

    Alternatively, they can start removing offending judges from the 9th district, and anywhere else.

    then he can pin the whole thing on the leftist court system and then maybe push thru some kind of judicial reform so that this never happens again.
     
    This. We need it in any case, terrorist attack or no. Time for Congress to put these unelected lords and ladies in their proper places.

    And the standard to remove any sitting Article III federal judge remains impeachment by Congress, basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.
     
    Cite? That's the "standard." What does the law say? The impression I get is that Congress can remove whomever they like, for whatever reasons they like.

    I would think the best way to register disapproval would be for Congress to radically cut the 9th Circuit’s budget. Reduce their pay to minimum wage and prohibit any outside income. Cut their staff to zero. Cut maintenance by half. Zero out the budget for supplies.

    Congress could also require all judges to be present in a specific location when deliberating. Force them to travel and have zero dollars allocated for travel in the budget.

    And for good measure, require them to wear harlequin robes, white grease paint, orange wigs and clown noses when holding hearings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
  105. @Seamus Padraig
    You won't be surprised to learn that Bashar Assad defended Trump's right to impose a travel ban in a recent interview:

    "Every country has the right to put any regulations to enter their country. We can disagree or agree, but if you ask me as president, as official in the Syrian state, my responsibility is not to go and ask any president to allow the Syrians to go there and to have refuge in that country. My responsibility is to restore the stability, in order to bring them back to Syria and find refuge in their country. So, I’m not going to discuss that this is right or wrong; this is American issue."
     
    Source: http://sana.sy/en/?p=99872

    You know your country is in trouble when:

    A crazed foreign dictator sounds more sane than your own Federal judges.

    Read More
  106. @Svigor
    Congress should resize the 9th district to a single building. And then create a new district, covering the rest of the 9th's current territory, and pack it with new judges. They can do the same with other offending districts.

    Alternatively, they can start removing offending judges from the 9th district, and anywhere else.

    then he can pin the whole thing on the leftist court system and then maybe push thru some kind of judicial reform so that this never happens again.
     
    This. We need it in any case, terrorist attack or no. Time for Congress to put these unelected lords and ladies in their proper places.

    And the standard to remove any sitting Article III federal judge remains impeachment by Congress, basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.
     
    Cite? That's the "standard." What does the law say? The impression I get is that Congress can remove whomever they like, for whatever reasons they like.

    It’s in the Constitution and that’s what it says. A “high crime or misdemeanor” is whatever Congress says it is.

    Read More
  107. @Vinay
    "That if anybody anywhere wants to move to America for any reason, it would be racist to stop them."

    Steve, surely you recognize that Trump went out of his way to go to the other extreme. He seemed determined to find out whether you can stop people from coming to the US with virtually no justification.

    This isn't a criticism, it seems to be his style. Rather than just push the boundary of a taboo, he likes to start way out on the other side of the line. Which explains the initial decision to deliberately include green card holders and ambiguity about the status of dual citizens.

    He made it easy for the court -- all they had to decide was that you can't revoke visas en masse for no reason. It'll be interesting to see the end game.

    I don’t think he does need a reason. Not one he needs to explain to the judiciary, anyway, and with which they have to agree. But even so, he did give a reason: national security. Which is a stupid, blunt reason, but it has worked for a panoply of executive privileges, especially since the Cold War. Why doesn’t it work here? Why does the judiciary get to weigh in on policy decisions and demand further “reason” on the issue of immigration, in particular?

    Could it possibly be because their political opinions are in opposition to the president on this issue? Naw, that can’t be. Because they’re impartial, or something. Only the other two branches are political. Judges are objective; with us, but not of us. Like angels among men, almost.

    Read More
  108. @Svigor
    Congress should resize the 9th district to a single building. And then create a new district, covering the rest of the 9th's current territory, and pack it with new judges. They can do the same with other offending districts.

    Alternatively, they can start removing offending judges from the 9th district, and anywhere else.

    then he can pin the whole thing on the leftist court system and then maybe push thru some kind of judicial reform so that this never happens again.
     
    This. We need it in any case, terrorist attack or no. Time for Congress to put these unelected lords and ladies in their proper places.

    And the standard to remove any sitting Article III federal judge remains impeachment by Congress, basically they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.
     
    Cite? That's the "standard." What does the law say? The impression I get is that Congress can remove whomever they like, for whatever reasons they like.

    All federal courts save the federal supreme court can effectively be abolished by the legislature.

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish….

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    That’s all an academic question, though. Yesterday the federal judiciary wiped its ass with that document and, as an earliet commenter noted, invited a civil war.

    Read More
  109. @Corvinus
    "This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson’s refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia."

    No, it is not the equivalent. In the Jackson case, he defied a court order. His decision was unprecedented. Congress did not intervene in this matter, largely because they also agreed with Jackson's action, which was ultimately a dereliction of his duty to enforce the law of the land. In the immigration case, the Court's order is in line with past legal decisions when it comes to the war on terror. The DOJ is arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States on the basis to prevent terrorism, and that national security policies are unreviewable. Think about that point for a moment. The executive branch has the ultimate say on the war of terrorism. How has that worked out? The Court has the authority to review this particular decision in light of past cases involving terrorism. The DOJ stated there are "imminent threats" by incoming Muslims to carry out nefarious acts without submitting into evidence--as far as I know--that a single alien from any of the countries named in the order is prone to such conduct. Remember, the war on terrorism has been subject to Congressional consent and oversight. The Court is acting proper here given the nature of the legal argument.

    Personally, Congress should intervene. They should thoroughly rewrite the laws regarding immigration to reflect the current will of the people, mindful that there will be legal challenges.

    "If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A...."

    The question before the court is NOT that a "Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process", but whether the legal argument of the DOJ has merit and whether the ban is a religious litmus test.

    "If this situation persists, war is imminent."

    Are you ready to play soldier, dear? Go ahead.

    Having learned of your brilliance from experience, I didn’t read your drivel, but in skimming it I noted a challenge for me to “play soldier,” which reveals you don’t read my comments either. How many campaign medals do you have, asshole?

    I’m not twelve and Steve’s blog isn’t a schoolyard, so I’m leaving it at that and employing Mr. Unz’ software to make you effectively disappear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Having learned of your brilliance from experience, I didn’t read your drivel, but in skimming it I noted a challenge for me to “play soldier,” which reveals you don’t read my comments either.

    Dear, you read my comments and I read your comments.

    "How many campaign medals do you have, asshole?"

    Quite many actually.

    "I’m not twelve and Steve’s blog isn’t a schoolyard, so I’m leaving it at that and employing Mr. Unz’ software to make you effectively disappear."

    Well...bye.
  110. @Vinay
    "That if anybody anywhere wants to move to America for any reason, it would be racist to stop them."

    Steve, surely you recognize that Trump went out of his way to go to the other extreme. He seemed determined to find out whether you can stop people from coming to the US with virtually no justification.

    This isn't a criticism, it seems to be his style. Rather than just push the boundary of a taboo, he likes to start way out on the other side of the line. Which explains the initial decision to deliberately include green card holders and ambiguity about the status of dual citizens.

    He made it easy for the court -- all they had to decide was that you can't revoke visas en masse for no reason. It'll be interesting to see the end game.

    Steve, surely you recognize that Trump went out of his way to go to the other extreme. He seemed determined to find out whether you can stop people from coming to the US with virtually no justification.

    Maybe because we can keep anyone out for no reason at all at the theoretical level. At the practical level, the executive has pretty broad powers laid out by Congress. The courts have absolutely no say in this unless they can cite a statute that the EO violated. Even then, previous courts have been reluctant, and wisely so, to interfere.

    The TRO is a joke followed by the 9th supporting the joke. None of the plaintiffs have standing and none of their reasoning shows a violation of the law.

    Read More
  111. It’s in the Constitution and that’s what it says. A “high crime or misdemeanor” is whatever Congress says it is.

    High crimes and misdemeanors is in article two. More specifically, article three:

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    There need be no high crimes or misdemeanors. Not liking their faces, or any other reason, is good enough.

