The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump Speech Open Thread: Is Trump Going to Sell Out on Amnesty?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Your thoughts?

From the New York Times:

Trump Signals Drastic Shift on Immigrants

President Is Said to Be Open to Legal Status for Millions

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, MICHAEL D. SHEAR and PETER BAKER 23 minutes ago

In a meeting with television news anchors, President Trump is said to have expressed a willingness to grant legal status to undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious crimes.

It would be a sharp break from his previous hardline positions that were embraced by his core supporters and helped sweep him into the White House.

Update:

Screenshot 2017-02-28 20.01.00

 
Hide 234 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. okie says:

    I think the fact that he has guest in the gallery whose families were killed by illegals means he won’t sell out tonight. Will he sell out to get his infrastructure plan or trade adjustments, i’m far less confident about that.

    Read More
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/is-trump-going-to-sell-out-on-amnesty/#comment-1782513
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. me says:

    Of course.

    I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn’t have ‘Game’ but is 100% moral.

    It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

    That was the red flag.

    We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    I’m also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I’ve followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He’s a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don’t put that s— on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Troll: CK
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    We have to proceed on the assumption he will be the best chance we will get.
    , @unan
    relax heinrich.
    , @Guy de Champlagne

    We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

     

    And Kushner is the enemy because....what? he's jewish?
    , @(((Owen)))

    That was the red flag.
     
    The red flag is anti-Semitic agents provocateurs like you insulting Trump and trying to divide patriotic Americans. Your top agenda item is always the same: Deny the American nationalist agenda the Jewish intellects it needs to support its program by associating us with Nazis like you.

    And I expect that like most of your kind, you're really just an anti-American open borders hasbara. The Jews are all coming over to our side and you'd better just get used to it. Enjoy all the low-IQ Moslems you've invited into the country to run your side of the debate.
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    To me:

    If you're looking for "a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior", you will probably not find Him among the host of politicians, even those who are as apparently noble and well-intentioned as I feel Donald Trump is.

    You may have to seek elsewhere.

    , @Me
    You'll all find out the hard way.

    There are rules--literally set in stone--- to how this planet operates.

    Trump's grandchildren are the red flag and the breaking of the rules.

    End. Of.

    [I do agree though, he's the best chance we have and I hope I'm wrong. But I'd rather keep pissing on Trump and keeping his feet to the fire and making him feel guilty about his grandkids so that he'll feel shame enough to risk himself to help us.]

    Remember something everyone....

    Respect No One. There's not a gosh darn person on this entire planet I have respect for. Not One. Not Trump. No one.

    This is a good attitude to have because it makes people Do Stuff For You cuz they are constantly trying to Earn Your Respect but will Never Get It.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. TheBoom says:

    He has been hinting at it ever since the election with statements like we are going to working something out and you’ll be proud. If he does wimp out, it won’t buy him anything and will a huge nail in the coffin of the country.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator, MBlanc46
    • Replies: @bomag

    If he does wimp out, it won’t buy him anything and will a huge nail in the coffin of the country.
     
    Absolutely. If you give the other side anything, it is total flood gates. Trump has to go 100% against the usual suspects.
    , @Barnabas
    He is essentially holding globalism hostage. He could name his price.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. J1234 says:

    I just saw the news article from CNN. Wolf Blitzer said this all was coming from a briefing rather than a leak. There have been several times in the recent past were Trump says one thing on immigration and amnesty, then goes back to his original position. Some sort of psych out game. Or maybe he’s testing the water. At this point, my stomach’s not in a knot about it…as the source said Trump is “thinking about it.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. He sure doesn’t need to.

    If he is concerned about his popularity, there are other, less fundamental issues he can and should trade away

    These reports out today are very disturbing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. seth says:

    I’ve been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that’s a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    Read More
    • Agree: Luke Lea, Wade
    • Replies: @Rosie
    This! Trump should use the Dreamers as leverage.
    , @Opinionator
    Does he need to trade to get those things?

    And what about birthright citizenship and zeroing out legal immigration?

    None of the things itemized in my and your posts are "ideological".

    , @Ed
    Exactly. Right now Trump holds the trump card here. No need to cave on illegals but it's ok to signal willingness to compromise. If he was to support amnesty with nothing in exchange, I'd sit out in '20 and vote Dem for kicks in '18.
    , @E. Burke
    I don't mind giving relief to the so-called dreamers if it's part of a reform bill that funds the wall, ends birthright citizenship, ends chain migration, ends H-1b abuse and repatriates millions of illegals. Go for the low-hanging fruit, don't get caught up in a crusade for ideological purity.
    , @Jimi
    Enforcement first then amnesty for dreamers. The Left has adopted an open borders position. I believe they will accept what little amnesty Trump gives and then immediately renege of the enforcement portion of the deal. At a minimum we should fight for:

    - Construction of a wall

    - End birthright citizenship

    - Make e-verify mandatory

    - Severe punishments for employers of illegal immigrants

    - Cute legal immigration by half (per Cotton bill)
    , @JohnnyD
    @Seth,
    I think many Trump supporters would accept a deal like that. The problem is that the left/Democrats would never accept it. They basically want a complete amnesty and unlimited immigration. They've gotten to the point where they think it's a crime against humanity to have any type of border and immigration enforcement.
    , @MBlanc46
    But we'll vey likely get very little of that.
    , @Bill
    Hey, kinda like what Reagan did in 1986! What a great idea!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Sunbeam says:

    If he does, he’s over. As far as I’m concerned anyway.

    Maybe he does good things, maybe not. But any support I have for him personally goes away.

    If you can’t trust him on that, well what is he going to follow through on? Think we’ll say goodbye to this asinine empire? Hope so, but if he caves on this, why believe he’ll do anything?

    If he does I think the reality of being another interest group in a nonsensical collection of interest groups with no ties or loyalties to the other groups should become apparent. Then we need to do the usual. It’s not like we don’t have plenty of examples of this sort of thing worldwide to study to see a good roadmap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. @me
    Of course.

    I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn't have 'Game' but is 100% moral.

    It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

    That was the red flag.

    We're looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don't hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    I'm also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I've followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He's a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don't put that s--- on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

    We have to proceed on the assumption he will be the best chance we will get.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. D. K. says:

    He already has sold out by not rescinding the patently unconstitutional DACA executive order, which he and his own campaign’s Web site promised to do “immediately,” if and when he took office. It is clear to me, from his recent comments, including at his otherwise-hilarious news conference, earlier this month, that he now has neither the intention nor the desire to rescind Obama’s order, let alone to send its beneficiaries packing for their respective homelands. How far his betrayal of his voting base will go remains to be seen; I, for one, am neither amused nor optimistic. When he made a spontaneous comment, in late January or early February, about wanting to hear a senator’s ideas about “comprehensive immigration reform,” it was quite apparent that his desire to get along with his party’s establishment, now that he was safely (?) in office, meant that he was willing to consider, at least, betraying his main campaign promise on immigration (“they [the illegals] have to go!”), assuming that his 2016 voters will have nowhere else to go, come 2020.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    P.S. I wrote that before even seeing that "New York Times" blurb! I get tired of having to point out to others, but: the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are unprosecuted felons! "They come here to work" is the standard defense of illegal aliens, both from highly placed shills and from lowly placed proles. Well, guess what, kids? In order to work without legal authorization, an illegal alien needs either to engage in identity fraud-- which is a federal felony-- or to work "under the table"-- which entails tax evasion, as a direct result, which means multiple and ongoing felonies. On top of those realities, the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are young men. Young men-- including even illegal aliens-- are required to register with Selective Service, as I was required to do, back in the autumn of 1974. Failure to do so also is a serious felony. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the percentage of illegal aliens complying with the Selective Service Act is vanishingly small. If President Trump considers federal felonies not to be serious crimes, so long as they do not involve actual violence, he is unfit to hold the office to which I, for better and worse, helped to elect him, last November 8.
    , @Autochthon
    Like other folks, I am unable to agree, disagree, etc. and I've beem unable to for days now. Anyhow, I agree.

    This issue was the only one that mattered for millions of us who realise demography is destiny; failure to address the national question makes all else irrelevant, because it makes all other decisions and policies academic decisions and policies about some other nation – we may as well debate how Mexico, China, or India should be spending on defense or managing infrastructure, because we will be, having handed over the territory and all its resources to them.

    I will travel the remaining five per cent or so of the ideological distance remaining toward living as off the grid as I can, with as little interaction with a traitorous and hostile government and populace as possible, seeking what comfort and support as I can find among a small communiry of other oppressed and disposessed persons. With the exception that we are too few to actually offer any meaningful, physical resistance we will be as was de Gaulle under the Vichy regime: an abandoned and disempowered group doing our best to survive as we can, no different than Kurds in Iraq, Copts in Egypt, or the Ainu in Japan.

    Truly, the imminent betrayal I fear is terrible, but by now unsurprising, news.

    I've never wanted to be wrong about something more in my life.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. unan says:
    @me
    Of course.

    I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn't have 'Game' but is 100% moral.

    It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

    That was the red flag.

    We're looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don't hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    I'm also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I've followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He's a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don't put that s--- on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

    relax heinrich.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. JohnnyD says:

    Last August, Trump was supposedly going to sell out, but then he made that triumph visit to Mexico and deliver his best speech about immigration. I imagine that Bannon wants Trump to remain tough on immigration and defy the leftist media, while some people on his staff (his daughter and son-law, Reince Priebus, and Kellyanne Conway) want Trump to soften his stance. Hopefully, Trump realizes that he’ll essentially lose his whole base if he goes soft on illegal immigrants. They’ll forgive him for not completely repealing Obamacare or for tolerating LGBT bullies, but not for betraying them on the immigration issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Hopefully, Trump realizes that he’ll essentially lose his whole base if he goes soft on illegal immigrants.
     
    Not just illegal.

    The pause is happening, with or without Trump.
    , @Mike Street Station

    Last August, Trump was supposedly going to sell out, but then he made that triumph visit to Mexico and deliver his best speech about immigration.
     
    I had a knot in my stomach that day because I thought I was about to be betrayed...
    ...and then wasn't!

    So I feel like I've heard this before. Trump trolling the media and establishment on what is to them, their most important issue. However one can hardly imagine the pressure Trump is under over this one issue. I imagine every phone call with Paul Ryan begins with his plea that Trump can get everything he wants if he just cracks on immigration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. That sounds crazy. People who commit “serious crimes” aren’t welcome regardless of citizenship or nationality. Even native born citizens with native born citizen parents who commit “serious crimes” aren’t welcome. That is a rhetorical trick to say that illegal immigrants need to play by the same rules as citizens and to blur the distinction.

    Even nice, completely law abiding people, who don’t serve the interests of the incumbent citizenry shouldn’t get the privilege of living in the US.

    I’m sympathetic with lawful, employed illegal immigrants. I’m also sympathetic to the many global poor who literally live at garbage landfills and scavenge for a living. I’d like to see someone help the latter the most.

    The US does not have any obligation to grant foreigners the chance and privilege to live in the US.

    The 2016 NAS immigration report says that many low skill immigrants consume far more in public services than they pay in taxes. Of course, native born citizens consume more in services, due to the federal deficit, but immigrants, including legal immigrants, statistically pose a much larger burden:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440305/united-states-immigration-policy-economic-fiscal-impact-education-native-born

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. A lot of people, including me, will be sitting out 2020 if he does screws us on immigration.

    I want about 40 million people to go home. Now.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    I want about 40 million people to go home. Now.
     
    I pretty much want everyone out who doesn't have an ancestor who was here earlier than David Brooks' earliest ancestor.

    (That would mean sending home my wife ... but it would be worth it ;-). Heck, i'd volunteer to get booted out if i could drag Brooks, Rubin, Zuckersperg and all their ilk with me. At least my kids would have a nation.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Amasius says:

    He’s faked us out before, but I’m pessimistic now. He’s already given away the moral high ground by continuously propounding the notion that illegals aren’t “criminals” unless they commit additional crimes on top of the crimes of invading and occupying our country. If they’re “good people” why not give them a paper and make them legal? If you’re not ever going to deport them and their kids are all “citizens,” what are you going to do, just warehouse them in limbo until they die? The country is finished anyway, what the hell.

    Watch him get called Hitler even after he amnesties 39 million (40 million minus 1 million “criminals who are going out so fast your head’ll spin”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Probably. But then I didn’t think he would win.

    He’s a corporatist, anti racist, they can come they just have to come LEGALLY douche.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Ed says:

    I think this is an example of rushing out a story with out getting the full details. Also Trump’s inability to speak clearly.
    Looks like he was speaking of DREAMers and he’d consider it if they left & came back.

    I’ve maintained all along that Trump is willing to do an amnesty in exchange for changes to legal immigration. I’d take a limited amnesty( no path to citizenship but work documents) in exchange for repealing 1965 law & birthright citizenship changes. You don’t bring along a Miller/Bannon/Session in just for kicks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Rosie says:
    @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    This! Trump should use the Dreamers as leverage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    Does he need to trade to get those things?

    And what about birthright citizenship and zeroing out legal immigration?

    None of the things itemized in my and your posts are “ideological”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski
    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court willing to expansively interpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the Citizenship Clause's original intended meaning, which is absurd. Plenty of children of illegal immigrants are in jail, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction, as are plenty of illegal immigrants.
    , @Anonymous
    Birthright citizenship needs to end.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Hunsdon says:

    Oh shit, I guess it’s time for us to give up.