    A crazed foreign dictator sounds more sane than your own Federal judges.

    Amen.

    Thomas, feel free to side with the usurping judiciary, I’ll take the Constitution.

    Read More
  112. No, it is not the equivalent. In the Jackson case, he defied a court order. His decision was unprecedented. Congress did not intervene in this matter, largely because they also agreed with Jackson’s action, which was ultimately a dereliction of his duty to enforce the law of the land.

    The Executive has no duty to enforce unConstitutional “laws” or gov’t actions. E.g., the 9th’s bogus ban on clear Executive power. On the contrary, their duty is to neither respect, nor enforce them.

    P.S., “moderate” guy, when will you defend something other than leftwing behavior, or condemn something other than rightwing behavior? Either would be a first at TUR.

    Read More
  113. @Detective Club
    The charge that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is Lefty Lunatic is a slanderous one. Although it appears that foreign nationals can enter the United States unchallenged, the court's decision omits any mention of Extra Terrestrials, who are traveling without valid entry-visas. There is room to manoeuvre here.

    President Trump could still issue a travel-ban against Martians and Venusians, who might attempt to cross the US border without valid entry-visas, and it's even money that the 9th Circuit will back up President Trump to the hilt, in forbidding any strange looking group of Martians or Venusians from landing in New York without his written permission or say-so!

    Martians and Venusians are no doubt registered to vote in significant numbers in the great states of Washington, Oregon, California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, etc.

    Exit polls indicate that 99.99972% of extraterrestrials voted a straight Rat ticket.

    Hillary’s alleged majority of the popular vote is due in no small part to the steadfast support of extraterrestrials.

    Read More
  114. @Corvinus
    "This decision shocks the conscience. Make no mistake: it is the opposite number – the judicial, reciprocal equivalent – of Jackson’s refusal to enforce the decision in Worcester v. Georgia."

    No, it is not the equivalent. In the Jackson case, he defied a court order. His decision was unprecedented. Congress did not intervene in this matter, largely because they also agreed with Jackson's action, which was ultimately a dereliction of his duty to enforce the law of the land. In the immigration case, the Court's order is in line with past legal decisions when it comes to the war on terror. The DOJ is arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States on the basis to prevent terrorism, and that national security policies are unreviewable. Think about that point for a moment. The executive branch has the ultimate say on the war of terrorism. How has that worked out? The Court has the authority to review this particular decision in light of past cases involving terrorism. The DOJ stated there are "imminent threats" by incoming Muslims to carry out nefarious acts without submitting into evidence--as far as I know--that a single alien from any of the countries named in the order is prone to such conduct. Remember, the war on terrorism has been subject to Congressional consent and oversight. The Court is acting proper here given the nature of the legal argument.

    Personally, Congress should intervene. They should thoroughly rewrite the laws regarding immigration to reflect the current will of the people, mindful that there will be legal challenges.

    "If the federal supreme court does not recognise the glacial clarity of the controlling statute, and persist in torturing the federal constitution to produce the ludicrous mandate that a Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process regarding his desire to enter the U.S.A...."

    The question before the court is NOT that a "Yemeni in Yemen has a right to due process", but whether the legal argument of the DOJ has merit and whether the ban is a religious litmus test.

    "If this situation persists, war is imminent."

    Are you ready to play soldier, dear? Go ahead.

    but whether the legal argument of the DOJ has merit and whether the ban is a religious litmus test.

    It doesn’t matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens. There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason. Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are.

    Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?

    Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It doesn’t matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens.''

    The Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the standards for immigration, which meant that those standards could be changed by future generations. In 1790, the criteria was "free white persons of good character", which is other than surprising given the nature of the times. By the 1850's, nativists determined that newcomers who were Roman Catholic or Jewish need not apply, even though these two religious groups had been major players in the birth of our country, even though their ancestors had met the criteria. Would you have supported this "ban" as well?

    "There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason."

    That's not how the law, or executive decisions, or judicial cases operate. There will always be an explanation required.

    "Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are."

    Blame the Founding Fathers and their insistence for checks and balances.

    "Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?"

    Some Progs want any and all refugees. Moderates like myself say limit immigration, but no ban on Muslims. We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons--they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Use the current law to intensely vet newcomers. Use the current law to prosecute business owners who employ illegals.

    "Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage."

    Using your logic, those white Europeans from the South and East who escaped religious and political persecution were alway garbage. Would not this line of thinking be considered "anti-white"?

    Are you Italian? Slavic? Greek? Polish? German? Irish? If yes, you can leave. Your ancestors were not wanted.

  115. @JohnnyWalker123
    My favorite Amendment is the Second.

    The Second is the keystone. The rest ain’t squat without it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    "The Second Amendment is the bodyguard of all other rights." Anonymous.
  116. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The Second is the keystone. The rest ain’t squat without it.

    “The Second Amendment is the bodyguard of all other rights.” Anonymous.

    Read More
  117. A precedent for the Zeroth Amendment is Plyler v. Doe where the Supreme Court said that illegal immigrant children have a constitutional right to attend K12 public schools for free, and that the Texas law charging $1000 dollars a year was a violation of the 14th amendment. With Kennedy writing the majority decision in Obergefell (constitutional right to gay marriage), I wouldn’t put anything past this court. Also, Gorsuch/Roberts/Kennedy might be hungry for some of that strange new respect.

    Read More
  118. @eah
    No reasoning with that.

    https://twitter.com/JBurtonXP/status/829902076645883907

    I don’t know — maybe the 9th will one day rule on it.

    Read More
  119. @peterike

    but whether the legal argument of the DOJ has merit and whether the ban is a religious litmus test.
     
    It doesn't matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens. There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason. Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are.

    Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?

    Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage.

    “It doesn’t matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens.”

    The Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the standards for immigration, which meant that those standards could be changed by future generations. In 1790, the criteria was “free white persons of good character”, which is other than surprising given the nature of the times. By the 1850′s, nativists determined that newcomers who were Roman Catholic or Jewish need not apply, even though these two religious groups had been major players in the birth of our country, even though their ancestors had met the criteria. Would you have supported this “ban” as well?

    “There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason.”

    That’s not how the law, or executive decisions, or judicial cases operate. There will always be an explanation required.

    “Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are.”

    Blame the Founding Fathers and their insistence for checks and balances.

    “Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?”

    Some Progs want any and all refugees. Moderates like myself say limit immigration, but no ban on Muslims. We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons–they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Use the current law to intensely vet newcomers. Use the current law to prosecute business owners who employ illegals.

    “Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage.”

    Using your logic, those white Europeans from the South and East who escaped religious and political persecution were alway garbage. Would not this line of thinking be considered “anti-white”?

    Are you Italian? Slavic? Greek? Polish? German? Irish? If yes, you can leave. Your ancestors were not wanted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MG
    Islam is NOTHING like the cultures of Japan and China. It hasn't assimilated in a thousand years with every host culture it has imposed itself upon. Don't be so naïve.
    , @Chrisnonymous

    They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.
     
    This line of argument here or anywhere else in any form is fallacious. You have no idea what the world would be like if the US had continued as a WASP nation. Your selection of the present as the point on the timeline at which to make an observation is entirely arbitrary. And your criteria of judgement are unstated, but (I suspect) arbitrary and self-serving.
    , @Hail

    We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons–they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.
     
    Well it turned out "all right" specifically because of the ban. East Asians never presented a demographic threat after the ban (until very recently again, a process still slow-going except at the elite level, i.e. the "East Asian as the new Jew" idea written about here at Unz often).

    What would the world look like if Chinese and Greater East Asian immigration had not been cut off, but had reached the heights of Ellis Island immigration?

    A North America with more East Asians than its (400-year-running) Northwest European Core?

  120. @JohnnyWalker123
    My favorite Amendment is the Second.

    My favorite Amendment is the Second.

    I would clean it up a bit by removing the subordinate clause. Purely out of concern for all the stress and confusion it causes to the left, you understand.

    Just “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    They want ‘a living, breathing document’ – they should get it, good and hard.

    Read More
  121. Is there such a thing, legally, as ‘conspiracy to deny constitutional rights’?

    Analogous to the weasel tactics of the left to wield double-jeopardy against their opponents with ‘conspiracy to deny civil rights’.

    Imagine how they’d squeal when any organised attempts to deny 1st or 2nd amendment rights started landing people in actual jail.

    Perpetual defense hasn’t worked out so well for the right. More offence will be needed.

    Read More
  122. @Corvinus
    "It doesn’t matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens.''

    The Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the standards for immigration, which meant that those standards could be changed by future generations. In 1790, the criteria was "free white persons of good character", which is other than surprising given the nature of the times. By the 1850's, nativists determined that newcomers who were Roman Catholic or Jewish need not apply, even though these two religious groups had been major players in the birth of our country, even though their ancestors had met the criteria. Would you have supported this "ban" as well?

    "There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason."

    That's not how the law, or executive decisions, or judicial cases operate. There will always be an explanation required.

    "Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are."

    Blame the Founding Fathers and their insistence for checks and balances.

    "Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?"

    Some Progs want any and all refugees. Moderates like myself say limit immigration, but no ban on Muslims. We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons--they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Use the current law to intensely vet newcomers. Use the current law to prosecute business owners who employ illegals.

    "Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage."

    Using your logic, those white Europeans from the South and East who escaped religious and political persecution were alway garbage. Would not this line of thinking be considered "anti-white"?

    Are you Italian? Slavic? Greek? Polish? German? Irish? If yes, you can leave. Your ancestors were not wanted.

    Islam is NOTHING like the cultures of Japan and China. It hasn’t assimilated in a thousand years with every host culture it has imposed itself upon. Don’t be so naïve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Islam is NOTHING like the cultures of Japan and China."

    Nativists characterized Asian cultures as being barbaric. Why do you think laws were passed banning them? Were the nativists at that time wrong?

    "It hasn’t assimilated in a thousand years with every host culture it has imposed itself upon. Don’t be so naïve."

    You are the one who is ignorant.

    http://www.newsweek.com/do-muslims-easily-assimilate-american-society-509673
  123. @Thomas
    That may be true but one purpose of good lawyering is to leave as little opportunity for biased courts to do that, so they get smacked down at the next level of review. In this case, I was surprised that this was a per curiam opinion (issued on behalf of the entire panel without any separate opinions), that that Judge Clifton, the George W. Bush appointee who showed some sympathy with the government's case on a few points at the oral argument, didn't issue a separate opinion on any point. That sends a message.

    At some point, it becomes a question of basic competence. If Trump's administration isn't willing or able to handle the basics and work competently within the system as it exists, I'm not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts, and I imagine that other Republicans might not either.

    I’m not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts

    For better or worse, your country’s fate is for the moment inextricably entwined with that of the Trump administration. If they fail, you won’t have a country anymore, much less a constitution. Arguably, you already have no constitution, given how courts are now inventing laws out of thin air (gay marriage? right to abortion?) or abolishing laws they don’t like (the president’s right to exclude aliens from the nation).

    But you can go muh constitution all you like, there are guys like you all over the Western world, who care more for the already broken “rule of law” than the survival of their countries or ethnic groups.

    Those who value an already broken constitution over the survival of their people will be doomed to lose both.

    Read More
  124. Latest fighters against Trump’s immigration order: pediatricians, who insist that the current situation is just too traumatic for children (legal and not).

    I guess it’s racist for me to point out that my wife and I are legally responsible for the children we had together, so why aren’t illegals who chose to come here and chose to have children responsible for the situation they created?

    Read More
  125. On a somewhat-related topic: Do China’s Ghost Cities Offer a Solution for Syrian Refugees?

    In the comments:

    Author: “I asked many Chinese people with unoccupied homes if they would lend out their places to refugees and almost invariably they all said yes. Interesting”

    Nick: You probably already know this but because of “mian zi”, people in China will always give an answer (especially to white foreigners) that puts them in the best light. In reality, what they say and how they feel often has no connection whatsoever. I lived in China for a long time, my aunts/uncles, grandparents and extended family all live in China. I know very well that the majority of property owners in China would never lend out their places to Syrian refugees (not without a huge fee at least).

    If Chinese homeowners are perfectly willing to let migrant workers live in rat tribes, it is obvious they wouldn’t treat an “outsider” (especially one that is perceived to be of lower class) any better.

    Nevertheless, those same Chinese homeowners, if they got interviewed by a foreigner or someone they wanted to impress (who gave a sympathetic tone to the refugees – even subconsciously), I would also be very surprised if they gave an honest answer and said “No, screw the Syrians”.

    Remember, China is the land of half truths. You never take words at face value.

    Read More
    • Agree: Foreign Expert
    • Replies: @anon
    lol, already trying to minoritize the Chinese in China
  126. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Thomas
    That may be true but one purpose of good lawyering is to leave as little opportunity for biased courts to do that, so they get smacked down at the next level of review. In this case, I was surprised that this was a per curiam opinion (issued on behalf of the entire panel without any separate opinions), that that Judge Clifton, the George W. Bush appointee who showed some sympathy with the government's case on a few points at the oral argument, didn't issue a separate opinion on any point. That sends a message.

    At some point, it becomes a question of basic competence. If Trump's administration isn't willing or able to handle the basics and work competently within the system as it exists, I'm not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts, and I imagine that other Republicans might not either.

    I’m not prepared to bless his going Andy Jackson to squeeze the power of the courts

    You’ve made that clear – the question is how many Trump supporters feel differently.

    On a separate note – if the objections are on specific details could von Trump do a new one that gets round those objections by making the ban wider?

    Read More
  127. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Johann Ricke
    On a somewhat-related topic: Do China’s Ghost Cities Offer a Solution for Syrian Refugees?

    In the comments:

    Author: "I asked many Chinese people with unoccupied homes if they would lend out their places to refugees and almost invariably they all said yes. Interesting"

    Nick: You probably already know this but because of "mian zi", people in China will always give an answer (especially to white foreigners) that puts them in the best light. In reality, what they say and how they feel often has no connection whatsoever. I lived in China for a long time, my aunts/uncles, grandparents and extended family all live in China. I know very well that the majority of property owners in China would never lend out their places to Syrian refugees (not without a huge fee at least).

    If Chinese homeowners are perfectly willing to let migrant workers live in rat tribes, it is obvious they wouldn't treat an "outsider" (especially one that is perceived to be of lower class) any better.

    Nevertheless, those same Chinese homeowners, if they got interviewed by a foreigner or someone they wanted to impress (who gave a sympathetic tone to the refugees - even subconsciously), I would also be very surprised if they gave an honest answer and said "No, screw the Syrians".

    Remember, China is the land of half truths. You never take words at face value.
     

    lol, already trying to minoritize the Chinese in China

    Read More
  128. @Rifleman
    Might be worth a post:

    Bill Kristol: Lazy White Working Class Americans Should be Replaced by Immigrants

    https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/829676988302577669

    Note the fixation on the White working class and not the high percentage of black, American Indian and Latino citizens who are also "working class".

    It seems framing the issue around contempt for White America workers as in need of replacement is within the bounds of American discourse but showing similar contempt for other races of "working class" status is verboten.

    Kristol has put on a lot of avoirdupois! Trump’s election has had the opposite effect on him that it had on Ms Dunham.

    Read More
  129. @guest
    Columbia is "lesser"only compared to Harvard and Yale as an Insider school. I don't know about among the Ivies, which presumably still have social and financial cachet not directly related to government. But among the schools that have impact on actual policy, it leaves most of the others in the dust. Columbia is ground zero for our national nightmare known as edjukashun, and yugely involved in training the judicial oligarchy which rules over us all.

    Yep, Columbia’s journalism and education schools have produced many people who are part of the problem.

    Read More
  130. @Lovernios X
    I would think the best way to register disapproval would be for Congress to radically cut the 9th Circuit's budget. Reduce their pay to minimum wage and prohibit any outside income. Cut their staff to zero. Cut maintenance by half. Zero out the budget for supplies.