    Again.

    Look, he may end up being a huge disappointment, he might toss us over the side in a heartbeat . . . but he hasn’t yet. It’s barely over a month in to the term, and he’s fighting on multiple fronts against zealous and committed enemies. But don’t clutch your pearls and feel faint the first time some rumor surfaces. Wait until the rumors are stories and then the stories are fact, and then wait and see how it shakes out. Remember how Elliott Abrams was going to nest in the State Department? Yeah, how’d that turn out? Remember how Mitt was going to be Secretary of State? Yeah . . . how’d that turn out again? Remember how he’s Netanyahu’s shabbos goy and will carry water for the Zio-Globalists? Hmm, “continued settlements are not helpful to the peace process.”

    Don’t go wobbly on me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    The zipper mask contingent is pretty strong here.

    People (including Steve) keep reaching for any reason to quit. Easier to post pithy blog posts than actually work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Jacobite says:

    I have thought from the start that he was taking an extreme line on immigration as a starting negotiating position with the open borders crowd. He certainly has explicitly advocated and claimed use of this type of tactic in The Art of the Deal.

    He would cave on amnesty in return for an increase in the number of Border Patrolman and ICE agents and most importantly, employer sanctions against hiring illegals with real teeth this time rather than the ineffectual provisions of Reagan’s amnesty bill. Whether this will actually happen remains to be seen as the Republicans in Congress are, as always and ever, all in for cheap labor and the Democrats are becoming increasingly deranged with explicit racial hatred for white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I have thought from the start that he was taking an extreme line on immigration as a starting negotiating position with the open borders crowd. He certainly has explicitly advocated and claimed use of this type of tactic in The Art of the Deal.

    He would cave on amnesty in return for an increase in the number of Border Patrolman and ICE agents and most importantly, employer sanctions against hiring illegals with real teeth this time rather than the ineffectual provisions of Reagan’s amnesty bill.


    If this is his strategy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be softening at this time.

    Besides, there are signs that the perception of his being a hardliner is already causing aliens here to voluntarily repatriate and ones who might otherwise break in to our country to stay at home. Why remove that impetus now, when it may be working to reduce the magnitude of the problem. Simply making illegal aliens feel unwelcome as a moral matter--rather than welcome--will have some effect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. notsaying says:

    I myself assume we will end up legalizing the illegal immigrants we have — when that legalization occurs as the final act of a whole lot of other acts and new laws.

    But going for a big Grand Compromise on Immigration is way premature.

    Trump is just beginning to apply pressure and has only issued Executive Orders about immigration, not proposed and passed new laws.

    I sure hope he’s not going to let us know by putting the end at the beginning. If this is it, we are doomed. We will not get rid of automatic birthright citizenship for all, including illegal immigrants and people here as students and vacationers, we will not greatly reduce future LEGAL immigration, which is the most important thing that has to be done, in my opinion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Ed says:
    @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    Exactly. Right now Trump holds the trump card here. No need to cave on illegals but it’s ok to signal willingness to compromise. If he was to support amnesty with nothing in exchange, I’d sit out in ’20 and vote Dem for kicks in ’18.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @JohnnyD
    Last August, Trump was supposedly going to sell out, but then he made that triumph visit to Mexico and deliver his best speech about immigration. I imagine that Bannon wants Trump to remain tough on immigration and defy the leftist media, while some people on his staff (his daughter and son-law, Reince Priebus, and Kellyanne Conway) want Trump to soften his stance. Hopefully, Trump realizes that he'll essentially lose his whole base if he goes soft on illegal immigrants. They'll forgive him for not completely repealing Obamacare or for tolerating LGBT bullies, but not for betraying them on the immigration issue.

    Hopefully, Trump realizes that he’ll essentially lose his whole base if he goes soft on illegal immigrants.

    Not just illegal.

    The pause is happening, with or without Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @me
    Of course.

    I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn't have 'Game' but is 100% moral.

    It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

    That was the red flag.

    We're looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don't hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    I'm also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I've followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He's a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don't put that s--- on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

    We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    And Kushner is the enemy because….what? he’s jewish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Possibly he called Kushner the enemy because Kushner is close to Ryan and may be a counterweight to Bannon.
    , @D. K.
    The Kushner family has been a Democratic Party backer for generations. Ivanka could not vote for her own father in last year's New York primary-- because she was not registered in time as a Republican!
    , @Kyle a
    No. Because he's circumcised.
    , @Anon
    You must be new to this stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. The most likely trajectory was always Schwarzenegger’s governorship in Cali.

    Real Change comes when we the people change, and not before, whoever’s ostensibly in charge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. D. K. says:
    @D. K.
    He already has sold out by not rescinding the patently unconstitutional DACA executive order, which he and his own campaign's Web site promised to do "immediately," if and when he took office. It is clear to me, from his recent comments, including at his otherwise-hilarious news conference, earlier this month, that he now has neither the intention nor the desire to rescind Obama's order, let alone to send its beneficiaries packing for their respective homelands. How far his betrayal of his voting base will go remains to be seen; I, for one, am neither amused nor optimistic. When he made a spontaneous comment, in late January or early February, about wanting to hear a senator's ideas about "comprehensive immigration reform," it was quite apparent that his desire to get along with his party's establishment, now that he was safely (?) in office, meant that he was willing to consider, at least, betraying his main campaign promise on immigration ("they [the illegals] have to go!"), assuming that his 2016 voters will have nowhere else to go, come 2020.

    P.S. I wrote that before even seeing that “New York Times” blurb! I get tired of having to point out to others, but: the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are unprosecuted felons! “They come here to work” is the standard defense of illegal aliens, both from highly placed shills and from lowly placed proles. Well, guess what, kids? In order to work without legal authorization, an illegal alien needs either to engage in identity fraud– which is a federal felony– or to work “under the table”– which entails tax evasion, as a direct result, which means multiple and ongoing felonies. On top of those realities, the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are young men. Young men– including even illegal aliens– are required to register with Selective Service, as I was required to do, back in the autumn of 1974. Failure to do so also is a serious felony. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the percentage of illegal aliens complying with the Selective Service Act is vanishingly small. If President Trump considers federal felonies not to be serious crimes, so long as they do not involve actual violence, he is unfit to hold the office to which I, for better and worse, helped to elect him, last November 8.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Very good points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    He probably intends to legalize immigrant children who have been raised in the US for most of their lives. I don’t care for it, but from a practical point of view, I understand why he would do it. The problem is, we don’t need any more of them, and I’d like a lot fewer. As for their parents, he may take a hard line and say they have to apply for citizenship. After all, they’re the ones who chose to break the law, not their kids, so it’s appropriate to make the parents jump through hoops for green cards or permanent resident status. I’d much rather we grant permanent resident status to the kids instead of granting them citizenship, because we really need to make citizenship a rare thing that’s hard to get, not hand it out to the rest of the world so easily. Permanent residents should be required to pay taxes, but they shouldn’t be eligible for social security or welfare benefits.

    All in all, I’d love to see all persons with illegal status deported, but the top priority would be any illegal who’s committed a crime; any person on welfare; any person who’s registered to vote who isn’t a citizen; any person using someone else’s social security numbers or their ID because that can cause the real person a lot of trouble; any person taking scholarship money that ought to go to a real US citizen; anyone running up expensive medical costs in our healthcare system that they can’t pay; people taking out loans they can’t pay because if they do it en masse, they can cause our banks to fail; and finally, any illegal who writes pro-immigrant articles for our press anywhere. All of these people are nothing but a lot of hassle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    Permanent residents should be required to pay taxes…
     
    They should be required to earn enough to pay taxes, i.e., belong to Romney's 53%. That alone would cut the numbers; how many already do?

    …immigrant children who have been raised in the US for most of their lives.
     
    Whether or not they are US citizens, every single one under the age of eighteen possesses citizenship of another country. So those kids have an advantage native Americans don't.

    And don't tell me young, energetic people fluent in American English have no prospects back home. They're an élite the moment they land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. After many peremogas we get the first zrada. (Okay, not the first. There was also the hardline anti-Iran stance, and purge of Flynn).

    Meh. Was getting tired of winning so much anyway.

    Need to take a breather, recharge HIGH ENERGY, vitalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. President Trump won the election on a promise to deport illegal aliens, reduce legal immigration and build a wall on the border between the United States and Mexico.

    President Trump’s immigration policy section on his campaign internet web site stated that we need a pause in immigration to increase wages for US workers. President Trump should stick to his stated campaign goals and not pull a bait and switch on the American people.

    I hope Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Ann Coulter tell President Trump to stop the weak cowardly bullshit about giving legal status to illegal alien invaders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    "President Trump won the election on a promise to deport illegal aliens, reduce legal immigration and build a wall on the border between the United States and Mexico."

    True, but another very important point was that he was eager to improve relations with Russia and bring troops home from Europe and Korea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Rosie says:

    How about a White Congressional Congress in exchange for DACA. After all, if this is not “our” country, then we are just another minority entitled to all the privileges of self-assertion other groups enjoy. If Trump goes back on his promises to us, this is the idea we need to push into the mainstream.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Crank says:

    Seems like a fabricated rumor designed to rile up the lefty base after he doesn’t come through. Gives them encouragement to keep up the pressure. Either that or it’s a phony rumor circulated by Trump’s team to bate the media into providing lots of coverage for whatever it is he’s going to say.

    Wouldn’t surprise me if he did something like that well into the future – maybe in his second term (if there is one), but certainly not in his second month.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Halvorson says:

    It probably won’t happen tonight. Here’s the exact quote from Politico:

    Another person in the meeting said Trump said Dreamers “will be just fine” and noted that his position has “softened” and that there needs to be “a softening on both sides.” Asked if he was going to talk about immigration in his Tuesday night address, Trump said he wasn’t sure and asked Hope Hicks, the White House strategic communications director, to remind him later to consider adding it in.

    So there is nothing definite on the table, just vague talk of softness at some point in the future. Trump is probably pro-amnesty privately, but I still have a lot of faith in his circle of advisers and in Jeff Sessions. Such a quick surrender would be politically very stupid and I think Trump will be talked out of it as he was in the home stretch of the campaign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    It's said of Trump that he likes to curry favor with the audience in front of him. The media is distressed about the fate of illegals so he threw them some crumbs.

    Go by what is being done not what is said. ICE is ramping up, eager to go. Sympathetic illegals are still getting deported even after their heart string stories are published in sympathetic media.

    I could see Trump sayinf on one hand I'm willing to compromise but until then I'll enforce the law. This puts the pressure on Congress and GOP will melt from all of the phone calls/Rush/Drudge etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Kirt says:

    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    I wouldn't be so sure about that...millions of Native Born White Americans are going to be confronted with the following question:just what exactly are you willing to give up for being a racial minority in post-white toilet "America"...they are going to have to give up everything...
    , @Daniel Williams

    When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?
     
    In living memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
    , @Crank
    @Kirt
    While that may be true, that doesn't mean that they should be granted citizenship or even legal resident status.
    , @Opinionator
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    Many will return the same way they came. The government has a number of levers it can use, aside from mass deportation, to persuade them to return to their own countries. Sporadic, stepped up deportations (analogous to the threat of IRS audit) are one such tool, and there are others that do not involve physical deportation by the fed gov.
    , @27 year old
    >When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    When has mass invasion on this scale ever occurred in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?
    , @Guy de Champlagne
    That's why self deportation is the right strategy. You fine their employers so that they can't get jobs, fine their landlords so that they can't find housing, fine their banks and money transfer services so that they can't send money home, fine their colleges and other non profits that aid and abet them, cut off what government services you can, and supplement that with deportations, especially high profile ones, and illegal immigrants will silently leave in massive numbers.

    And if you do it right it won't end up costing anything.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country."

    That is simply ridiculous. Of course he could deport 11 million people. Eisenhower deported a million illegal aliens in 1954 alone, during "Operation Wetback". "Killing Thousands"? How is putting them on a bus killing them? "Igniting guerrilla warfare"? Nonsense. The only people capable of carrying out guerilla warfare in this country are the people who want the illegals deported.

    Get a grip, man.
    , @Buck Turgidson
    Could someone define "mass deportation" for me? I would like to know the number of illegals, and the time window, that would classify deportations (upholding of immigration law) as "mass." This is a scary, boogeyman term the media loves using, along with 'maverick' 'firebrand' 'controversial' 'far right' and 'crackdown' on immigration law enforcement and enforcers. OK, I got it, the media hates enforcement of immigration law, ho hum. Myself, I am all in for any and all kinds of deportations/upholding of US immigration law. But perhaps someone could define the parameters so we know what we are talking about. If the idea is that we aren't going to deport 30 million people by next weekend, that does not sound feasible but I would be delighted to see it happen. I also am not buying an assertion that thousands of people have to be killed in order to see significant deportations? Why, exactly, are people going to die? That sounds like something only a NYT writer could conjure up. Laws are laws and the voters and workers in this country want to see them enforced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What a cuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Jacobite
    I have thought from the start that he was taking an extreme line on immigration as a starting negotiating position with the open borders crowd. He certainly has explicitly advocated and claimed use of this type of tactic in The Art of the Deal.

    He would cave on amnesty in return for an increase in the number of Border Patrolman and ICE agents and most importantly, employer sanctions against hiring illegals with real teeth this time rather than the ineffectual provisions of Reagan's amnesty bill. Whether this will actually happen remains to be seen as the Republicans in Congress are, as always and ever, all in for cheap labor and the Democrats are becoming increasingly deranged with explicit racial hatred for white people.