    Congress could also require all judges to be present in a specific location when deliberating. Force them to travel and have zero dollars allocated for travel in the budget.

    And for good measure, require them to wear harlequin robes, white grease paint, orange wigs and clown noses when holding hearings.

    Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lovernios X
    OK. So we'll just go with the clown suits, then. But I'll add floppy shoes and a rubber chicken for a gavel. Wait, that might violate cruel and unusual punishment.
  131. @Autochthon
    Holy shit, Whiskey, you are lucid deep down. I'd have never thunk it.

    Nah, whiskey just understands what “who/whom” means.

    And he’s smart enough to see thru all the fancy pants “don’t mind the man behind the curtain” theatrics.

    We live in a fascist oligarchy/plutocracy.

    But it’s a weird sort of police state because our law enforcement apparatus is decentralized. It’s just devolved enough to make you believe in the delusion of states rights and freedoms and all that libertarian hocus pocus mumbojumbo that deluded you into thinking you’re free when younarent.

    America is like Mexico now.

    In America freedom is money. If you ain’t got money then you ain’t got shit as my redneck relatives would say.

    You only truly have freedom in America if you have money and can pay off the crooked police state oligarchs

    Read More
  132. @Diversity Heretic
    Something tells me that you're not optimistic, Whiskey. But I'm inclined to agree--better start scouting that bolt hole now. Better if you've already picked it and made preparations.

    I plan on staying in society BUT I’m going to have a getaway in rural Kansas or some such….

    Read More
  133. @res
    If you are going to use quote marks (those are paraphrases, not actual quotes, right?) please give a time stamp so we can check. At 1:20 the interviewer says: "The question was, are some of these refugees in your view aligned with terrorists?"

    Given that, Assad's answer was a direct response to the question. Unlike US politicians who take any question as a license to talk about whatever spin they are trying to apply. What kind of answer were you looking for? How can Assad know if any given refugees are going to commit terror in the US? He can only know whether or not they have already in Syria.

    MG, good find. I especially liked the point about how few terrorists it takes to commit atrocities in response to the interviewer's attempt to talk about "significant numbers."

    I was paraphrasing their conversation.

    I disagree with your interpretation. I think it is obvious that the interviewer is trying to get Assad to address the issue of whether or not, among the refugees, there are people coming to commit acts of terror. Assad’s answer is that some of the people who fought his regime are now living peaceful lives in Europe. If he doesn’t know, a direct answer would be to say, “I don’t know.” His answer conflates rebels and terrorists. The Syrian rebels may not be our friends, but rebel does not equal terrorist.

    Assad may not answer like our politicians, but part of human conversation is understanding the point of a question and answering appropriately. The question was directed at the intentions of migrants and Assad gave an entirely self-absorbed answer about how terrible it is to oppose him.

    I reiterate my previous point, which was that Assad did not give us the answer we’d like, which of course would have been a soundbite in which he said, “Yes! The Syrian refugees are covering up the infiltration of terrorists into Europe and the US!” That would have been much more effective/helpful for us and for him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Assad has different interests.

    He doesn't want to bite Trump's hand but on the other he wants all the jihadists in Syria to go live somewhere else.

    It's like Saudi Arabia - they might be funding jihadists around the world to spread their version of Islam or it might be they're trying to send their dangerous radicals as far away as possible.

    The end result is the same but the motive is different.
  134. @Corvinus
    "It doesn’t matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens.''

    The Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the standards for immigration, which meant that those standards could be changed by future generations. In 1790, the criteria was "free white persons of good character", which is other than surprising given the nature of the times. By the 1850's, nativists determined that newcomers who were Roman Catholic or Jewish need not apply, even though these two religious groups had been major players in the birth of our country, even though their ancestors had met the criteria. Would you have supported this "ban" as well?

    "There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason."

    That's not how the law, or executive decisions, or judicial cases operate. There will always be an explanation required.

    "Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are."

    Blame the Founding Fathers and their insistence for checks and balances.

    "Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?"

    Some Progs want any and all refugees. Moderates like myself say limit immigration, but no ban on Muslims. We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons--they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Use the current law to intensely vet newcomers. Use the current law to prosecute business owners who employ illegals.

    "Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage."

    Using your logic, those white Europeans from the South and East who escaped religious and political persecution were alway garbage. Would not this line of thinking be considered "anti-white"?

    Are you Italian? Slavic? Greek? Polish? German? Irish? If yes, you can leave. Your ancestors were not wanted.

    They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    This line of argument here or anywhere else in any form is fallacious. You have no idea what the world would be like if the US had continued as a WASP nation. Your selection of the present as the point on the timeline at which to make an observation is entirely arbitrary. And your criteria of judgement are unstated, but (I suspect) arbitrary and self-serving.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This line of argument here or anywhere else in any form is fallacious. You have no idea what the world would be like if the US had continued as a WASP nation. Your selection of the present as the point on the timeline at which to make an observation is entirely arbitrary. And your criteria of judgement are unstated, but (I suspect) arbitrary and self-serving."

    Check out Asian-American test scores and contributions to our government and culture, then get back to us.

    "They [the Chinese] are a harmless race when white men either let them alone or treat them no worse than dogs, for they seldom think of resenting the vilest insults or the cruelest injuries. They are quiet, peaceable, free from drunkenness, and industrious as the day is long. So long as a Chinaman has strength to use his hands he needs no support from anybody; white men often complain of want of work, but a Chinaman offers no such complaint; he manages to find something to do."

    Mark Twain, Roughing It, (Chapter XIII, “The Gentle, Inoffensive Chinese”), 1871
  135. @Diversity Heretic
    Something tells me that you're not optimistic, Whiskey. But I'm inclined to agree--better start scouting that bolt hole now. Better if you've already picked it and made preparations.

    Actually, a semi-autonomous zone a la Spencer’s white homeland is not such a bad idea. Too bad Spencer is a joke and a “white nationalist” enclave would never fly with the powers that be.

    The model could be Indian Reservations. In addition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we add a Bureau of Founding Stock Affairs, a Bureau of Wretched Refuse Affairs, etc. Then the whites get permanent land grants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail

    a semi-autonomous zone a la Spencer’s white homeland
     
    Yes, they tried that once. The name given to it was the United States of America.
  136. @Thomas
    I'm worried that the rest of the Republican Party would be happy to let Trump fumble the immigration issue away permanently to the courts as a matter of Constitutional law and precedent, and will basically use him to get a few wish list items through and then be done with him. Once they get Gorsuch and maybe one more SCOTUS justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a big tax cut, a roll back of regulations, agencies they hate in chaos, and a rollback of Obamacare, they can toss Trump and the immigration issue out after one term (or less...) like a used Kleenex. Pence, just a heartbeat away, seems to be cozying up to Ryan and McConnell. It would hardly be a stretch watching politics the last two years to view such a scenario – Trump gives them 2 Supreme Court appointments, a tax cut, rolls back Obamacare and a bunch of regulations and agencies, permanently jams the borders wide open, and then just goes away – as the best of all possible worlds for the establishment GOP.

    I’m worried that the rest of the Republican Party would be happy to let Trump fumble the immigration issue away permanently to the courts as a matter of Constitutional law and precedent, and will basically use him to get a few wish list items through and then be done with him. Once they get Gorsuch and maybe one more SCOTUS justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a big tax cut, a roll back of regulations, agencies they hate in chaos, and a rollback of Obamacare, they can toss Trump and the immigration issue out after one term (or less…) like a used Kleenex.

    That all presumes they have principles. They support immigration because they want to get elected, and pro-immigration donors give them lots of money. But the point is to get elected. If they can get elected advocating other policies, then no problem.

    Read More
  137. @Chrisnonymous
    Actually, a semi-autonomous zone a la Spencer's white homeland is not such a bad idea. Too bad Spencer is a joke and a "white nationalist" enclave would never fly with the powers that be.

    The model could be Indian Reservations. In addition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we add a Bureau of Founding Stock Affairs, a Bureau of Wretched Refuse Affairs, etc. Then the whites get permanent land grants.

    a semi-autonomous zone a la Spencer’s white homeland

    Yes, they tried that once. The name given to it was the United States of America.