    I have thought from the start that he was taking an extreme line on immigration as a starting negotiating position with the open borders crowd. He certainly has explicitly advocated and claimed use of this type of tactic in The Art of the Deal.

    He would cave on amnesty in return for an increase in the number of Border Patrolman and ICE agents and most importantly, employer sanctions against hiring illegals with real teeth this time rather than the ineffectual provisions of Reagan’s amnesty bill.

    If this is his strategy, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to be softening at this time.

    Besides, there are signs that the perception of his being a hardliner is already causing aliens here to voluntarily repatriate and ones who might otherwise break in to our country to stay at home. Why remove that impetus now, when it may be working to reduce the magnitude of the problem. Simply making illegal aliens feel unwelcome as a moral matter–rather than welcome–will have some effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Not Raul says:
    @Guy de Champlagne

    We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

     

    And Kushner is the enemy because....what? he's jewish?

    Possibly he called Kushner the enemy because Kushner is close to Ryan and may be a counterweight to Bannon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    These days, Bannon is close to Ryan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @JohnnyD
    Last August, Trump was supposedly going to sell out, but then he made that triumph visit to Mexico and deliver his best speech about immigration. I imagine that Bannon wants Trump to remain tough on immigration and defy the leftist media, while some people on his staff (his daughter and son-law, Reince Priebus, and Kellyanne Conway) want Trump to soften his stance. Hopefully, Trump realizes that he'll essentially lose his whole base if he goes soft on illegal immigrants. They'll forgive him for not completely repealing Obamacare or for tolerating LGBT bullies, but not for betraying them on the immigration issue.

    Last August, Trump was supposedly going to sell out, but then he made that triumph visit to Mexico and deliver his best speech about immigration.

    I had a knot in my stomach that day because I thought I was about to be betrayed…
    …and then wasn’t!

    So I feel like I’ve heard this before. Trump trolling the media and establishment on what is to them, their most important issue. However one can hardly imagine the pressure Trump is under over this one issue. I imagine every phone call with Paul Ryan begins with his plea that Trump can get everything he wants if he just cracks on immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Halvorson says:

    Anyone here who thinks Trump can shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose his base should head to Breitbart right now and start reading the comments on the lead article. The people there are ready to lynch him if he rolls over this easily. A turnaround on amnesty is so unfathomably stupid that I think he’s being talked out of it by Miller and Bannon as we speak.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. kihowi says:

    What is so natural about importing millions of foreigners that anybody short of Hitler himself will just naturally drift back to that position?

    How much constant mental effort does it take not to want to abolish your own people?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Luke Lea says:

    He won’t “sell out” amnesty I predict. Instead he will trade it for something more valuable: a permanent reduction in legal immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    I might be wrong, but I am under the impression the executive could reduce legal immigration by itself, without a legislated "trade."

    A sell out by any other name still stinks.

    Jack Hanson, where are you? Don't you have a snarky comment about gimp masks?
    , @Guy de Champlagne
    And what's to stop the next president, republican or democrat, from just increasing immigration to even higher levels? Or just going back to not enforcing what immigration laws there are?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. D. K. says:
    @Guy de Champlagne

    We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

     

    And Kushner is the enemy because....what? he's jewish?

    The Kushner family has been a Democratic Party backer for generations. Ivanka could not vote for her own father in last year’s New York primary– because she was not registered in time as a Republican!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Redman
    New York's election laws are designed to protect incumbents and need to be changed.

    If you are an independent trying to change status (as I was) to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, you need to do so nearly a full year before the election. That's what happened to Ivanka, as it did to many in my family who wanted to vote RP in 2008. Very unfair.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that…millions of Native Born White Americans are going to be confronted with the following question:just what exactly are you willing to give up for being a racial minority in post-white toilet “America”…they are going to have to give up everything…

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    In living memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kirt
    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That's more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Good catch, Dan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Crank says:
    @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.


    While that may be true, that doesn’t mean that they should be granted citizenship or even legal resident status.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. President Trump follows Ann Coulter on Twitter. President Trump only follows 42 other people. Ann Coulter will make her opinion known quite strongly if Trump tries some Jebby Bush horseshit about giving any kind of legal status to illegal alien invaders.

    Tucker Carlson could have Coulter on his TV show to persuade President Trump that illegal alien invaders — all of them — must be deported from the United States. Legal immigration should be stopped as well.

    President Trump won the presidency on the immigration issue; any weakness on his part will be fatal to his presidency. President Trump must realize that appearing to conspire with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other open borders mass immigration supporting Republicans will demoralize his base and embolden his enemies.

    Here I am telling Jebby Bush to go to hell in regards to legalization of illegal alien invaders and increased immigration:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Haha, nice to be in New Hampshire with 1 US Senator per 600,000 people and have one on ones with presidential candidates. SoCal with 22 million people has not had a local US Senator from here since the 1980's.

    I am not complaining though, 30 US Senators from LA would be a disaster.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I wonder if Jeb, with all the free time he now has on his hands, ever reflects back on this exchange with you and others like it. Is he capable of considering that he had it wrong on a crucial issue? I doubt it. I suspect he figures he's too good for us.
    , @Autochthon
    Now his job is to make guacamole with his dwarvish, Aztec wife. Hopefully he is better at that job than he was at the job of convincing Americans to immolate themselves....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    Many will return the same way they came. The government has a number of levers it can use, aside from mass deportation, to persuade them to return to their own countries. Sporadic, stepped up deportations (analogous to the threat of IRS audit) are one such tool, and there are others that do not involve physical deportation by the fed gov.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Any compromise on amnesty will send signals to FUTURE invaders that there will be ANOTHER one.

    And if Trump thinks his enemies will like him any better if he sells out, forget it.

    He will end up with nothing. He will lose his support among loyalists and gain nothing from the other side.

    He will be like the bone in its jaw looking at its own reflection in the water.

    PS. If one is gonna do amnesty, the rule has to be the ‘immigrant’ and his descendants cannot vote. Or, all their votes must be counted as Republican regardless of whom they vote for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Ed says:
    @Halvorson
    It probably won't happen tonight. Here's the exact quote from Politico:

    Another person in the meeting said Trump said Dreamers "will be just fine" and noted that his position has "softened" and that there needs to be "a softening on both sides." Asked if he was going to talk about immigration in his Tuesday night address, Trump said he wasn't sure and asked Hope Hicks, the White House strategic communications director, to remind him later to consider adding it in.
     
    So there is nothing definite on the table, just vague talk of softness at some point in the future. Trump is probably pro-amnesty privately, but I still have a lot of faith in his circle of advisers and in Jeff Sessions. Such a quick surrender would be politically very stupid and I think Trump will be talked out of it as he was in the home stretch of the campaign.