    Read More
  138. @Corvinus
    "It doesn’t matter if the ban is a religious test. These people are not citizens.''

    The Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the standards for immigration, which meant that those standards could be changed by future generations. In 1790, the criteria was "free white persons of good character", which is other than surprising given the nature of the times. By the 1850's, nativists determined that newcomers who were Roman Catholic or Jewish need not apply, even though these two religious groups had been major players in the birth of our country, even though their ancestors had met the criteria. Would you have supported this "ban" as well?

    "There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason."

    That's not how the law, or executive decisions, or judicial cases operate. There will always be an explanation required.

    "Zero reason in law; all kinds of reasons in the minds of SJW lunatics and activist traitor judges. But those people kind of run the show, for the most part. So here we are."

    Blame the Founding Fathers and their insistence for checks and balances.

    "Myself, I think Trump should stop all refugees, 100% of them. The Progs have no sense of magnitude about anything. They will scream just as much if Trump cuts out five refugees as they will if he cuts it to zero, so why not just go all the way?"

    Some Progs want any and all refugees. Moderates like myself say limit immigration, but no ban on Muslims. We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons--they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Use the current law to intensely vet newcomers. Use the current law to prosecute business owners who employ illegals.

    "Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage."

    Using your logic, those white Europeans from the South and East who escaped religious and political persecution were alway garbage. Would not this line of thinking be considered "anti-white"?

    Are you Italian? Slavic? Greek? Polish? German? Irish? If yes, you can leave. Your ancestors were not wanted.

    We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons–they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Well it turned out “all right” specifically because of the ban. East Asians never presented a demographic threat after the ban (until very recently again, a process still slow-going except at the elite level, i.e. the “East Asian as the new Jew” idea written about here at Unz often).

    What would the world look like if Chinese and Greater East Asian immigration had not been cut off, but had reached the heights of Ellis Island immigration?

    A North America with more East Asians than its (400-year-running) Northwest European Core?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well it turned out “all right” specifically because of the ban. East Asians never presented a demographic threat after the ban (until very recently again, a process still slow-going except at the elite level, i.e. the “East Asian as the new Jew” idea written about here at Unz often)."

    Nativists believed that Eastern and Southern Europeans presented a demographic threat, that is why they sought to limit Italians, Greeks, Poles, and Slavs from entering our shores.

    "What would the world look like if Chinese and Greater East Asian immigration had not been cut off, but had reached the heights of Ellis Island immigration?"

    An even more diversified nation. You seem to be obsessed with "population replacement". Is the average white American this neurotic on this subject as well, or is it part and parcel to the Alt Right?

    "A North America with more East Asians than its (400-year-running) Northwest European Core?"

    Not "Northwest European Core", but white European and African in the beginning, followed by Asian, and then culminating with Central/South America. Congress was blessed by the Founding Fathers to make the rules for citizenship, with future generations being able to change that criteria.
  139. @Jack D
    I think he was trying to emphasize that Gorsuch cannot be criticized based on a lack of intellectual credentials. Columbia undergrad (when Gorsuch went) was a lesser Ivy and Harvard Law is the more impressive credential, but for a Queens guy Columbia embodies intellectual respectability.

    I think he was trying to emphasize that Gorsuch cannot be criticized based on a lack of intellectual credentials. Columbia undergrad (when Gorsuch went) was a lesser Ivy and Harvard Law is the more impressive credential, but for a Queens guy Columbia embodies intellectual respectability.

    Thirty years ago the law school was clearly a top-5 school.

    Read More
  140. @MG
    Islam is NOTHING like the cultures of Japan and China. It hasn't assimilated in a thousand years with every host culture it has imposed itself upon. Don't be so naïve.

    “Islam is NOTHING like the cultures of Japan and China.”

    Nativists characterized Asian cultures as being barbaric. Why do you think laws were passed banning them? Were the nativists at that time wrong?

    “It hasn’t assimilated in a thousand years with every host culture it has imposed itself upon. Don’t be so naïve.”

    You are the one who is ignorant.

    http://www.newsweek.com/do-muslims-easily-assimilate-american-society-509673

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Nativists characterized Asian cultures as being barbaric. Why do you think laws were passed banning them? Were the nativists at that time wrong?
     
    you're blatantly lying now - the ban was more to do with them being competition
  141. @Hail

    We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons–they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.
     
    Well it turned out "all right" specifically because of the ban. East Asians never presented a demographic threat after the ban (until very recently again, a process still slow-going except at the elite level, i.e. the "East Asian as the new Jew" idea written about here at Unz often).

    What would the world look like if Chinese and Greater East Asian immigration had not been cut off, but had reached the heights of Ellis Island immigration?

    A North America with more East Asians than its (400-year-running) Northwest European Core?

    “Well it turned out “all right” specifically because of the ban. East Asians never presented a demographic threat after the ban (until very recently again, a process still slow-going except at the elite level, i.e. the “East Asian as the new Jew” idea written about here at Unz often).”

    Nativists believed that Eastern and Southern Europeans presented a demographic threat, that is why they sought to limit Italians, Greeks, Poles, and Slavs from entering our shores.

    “What would the world look like if Chinese and Greater East Asian immigration had not been cut off, but had reached the heights of Ellis Island immigration?”

    An even more diversified nation. You seem to be obsessed with “population replacement”. Is the average white American this neurotic on this subject as well, or is it part and parcel to the Alt Right?

    “A North America with more East Asians than its (400-year-running) Northwest European Core?”

    Not “Northwest European Core”, but white European and African in the beginning, followed by Asian, and then culminating with Central/South America. Congress was blessed by the Founding Fathers to make the rules for citizenship, with future generations being able to change that criteria.

    Read More
  142. @Chrisnonymous

    They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.
     
    This line of argument here or anywhere else in any form is fallacious. You have no idea what the world would be like if the US had continued as a WASP nation. Your selection of the present as the point on the timeline at which to make an observation is entirely arbitrary. And your criteria of judgement are unstated, but (I suspect) arbitrary and self-serving.

    “This line of argument here or anywhere else in any form is fallacious. You have no idea what the world would be like if the US had continued as a WASP nation. Your selection of the present as the point on the timeline at which to make an observation is entirely arbitrary. And your criteria of judgement are unstated, but (I suspect) arbitrary and self-serving.”

    Check out Asian-American test scores and contributions to our government and culture, then get back to us.

    “They [the Chinese] are a harmless race when white men either let them alone or treat them no worse than dogs, for they seldom think of resenting the vilest insults or the cruelest injuries. They are quiet, peaceable, free from drunkenness, and industrious as the day is long. So long as a Chinaman has strength to use his hands he needs no support from anybody; white men often complain of want of work, but a Chinaman offers no such complaint; he manages to find something to do.”

    Mark Twain, Roughing It, (Chapter XIII, “The Gentle, Inoffensive Chinese”), 1871

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The anti-Chinese movement was instigated and fronted by a Jew opposed to invading/inviting the world--

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_GompersGompers, like most labor leaders, opposed unrestricted immigration from Europe because it lowered wages. He strongly opposed all immigration from Asia because it lowered wages and represented, in his judgement, an alien culture that could not be easily assimilated.[20] He and the AFL strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that banned the immigration of Chinese. The AFL was instrumental in passing immigration restriction laws from the 1890s to the 1920s, such as the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, and seeing that they were strictly enforced. At least one study concludes that the link between the AFL and the Democratic Party rested in large part on immigration issues, as the owners of large corporations wanted more immigration and thus supported the Republican Party.[21]
     
    The Chinese were responsible for spreading the disease of opium use, which often led young people into prostitution, as Gompers correctly noted.
     The robber baron WASP capitalists were all in favour of immigration.
    , @anon

    Check out Asian-American test scores and contributions to our government and culture, then get back to us.
     
    what you're missing is white people are becoming a minority everywhere partly as a result of the actions of earlier high IQ immigrants

    so high IQ among immigrants on its own is not a good thing - it depends on what its paired with

    for example i've had numerous close south Asian friends over the years - all of them bright. i also know from other experiences that south Asians in business (on average) are wildly corrupt and fraudulent and far more so (on average) than the native white population.