    It’s said of Trump that he likes to curry favor with the audience in front of him. The media is distressed about the fate of illegals so he threw them some crumbs.

    Go by what is being done not what is said. ICE is ramping up, eager to go. Sympathetic illegals are still getting deported even after their heart string stories are published in sympathetic media.

    I could see Trump sayinf on one hand I’m willing to compromise but until then I’ll enforce the law. This puts the pressure on Congress and GOP will melt from all of the phone calls/Rush/Drudge etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Luke Lea
    He won't "sell out" amnesty I predict. Instead he will trade it for something more valuable: a permanent reduction in legal immigration.

    I might be wrong, but I am under the impression the executive could reduce legal immigration by itself, without a legislated “trade.”

    A sell out by any other name still stinks.

    Jack Hanson, where are you? Don’t you have a snarky comment about gimp masks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    You're welcome to pick from the cream of the crop from my comments the LAST DOZEN TIMES the MSM floated this crap through the primary and campaigns.

    Maybe you can pick the ones from the day you, Steve, and everyone else here just about had to talked off the ledge when Trump went to Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    >When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    When has mass invasion on this scale ever occurred in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Good rejoinder.
    , @Bill
    Agree button does not seem to work for me any longer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. whorefinder says: • Website

    Trump wouldn’t do it for popularity, but to get moderate immigration hawks in Congress/politics on his side—the people to the Left of Mickey Kaus who don’t want to think about children getting forcibly deported (a la Elian Gonzalez) but who are pretty ticked off at illegals committing other crimes being left here and our pourous borders—and taking minority jobs/neighborhoods away.

    Methinks Trump feels cracking down on the border and violent illegals is Stage One, which includes the Wall.

    After Stage One, he will assess whether there is enough popular support for Stage Two—kicking out regular illegals who haven’t been caught doing crimes. If there isn’t, he might move on to merely trying to deny illegals welfare benefits, college tuition, and government jobs. If there is, he’ll take that fight and kick them out.

    I don’t like it, but I elected him for results, not perfection. Stage One complete would be a huge step forward, and would retard future “Dreamers” from trying their luck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Elian Gonzales was legally returned to his custodial father, in Cuba, from whom he had been illegally kidnapped by the boy's non-custodial mother and her boyfriend, who both drowned while putting her son at risk of the same fate. The notion among some people that it is noble to steal children from their custodial parents in order to provide those children the incomparable blessings of living in our American Utopia, if Americans, in their infinite wisdom and beneficence, consider those children's home countries to be inherently or politically evil, is one of the most loathsome notions that I have encountered in American politics, during my sixty-plus years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Broski says:
    @Opinionator
    Does he need to trade to get those things?

    And what about birthright citizenship and zeroing out legal immigration?

    None of the things itemized in my and your posts are "ideological".

    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court willing to expansively interpret the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to mean children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the Citizenship Clause’s original intended meaning, which is absurd. Plenty of children of illegal immigrants are in jail, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction, as are plenty of illegal immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    There are other words in that clause, and a plausible interpretation that lines up with the original intent.
    , @ben tillman

    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court willing to expansively interpret the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to mean children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the Citizenship Clause’s original intended meaning, which is absurd.
     
    Or you can just look at the verb tense/mood. The verb is "are", not the standard "shall be".
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court…
     
    Or a Congress with 1,070 working testicles.

    They have the authority to pull naturalization off the courts' docket.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Opinionator
    Does he need to trade to get those things?

    And what about birthright citizenship and zeroing out legal immigration?

    None of the things itemized in my and your posts are "ideological".

    Birthright citizenship needs to end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Claude says:

    If Trump sells out on immigration, he might as well retire. His enemies will view him as cucked and his supporters will vanish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Anybody here ever read ‘The Art of the Deal’? I haven’t.

    Why would anybody expect its author to stand pat on anything that he couldn’t absolutely win 100%? Obviously there would be give.

    I am happy however that people are blaming his daughter and son-in-law for this. I especially like the part about his giving his daughter to the Kushners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    I especially like the part about his giving his daughter to the Kushners.
     
    Yeah, the suggestion that Ivanka Trump's choice in marriage was not her own but her father's is rather amusing, isn't it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    That’s why self deportation is the right strategy. You fine their employers so that they can’t get jobs, fine their landlords so that they can’t find housing, fine their banks and money transfer services so that they can’t send money home, fine their colleges and other non profits that aid and abet them, cut off what government services you can, and supplement that with deportations, especially high profile ones, and illegal immigrants will silently leave in massive numbers.

    And if you do it right it won’t end up costing anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    A number of people have suggested exactly what you do. It sounds quite reasonable to me and I can only hope that we will see it successfully implemented.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Luke Lea
    He won't "sell out" amnesty I predict. Instead he will trade it for something more valuable: a permanent reduction in legal immigration.

    And what’s to stop the next president, republican or democrat, from just increasing immigration to even higher levels? Or just going back to not enforcing what immigration laws there are?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. No one should make more of this than what it is, which is nothing but another desperate ploy on the part of the Ruling Class Globali$t Open Border$ $ellout$ using their grip on the Enemedia-Pravda Megaphone to try to paint President Trump into a rhetorical corner. And how many times has Trump magnificently risen to the occasion to blast such ploys into smithereens? (!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Here’s a question – what do you do with, say, a person who was dragged over the border by relatives at the age of two? Grew up in the US, knows nothing else, speaks English, etc.

    The illegal immigration problem has metastasized into an utter monstrosity. Solving it will require both compromise and resolute effort.

    If Trump shows willingness to compromise, that would perhaps be a good thing. Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that building a wall and deporting all illegals is a good idea, accomplishing both tasks still seems both physically and politically impossible. And, given cases such as the one described above, perhaps also morally objectionable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    It would "perhaps" be even more "morally objectionable" to p!$$ my father's country down the drain so that my kids have to live in a giant Mexifornia from agua to shining agua.

    If that means that your hypothetical trespasser has to andele back across the border, that is just el tough-o.
    , @Expletive Deleted

    what do you do with, say, a person who was dragged over the border by relatives at the age of two? Grew up in the US, knows nothing else, speaks English, etc.
     
    English is not actually illegal in Mexico yet.
    Europeans do this all the time, drag their kids from country to country, school to school, and just expect the kids to pick up the local jibber-jabber naturally, and they do. The Metric System is no biggie, I can convert weights & measures in my head, having learned both God's Own Imperial and Boney's Wicked Frog Inches as a kid. And can still do £.s.d. and furlongs, rods, poles and perches, if pushed.

    Made-up problem. Only fundamentally unemployable morons will suffer from relocating from one culture to another.
    Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't even an issue for US/Mex deportees. Now that is hard, mainly because it's governed by ingrained habit and reactions.

    , @Achmed E. Newman

    Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that building a wall and deporting all illegals is a good idea, accomplishing both tasks still seems both physically and politically impossible.
     
    Jimbo, don't keep letting this bull get pounded into your head by the LP. 50,000 miles of interstate highway were built well within a decade, and we have better machines today. Give me a break - we're talking about 2,000 miles or so, drainage is not as important as with a road, and there will be much less concrete involved (don't assume it looks like a wall in someone's cartoon or photoshop drawing), and much cheaper per mile in terms of property purchasing (I imagine many ranchers would be just happy to give up the 100 yard or so for the "zone" or even put in some funds!)

    We put 12 men on the freakin moon*, man, quit talking like a Millenial - yes people will not be able to do all of it via touchscreen at the coffee shop, if that's what's bothering y'all.

    Deportation and self-deportation is also not a hard thing. It doesn't require civil engineering, just people who are on our side and do the job they've been payed to do for years (but haven't been allowed to do).

    * With a lotta help from a few old black math ladies. Memo to border-barrier chief engineer: we need to get these ladies out of the home prontomundo and set them up in a trailer just N. of Nogales with white boards and markers black boards and chalk (whoo almost a faux paw there) and a metric shit-ton of number 2 pencils. What, Aunt Esther's passed, how 'bout Weezy? We're gonna need top men POC's here.
    , @JSM
    NUH-UH. We compromised when Reagan took office. In exchange for amnesty of one million, we were supposed to get border enforcement. So what did we get? Amnesty for, actually, three million and NO border enforcement. And, in truth, it's worse than that. That 3 million amnestied acted as the acorn from which the Mighty, mighty diseased, Oak of today's monstrosity of illegal aliens grew. Because that 3 million legalized bunch gave their recently-arrived illegal relatives housing, help finding work under the table, and junker cars so that those illegals have been able to stay here without starving all these years.


    NUH-UH.

    And, frankly, I don't GIVE a damn about the poor widdle guy dragged over the border at Age 2. He can go to Mexico and learn the language. His relatives still back home in Mexico can give him his start, just like his Reagan-amnesty-ed relatives here gave his relatives their illegal start here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. IHTG says:
    @Not Raul
    Possibly he called Kushner the enemy because Kushner is close to Ryan and may be a counterweight to Bannon.

    These days, Bannon is close to Ryan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. D. K. says:
    @whorefinder
    Trump wouldn't do it for popularity, but to get moderate immigration hawks in Congress/politics on his side---the people to the Left of Mickey Kaus who don't want to think about children getting forcibly deported (a la Elian Gonzalez) but who are pretty ticked off at illegals committing other crimes being left here and our pourous borders---and taking minority jobs/neighborhoods away.

    Methinks Trump feels cracking down on the border and violent illegals is Stage One, which includes the Wall.

    After Stage One, he will assess whether there is enough popular support for Stage Two---kicking out regular illegals who haven't been caught doing crimes. If there isn't, he might move on to merely trying to deny illegals welfare benefits, college tuition, and government jobs. If there is, he'll take that fight and kick them out.

    I don't like it, but I elected him for results, not perfection. Stage One complete would be a huge step forward, and would retard future "Dreamers" from trying their luck.

    Elian Gonzales was legally returned to his custodial father, in Cuba, from whom he had been illegally kidnapped by the boy’s non-custodial mother and her boyfriend, who both drowned while putting her son at risk of the same fate. The notion among some people that it is noble to steal children from their custodial parents in order to provide those children the incomparable blessings of living in our American Utopia, if Americans, in their infinite wisdom and beneficence, consider those children’s home countries to be inherently or politically evil, is one of the most loathsome notions that I have encountered in American politics, during my sixty-plus years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    I am inclined to agree with you, at least up to a point. The late radio icon Bob Grant incurred much wrath from many of his listeners when he insisted that young Elian Gonazalez belonged with his father, even if that be in Cuba.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. On Twitter I see this guy Charlie Sykes taunting Ann Coulter over Trump floating amnesty. Here is his twitter bio:

    Author/Commentator; MSNBC Contributor; Host “Indivisible,” WNYC; Writing: “How The Right Lost Its Mind,” Editor, RightWisconsin; Email: cjaysykes@gmail.com

    Also, here is the description of his book:

    In March 2016, Wisconsin’s #1 conservative talk-radio host Charles Sykes did the unthinkable: He ferociously challenged the then Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in a live interview. Afterward, Sykes alone among conservative media figures continued to denounce Trump, and extended his attack to include the larger right-wing media and other politicians that enabled his rise.

    Now, in How the Right Lost Its Mind, Sykes presents an impassioned, regretful, and deeply thoughtful account of how the American conservative movement came to lose its values. How did a movement that was defined by its belief in limited government, individual liberty, free markets, traditional values, and civility find itself embracing bigotry, political intransigence, demagoguery, and outright falsehood?

    Unbelievable. He might be even worse than Egg McMuffin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Lord Jeff Sessions:

    Anyone associated with radio station WNYC like Sykes is well beyond redemption.

    The most galling and irritating fact about WNYC is that the smug liberalism of its news readers, presenters and guests is paid for by taxpayers.

    New York City radio listeners have an even more baying at the moon leftist Pacifica station, WBAI. But at least it is not taxpayer supported.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. The distinction between Dreamers and US citizens can be a fine line. Be born a week before mom arrived in the US and you are a dreamer, be born a week after mom arrived in the US and you are qualified to be a future president.

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

    The whole business really needs to be handed over to the Supreme Court where, in the usual fashion, they will first make a decision, then look for rationalizations to justify the decision, and after that everyone will agree that was what the Constitution said all along, only no one had ever noticed it before.

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.

    Read More
    • Replies: @newrouter
    "A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts."

    So that's why Ivanka is having her child learn Mandarin?
    , @peterike

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

     

    You mean like their parents, who went to school in Mexico and speak only Spanish, were poorly qualified to sneak into America? Well they survived, somehow.
    , @Jack D
    Usually 1st generation immigrant children are bilingual because their parents speak their native language at home. Maybe there are some illegal alien children from Mexico who never learned Spanish but not many. Chances are mom has Mexican soap operas on TV all day, making Haim Saban richer. They call home all the time and talk to their abuela and cousins, making Carlos Slim richer. Their Spanish may not be perfect but after a few months back home in their native country it improves.

    As others point out, their parents probably spoke only Spanish so they were "poorly qualified" to enter the US, but that didn't stop them.
    , @Bill

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.
     