    They are quiet, peaceable, free from drunkenness, and industrious as the day is long.
     
    right - they were seen as competition
  143. @Autochthon
    Having learned of your brilliance from experience, I didn't read your drivel, but in skimming it I noted a challenge for me to "play soldier," which reveals you don't read my comments either. How many campaign medals do you have, asshole?

    I'm not twelve and Steve's blog isn't a schoolyard, so I'm leaving it at that and employing Mr. Unz' software to make you effectively disappear.

    “Having learned of your brilliance from experience, I didn’t read your drivel, but in skimming it I noted a challenge for me to “play soldier,” which reveals you don’t read my comments either.

    Dear, you read my comments and I read your comments.

    “How many campaign medals do you have, asshole?”

    Quite many actually.

    “I’m not twelve and Steve’s blog isn’t a schoolyard, so I’m leaving it at that and employing Mr. Unz’ software to make you effectively disappear.”

    Well…bye.

    Read More
  144. @Jim Don Bob
    Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    OK. So we’ll just go with the clown suits, then. But I’ll add floppy shoes and a rubber chicken for a gavel. Wait, that might violate cruel and unusual punishment.

    Read More
  145. @Corvinus
    "This line of argument here or anywhere else in any form is fallacious. You have no idea what the world would be like if the US had continued as a WASP nation. Your selection of the present as the point on the timeline at which to make an observation is entirely arbitrary. And your criteria of judgement are unstated, but (I suspect) arbitrary and self-serving."

    Check out Asian-American test scores and contributions to our government and culture, then get back to us.

    "They [the Chinese] are a harmless race when white men either let them alone or treat them no worse than dogs, for they seldom think of resenting the vilest insults or the cruelest injuries. They are quiet, peaceable, free from drunkenness, and industrious as the day is long. So long as a Chinaman has strength to use his hands he needs no support from anybody; white men often complain of want of work, but a Chinaman offers no such complaint; he manages to find something to do."

    Mark Twain, Roughing It, (Chapter XIII, “The Gentle, Inoffensive Chinese”), 1871

    The anti-Chinese movement was instigated and fronted by a Jew opposed to invading/inviting the world–

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_GompersGompers, like most labor leaders, opposed unrestricted immigration from Europe because it lowered wages. He strongly opposed all immigration from Asia because it lowered wages and represented, in his judgement, an alien culture that could not be easily assimilated.[20] He and the AFL strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that banned the immigration of Chinese. The AFL was instrumental in passing immigration restriction laws from the 1890s to the 1920s, such as the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, and seeing that they were strictly enforced. At least one study concludes that the link between the AFL and the Democratic Party rested in large part on immigration issues, as the owners of large corporations wanted more immigration and thus supported the Republican Party.[21]

    The Chinese were responsible for spreading the disease of opium use, which often led young people into prostitution, as Gompers correctly noted.

    The robber baron WASP capitalists were all in favour of immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The anti-Chinese movement was instigated and fronted by a Jew opposed to invading/inviting the world..."

    Gompers was one of several Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, who sought stricter immigration laws. Why are you obsessed with Jews?

    "The Chinese were responsible for spreading the disease of opium use, which often led young people into prostitution, as Gompers correctly noted."

    Individuals made the choice to become addicted and become hookers.

    "The robber baron WASP capitalists were all in favour of immigration."

    Indeed, the backs of the immigrant helped to build this country by captains of industry.
  146. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Chrisnonymous
    I was paraphrasing their conversation.

    I disagree with your interpretation. I think it is obvious that the interviewer is trying to get Assad to address the issue of whether or not, among the refugees, there are people coming to commit acts of terror. Assad's answer is that some of the people who fought his regime are now living peaceful lives in Europe. If he doesn't know, a direct answer would be to say, "I don't know." His answer conflates rebels and terrorists. The Syrian rebels may not be our friends, but rebel does not equal terrorist.

    Assad may not answer like our politicians, but part of human conversation is understanding the point of a question and answering appropriately. The question was directed at the intentions of migrants and Assad gave an entirely self-absorbed answer about how terrible it is to oppose him.

    I reiterate my previous point, which was that Assad did not give us the answer we'd like, which of course would have been a soundbite in which he said, "Yes! The Syrian refugees are covering up the infiltration of terrorists into Europe and the US!" That would have been much more effective/helpful for us and for him.

    Assad has different interests.

    He doesn’t want to bite Trump’s hand but on the other he wants all the jihadists in Syria to go live somewhere else.

    It’s like Saudi Arabia – they might be funding jihadists around the world to spread their version of Islam or it might be they’re trying to send their dangerous radicals as far away as possible.

    The end result is the same but the motive is different.

    Read More
  147. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Corvinus
    "Islam is NOTHING like the cultures of Japan and China."

    Nativists characterized Asian cultures as being barbaric. Why do you think laws were passed banning them? Were the nativists at that time wrong?

    "It hasn’t assimilated in a thousand years with every host culture it has imposed itself upon. Don’t be so naïve."

    You are the one who is ignorant.

    http://www.newsweek.com/do-muslims-easily-assimilate-american-society-509673

    Nativists characterized Asian cultures as being barbaric. Why do you think laws were passed banning them? Were the nativists at that time wrong?

    you’re blatantly lying now – the ban was more to do with them being competition

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "you’re blatantly lying now – the ban was more to do with them being competition."

    The ban was multi-faceted. Besides economic competition, the perception of Chinese as deceitful, despotic, cruel, filthy, and intellectually inferior was prevalent among American at that time. Moreover, the Chinese were thought to be unworthy of American citizenship, and even a danger to the political and social integrity of America.

    "what you’re missing is white people are becoming a minority everywhere partly as a result of the actions of earlier high IQ immigrants."

    Undoubtedly, some of our immigrants possessed a high IQ. But what are the historical numbers here? That is, what is the breakdown? Certainly a man of your intellect would be able to specifically point out the average IQ for white Americans at 1700, 1750, and 1800.

    "i also know from other experiences that south Asians in business (on average) are wildly corrupt and fraudulent and far more so (on average) than the native white population."

    Anecdotal evidence on your part. Of course, you realize more whites commit white collar crimes than non-whites, according to FBI crime statistics. Must be inborn.
  148. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Corvinus
    "This line of argument here or anywhere else in any form is fallacious. You have no idea what the world would be like if the US had continued as a WASP nation. Your selection of the present as the point on the timeline at which to make an observation is entirely arbitrary. And your criteria of judgement are unstated, but (I suspect) arbitrary and self-serving."

    Check out Asian-American test scores and contributions to our government and culture, then get back to us.

    "They [the Chinese] are a harmless race when white men either let them alone or treat them no worse than dogs, for they seldom think of resenting the vilest insults or the cruelest injuries. They are quiet, peaceable, free from drunkenness, and industrious as the day is long. So long as a Chinaman has strength to use his hands he needs no support from anybody; white men often complain of want of work, but a Chinaman offers no such complaint; he manages to find something to do."

    Mark Twain, Roughing It, (Chapter XIII, “The Gentle, Inoffensive Chinese”), 1871

    Check out Asian-American test scores and contributions to our government and culture, then get back to us.

    what you’re missing is white people are becoming a minority everywhere partly as a result of the actions of earlier high IQ immigrants

    so high IQ among immigrants on its own is not a good thing – it depends on what its paired with

    for example i’ve had numerous close south Asian friends over the years – all of them bright. i also know from other experiences that south Asians in business (on average) are wildly corrupt and fraudulent and far more so (on average) than the native white population.

    They are quiet, peaceable, free from drunkenness, and industrious as the day is long.

    right – they were seen as competition

    Read More
  149. @anon

    Nativists characterized Asian cultures as being barbaric. Why do you think laws were passed banning them? Were the nativists at that time wrong?
     
    you're blatantly lying now - the ban was more to do with them being competition

    “you’re blatantly lying now – the ban was more to do with them being competition.”

    The ban was multi-faceted. Besides economic competition, the perception of Chinese as deceitful, despotic, cruel, filthy, and intellectually inferior was prevalent among American at that time. Moreover, the Chinese were thought to be unworthy of American citizenship, and even a danger to the political and social integrity of America.

    “what you’re missing is white people are becoming a minority everywhere partly as a result of the actions of earlier high IQ immigrants.”

    Undoubtedly, some of our immigrants possessed a high IQ. But what are the historical numbers here? That is, what is the breakdown? Certainly a man of your intellect would be able to specifically point out the average IQ for white Americans at 1700, 1750, and 1800.

    “i also know from other experiences that south Asians in business (on average) are wildly corrupt and fraudulent and far more so (on average) than the native white population.”

    Anecdotal evidence on your part. Of course, you realize more whites commit white collar crimes than non-whites, according to FBI crime statistics. Must be inborn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    The ban was multi-faceted.
     
    Your own quotes prove you're lying.
  150. @Sean
    The anti-Chinese movement was instigated and fronted by a Jew opposed to invading/inviting the world--

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_GompersGompers, like most labor leaders, opposed unrestricted immigration from Europe because it lowered wages. He strongly opposed all immigration from Asia because it lowered wages and represented, in his judgement, an alien culture that could not be easily assimilated.[20] He and the AFL strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that banned the immigration of Chinese. The AFL was instrumental in passing immigration restriction laws from the 1890s to the 1920s, such as the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, and seeing that they were strictly enforced. At least one study concludes that the link between the AFL and the Democratic Party rested in large part on immigration issues, as the owners of large corporations wanted more immigration and thus supported the Republican Party.[21]
     
    The Chinese were responsible for spreading the disease of opium use, which often led young people into prostitution, as Gompers correctly noted.
     The robber baron WASP capitalists were all in favour of immigration.

    “The anti-Chinese movement was instigated and fronted by a Jew opposed to invading/inviting the world…”

    Gompers was one of several Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, who sought stricter immigration laws. Why are you obsessed with Jews?

    “The Chinese were responsible for spreading the disease of opium use, which often led young people into prostitution, as Gompers correctly noted.”

    Individuals made the choice to become addicted and become hookers.

    “The robber baron WASP capitalists were all in favour of immigration.”

    Indeed, the backs of the immigrant helped to build this country by captains of industry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I'm merely pointing out that immigrants in organised labour were prime movers in immigration restriction on grounds that were perfectly free of racial prejudice, while wealthy WASP tycoons had the very best of selfish business reasons for bringing in immigrants and creating a pro immigration "huddled masses" intellectual climate.

    Cheap labour inhibits technological innovation. If they had been free to bring in all the Chinese and Japanese labour they wanted, business would have made vast profit at the cost of retarding the country's development.

  151. By the 1850′s, nativists determined that newcomers who were Roman Catholic or Jewish need not apply, even though these two religious groups had been major minor players in the birth of our country

    FIFY. (These things are relative. If Jews and Catholics had been “major” players, it would only make sense to call Protestants’ role “ginormously dominant players,” or some such. Silly to skew the language that way, when we can simply call the former “minor” players instead.)

    “There is absolutely ZERO reason to provide ANY explanation for a ban on anyone from anywhere for any reason.”

    That’s not how the law, or executive decisions, or judicial cases operate. There will always be an explanation required.

    “Cuz that’s the law” or “I campaigned on this promise, and the American people elected me” or “cuz I feel like it” are sufficient, yes. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Some Progs want any and all refugees. Moderates like myself say limit immigration, but no ban on Muslims. We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons–they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Japanese turned out to be all right, mostly because the aren’t all that interested in immigrating here. The jury’s still out on the Chinese. They don’t seem trustworthy enough to be trusted with state secrets, for example. They seem to have a fondness for selling them to China. And they seem to produce far more treacherous leftists, than they do loyal rightists. People like Yan Shen, who always think it’s time to urge “cognitive elitism” or the like. Personally, I think the world has enough Chinese (1.4 billion+), and giving them less-dense territory like the USA to expand into is a mistake.

    Use the current law to intensely vet newcomers.

    I think the whole idea of “vetting” immigrants from racially or culturally alien groups is flawed. I doubt it can be done. We should cut off all immigration, until we can figure out what’s going on.

    Use the current law to prosecute business owners who employ illegals.

    Amen to that.

    “Trump has to know that out of any given 10,000 refugees, maybe in a good week one will result in a useful citizen. If that. We should call them refuse-gees, because they are garbage.”

    Using your logic, those white Europeans from the South and East who escaped religious and political persecution were alway garbage. Would not this line of thinking be considered “anti-white”?

    How does that follow? Seems like more of your “an immigrant is an immigrant is an immigrant, from the beginning of time, to the end, Amen” mental tic. You should stop projecting your mental tics onto others.

    I’m glad to see you’ve slowed down on the ALL CAPS EMPHASIS and the like. Shows increasing maturity.

    Read More
  152. Reading Hail’s comment, I am reminded that the Chinese have never reciprocated our generous immigration policies toward them. I say we cut off all immigration from China, until they do. Meaning, after the moratorium on Chinese immigration, we should count how many Chinese immigrants were allowed to come here, over the years, and demand at least that many US immigrants of non-Chinese origin be allowed to immigrate to China. Until then, at least, the moratorium should stand.

    Check out Asian-American test scores and contributions to our government and culture, then get back to us.

    China herself would seem to be a much more relevant indicator. Communist party dictatorship, totalitarian gov’t, no rights to speak of, massive corruption. Not much to recommend the Chinese, really.

    Anecdotal evidence on your part. Of course, you realize more whites commit white collar crimes than non-whites, according to FBI crime statistics. Must be inborn.

    Given the differing population sizes, rates would be relevant, while a simple “more than” would not.

    Read More
  153. Some Progs want any and all refugees. Moderates like myself say limit immigration, but no ban on Muslims. We already had bans on the Chinese and Japanese for the SAME reasons–they are criminal, they are unassimilable, they take jobs away from Americans. They turned out to be ALL RIGHT.

    Why? Why do you say limit immigration? And what do you mean by “limit” immigration? Seems kind of open-ended and vague.

    P.S., you’re still not a moderate.

    Read More
  154. “The anti-Chinese movement was instigated and fronted by a Jew opposed to invading/inviting the world…”

    Gompers was one of several Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, who sought stricter immigration laws. Why are you obsessed with Jews?

    Turnabout is fair play, I suppose:

    By the 1850′s, nativists determined that newcomers who were Roman Catholic or Jewish need not apply, even though these two religious groups had been major minor players in the birth of our country, even though their ancestors had met the criteria. Would you have supported this “ban” as well?

    Jews were among many players in the founding of the US, and very minor ones at that. Why are you obsessed with Jews, Corvy?

    Read More
  155. @Corvinus
    "The anti-Chinese movement was instigated and fronted by a Jew opposed to invading/inviting the world..."

    Gompers was one of several Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, who sought stricter immigration laws. Why are you obsessed with Jews?

    "The Chinese were responsible for spreading the disease of opium use, which often led young people into prostitution, as Gompers correctly noted."

    Individuals made the choice to become addicted and become hookers.

    "The robber baron WASP capitalists were all in favour of immigration."

    Indeed, the backs of the immigrant helped to build this country by captains of industry.

    I’m merely pointing out that immigrants in organised labour were prime movers in immigration restriction on grounds that were perfectly free of racial prejudice, while wealthy WASP tycoons had the very best of selfish business reasons for bringing in immigrants and creating a pro immigration “huddled masses” intellectual climate.

    Cheap labour inhibits technological innovation. If they had been free to bring in all the Chinese and Japanese labour they wanted, business would have made vast profit at the cost of retarding the country’s development.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I’m merely pointing out that immigrants in organised labour were prime movers in immigration restriction on grounds that were perfectly free of racial prejudice..."

    It follows this pattern--Immigrants come to America. They are opposed by nativists on the grounds that they will take jobs and cannot be assimilated. Those immigrants eventually integrate. Then, those same immigrants who vehemently opposed nativism...become nativists themselves when other immigrants arrive.

    "while wealthy WASP tycoons had the very best of selfish business reasons for bringing in immigrants and creating a pro immigration “huddled masses” intellectual climate."

    The very best of business reasons to make America great by ensuring profitability on the backs of willing employees. Should not companies employ whatever methods they see fit to safeguard their property and resources? Does not regulating these businesses interfere with capitalistic enterprise?

    "Cheap labour inhibits technological innovation."

    Actually, the more money saved on labor, the more money that can be used to expand the business and innovate. Look at Carnegie and Rockefeller. They took their profits and became industrial titans by buying out competitors and retooling with industries with the latest technology.
  156. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Corvinus
    "you’re blatantly lying now – the ban was more to do with them being competition."

    The ban was multi-faceted. Besides economic competition, the perception of Chinese as deceitful, despotic, cruel, filthy, and intellectually inferior was prevalent among American at that time. Moreover, the Chinese were thought to be unworthy of American citizenship, and even a danger to the political and social integrity of America.

    "what you’re missing is white people are becoming a minority everywhere partly as a result of the actions of earlier high IQ immigrants."

    Undoubtedly, some of our immigrants possessed a high IQ. But what are the historical numbers here? That is, what is the breakdown? Certainly a man of your intellect would be able to specifically point out the average IQ for white Americans at 1700, 1750, and 1800.

    "i also know from other experiences that south Asians in business (on average) are wildly corrupt and fraudulent and far more so (on average) than the native white population."

    Anecdotal evidence on your part. Of course, you realize more whites commit white collar crimes than non-whites, according to FBI crime statistics. Must be inborn.

    The ban was multi-faceted.

    Your own quotes prove you’re lying.

    Read More
  157. @Sean
    I'm merely pointing out that immigrants in organised labour were prime movers in immigration restriction on grounds that were perfectly free of racial prejudice, while wealthy WASP tycoons had the very best of selfish business reasons for bringing in immigrants and creating a pro immigration "huddled masses" intellectual climate.

    Cheap labour inhibits technological innovation. If they had been free to bring in all the Chinese and Japanese labour they wanted, business would have made vast profit at the cost of retarding the country's development.

    “I’m merely pointing out that immigrants in organised labour were prime movers in immigration restriction on grounds that were perfectly free of racial prejudice…”

    It follows this pattern–Immigrants come to America. They are opposed by nativists on the grounds that they will take jobs and cannot be assimilated. Those immigrants eventually integrate. Then, those same immigrants who vehemently opposed nativism…become nativists themselves when other immigrants arrive.

    “while wealthy WASP tycoons had the very best of selfish business reasons for bringing in immigrants and creating a pro immigration “huddled masses” intellectual climate.”

    The very best of business reasons to make America great by ensuring profitability on the backs of willing employees. Should not companies employ whatever methods they see fit to safeguard their property and resources? Does not regulating these businesses interfere with capitalistic enterprise?

    “Cheap labour inhibits technological innovation.”

    Actually, the more money saved on labor, the more money that can be used to expand the business and innovate. Look at Carnegie and Rockefeller. They took their profits and became industrial titans by buying out competitors and retooling with industries with the latest technology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    It follows this pattern–Immigrants come to America. They are opposed by nativists on the grounds that they will take jobs and cannot be assimilated. Those immigrants eventually integrate. Then, those same immigrants who vehemently opposed nativism…become nativists themselves when other immigrants arrive.
     
    Actually the Apalachians, long established old Americans, where who the main genetic stock that eugenicists worried about. That is who the sterilisation laws were aimed at.

    Mexicans are probably not going to exceed poverty prone whites like the Appalachians. But for the sake of argument assume it works as you claim. Once assimilated their price will go up and it will be time for another bigger wave so the pattern is not recurring, but a pyramid scheme pattern which cannot end well, althoughou're seriously suggesting that no limits immigration is ultimately good for the workers if only they would just agree to it. Where are all the jobs coming from for this vast reserve army of the unemployed that is certainly going to be created by automation. The workers cannot simply be sent off to the knackers yard like draught horses were, and so its perfectly rational for them to think that immigration is just storing up trouble, and not in their interests.


    Actually, the more money saved on labor, the more money that can be used to expand the business and innovate. Look at Carnegie and Rockefeller. They took their profits and became industrial titans by buying out competitors and retooling with industries with the latest technology.
     
    Leaving aside the both titans did not compete fairly if they could not win, but rather succeeded by employing goon squads to destroy the competition and then the organisation of their workforce, nobody knows whether a reverse-Fordism idea of growth with low paid workers is true. It may apply globally where an elite are served by an international underclass. But the relevant classes are not yet helpless, and intent on defending the thing that defends them: their nation state.
  158. @anon

    The ban was multi-faceted.
     
    Your own quotes prove you're lying.

    All your lack of evidence are belong to us.

    Read More
  159. @Corvinus
    "I’m merely pointing out that immigrants in organised labour were prime movers in immigration restriction on grounds that were perfectly free of racial prejudice..."

    It follows this pattern--Immigrants come to America. They are opposed by nativists on the grounds that they will take jobs and cannot be assimilated. Those immigrants eventually integrate. Then, those same immigrants who vehemently opposed nativism...become nativists themselves when other immigrants arrive.

    "while wealthy WASP tycoons had the very best of selfish business reasons for bringing in immigrants and creating a pro immigration “huddled masses” intellectual climate."

    The very best of business reasons to make America great by ensuring profitability on the backs of willing employees. Should not companies employ whatever methods they see fit to safeguard their property and resources? Does not regulating these businesses interfere with capitalistic enterprise?

    "Cheap labour inhibits technological innovation."

    Actually, the more money saved on labor, the more money that can be used to expand the business and innovate. Look at Carnegie and Rockefeller. They took their profits and became industrial titans by buying out competitors and retooling with industries with the latest technology.

    It follows this pattern–Immigrants come to America. They are opposed by nativists on the grounds that they will take jobs and cannot be assimilated. Those immigrants eventually integrate. Then, those same immigrants who vehemently opposed nativism…become nativists themselves when other immigrants arrive.

    Actually the Apalachians, long established old Americans, where who the main genetic stock that eugenicists worried about. That is who the sterilisation laws were aimed at.

    Mexicans are probably not going to exceed poverty prone whites like the Appalachians. But for the sake of argument assume it works as you claim. Once assimilated their price will go up and it will be time for another bigger wave so the pattern is not recurring, but a pyramid scheme pattern which cannot end well, althoughou’re seriously suggesting that no limits immigration is ultimately good for the workers if only they would just agree to it. Where are all the jobs coming from for this vast reserve army of the unemployed that is certainly going to be created by automation. The workers cannot simply be sent off to the knackers yard like draught horses were, and so its perfectly rational for them to think that immigration is just storing up trouble, and not in their interests.

    Actually, the more money saved on labor, the more money that can be used to expand the business and innovate. Look at Carnegie and Rockefeller. They took their profits and became industrial titans by buying out competitors and retooling with industries with the latest technology.

    Leaving aside the both titans did not compete fairly if they could not win, but rather succeeded by employing goon squads to destroy the competition and then the organisation of their workforce, nobody knows whether a reverse-Fordism idea of growth with low paid workers is true. It may apply globally where an elite are served by an international underclass. But the relevant classes are not yet helpless, and intent on defending the thing that defends them: their nation state.

    Read More
  160. Actually, the more money saved on labor, the more money that can be used to expand the business and innovate. Look at Carnegie and Rockefeller. They took their profits and became industrial titans by buying out competitors and retooling with industries with the latest technology.

    Actually, the lower prevailing wages, the less incentive there is to innovate labor-saving technology. This should even be obvious to you.

    The very best of business reasons to make America great by ensuring profitability on the backs of willing employees. Should not companies employ whatever methods they see fit to safeguard their property and resources? Does not regulating these businesses interfere with capitalistic enterprise?

    Well, that’s capital’s line, anyway. The working class are better off with less immigration. This puts upward pressure on wages, which is good for the working class.

    But, congrats on siding with the plutocrats, I guess? Ride and die for that immigration.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.