    This.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. gregor says:

    Relax, guys. After the first month it should be clear Trump means business. How many times has the press run a story about Trump “softening” on immigration? Have we forgotten back in August?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/24/trump-says-hes-open-to-softening-immigration-laws-in-hannity-town-hall.html

    He was supposedly selling out, then he went to Mexico and came back and gave the Arizona speech.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/09/01/492203102/donald-trump-delivers-immigration-policy-speech-in-arizaon

    And this recent example is just some second hand account. Trump probably said he would “think about it” as part of the “right deal.” Personally, if it came to it I would trade some sort of path for green cards for “dreamers” in exchange for elimination of birthright citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix..
    The thing is, Trump has already cucked us on immigration. He loudly and unambiguously promised during the campaign to end DACA immediately upon assuming office. Not only has he not ended DACA, but in fact continues to issue new DACA papers to the tune of hundreds of new ones a day.

    He has lied, pure and simple. There can no longer be any benefit of the doubt when it comes to Trump and immigration. He has to earn his credibility back on the issue, cause right now he doesn't have any.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Lol

    Wasn’t this song and dance a weekly feature during the primaries in the election so opinion columnists could say SEE STUPID RUBES, HE IS GONNA SELL YOU OUT.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Trump should:

    –rescind DACA
    –rescind Executive Order 13672
    –eliminate the position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons
    –reinstate the “1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule”
    –rescind all DOD orders on the inclusion of homosexuals and “transgendered” persons in the military

    You’ll note that I put the national question first. But restoring normality to our national institutions is also important.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. E. Burke says:
    @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    I don’t mind giving relief to the so-called dreamers if it’s part of a reform bill that funds the wall, ends birthright citizenship, ends chain migration, ends H-1b abuse and repatriates millions of illegals. Go for the low-hanging fruit, don’t get caught up in a crusade for ideological purity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Hunsdon
    Oh shit, I guess it's time for us to give up.

    Again.

    Look, he may end up being a huge disappointment, he might toss us over the side in a heartbeat . . . but he hasn't yet. It's barely over a month in to the term, and he's fighting on multiple fronts against zealous and committed enemies. But don't clutch your pearls and feel faint the first time some rumor surfaces. Wait until the rumors are stories and then the stories are fact, and then wait and see how it shakes out. Remember how Elliott Abrams was going to nest in the State Department? Yeah, how'd that turn out? Remember how Mitt was going to be Secretary of State? Yeah . . . how'd that turn out again? Remember how he's Netanyahu's shabbos goy and will carry water for the Zio-Globalists? Hmm, "continued settlements are not helpful to the peace process."

    Don't go wobbly on me.

    The zipper mask contingent is pretty strong here.

    People (including Steve) keep reaching for any reason to quit. Easier to post pithy blog posts than actually work.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hunsdon
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I think you are misinterpreting a large portion or all of the comments, Jack. You may be right that Trump knows what he's doing and will get this thing done mostly in the manner Americans elected him to. I hope you are, though I don't understand this negotiating thing. What you do is put the pressure on in all sorts of ways, on the LP, on the Repub-traitors, even on the Lefties as some commenters here has suggested.

    You're wrong if you think people want to quit - quit what, first of all? Nobody here wants things to continue the way they have obviously. Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy - the ball will keep rolling without him.

    If you mean quit supporting Trump, well, if he isn't going to do the job we elected him to, he should be fired like the people on the TV show. (He does need lots help of regular Americans in a lot of ways of course. I understand who he's up against.) Trump needs the pressure on him from Americans, so that it can counteract the tremendous pressure he is under from the elite, LP, most politicians, etc. Possibly the wife and/or daughter are involved "we need to fit in, I want to be able to wear my new dress to more cocktail parties - we aren't getting invited, sob, sob,...".

    As a man suggested above, possibly Trump is very impressionable. That is a bad thing for a leader (opposite of a Ronald Reagan, for example, who spent years making his mind up on his principles; before you chime in on the '86 amnesty, his fault was he trusted US politicians more than he did the Russkies - big mistake.). If this is the case, we need to keep up the deep impressioning on his ass, such as when he did hear the stories from the families of the people killed by reckless multiply-deported illegal aliens, but there are lots of other stories, say the imminent death of the middle class - I think Trump does have a lot of empathy for the common man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. I’m alright with this so long as he also expels vote and welfare fraud cases. Those plus criminals/gang members form the majority of illegal residents. Most are on some form of assistance and an estimated 2 million voted fraudulently.

    It’s an end run around the ‘humanitarian crisis’ aspect, to expel those guilty of fraud and criminal activity. Add those who stole a SSN and you have nearly all cases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. @D. K.
    He already has sold out by not rescinding the patently unconstitutional DACA executive order, which he and his own campaign's Web site promised to do "immediately," if and when he took office. It is clear to me, from his recent comments, including at his otherwise-hilarious news conference, earlier this month, that he now has neither the intention nor the desire to rescind Obama's order, let alone to send its beneficiaries packing for their respective homelands. How far his betrayal of his voting base will go remains to be seen; I, for one, am neither amused nor optimistic. When he made a spontaneous comment, in late January or early February, about wanting to hear a senator's ideas about "comprehensive immigration reform," it was quite apparent that his desire to get along with his party's establishment, now that he was safely (?) in office, meant that he was willing to consider, at least, betraying his main campaign promise on immigration ("they [the illegals] have to go!"), assuming that his 2016 voters will have nowhere else to go, come 2020.

    Like other folks, I am unable to agree, disagree, etc. and I’ve beem unable to for days now. Anyhow, I agree.

    This issue was the only one that mattered for millions of us who realise demography is destiny; failure to address the national question makes all else irrelevant, because it makes all other decisions and policies academic decisions and policies about some other nation – we may as well debate how Mexico, China, or India should be spending on defense or managing infrastructure, because we will be, having handed over the territory and all its resources to them.

    I will travel the remaining five per cent or so of the ideological distance remaining toward living as off the grid as I can, with as little interaction with a traitorous and hostile government and populace as possible, seeking what comfort and support as I can find among a small communiry of other oppressed and disposessed persons. With the exception that we are too few to actually offer any meaningful, physical resistance we will be as was de Gaulle under the Vichy regime: an abandoned and disempowered group doing our best to survive as we can, no different than Kurds in Iraq, Copts in Egypt, or the Ainu in Japan.

    Truly, the imminent betrayal I fear is terrible, but by now unsurprising, news.

    I’ve never wanted to be wrong about something more in my life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crank
    That's the spirit!!
    , @(((Joshua)))
    I couldn't agree more. If immigration is traded away for progress on other issues, why would I be happy about that? It wouldn't really feel like my country anymore. Not to mention there will always be another wave of illegals from somewhere or another that it would be just oh so cruel to deport.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. newrouter says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    The distinction between Dreamers and US citizens can be a fine line. Be born a week before mom arrived in the US and you are a dreamer, be born a week after mom arrived in the US and you are qualified to be a future president.

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

    The whole business really needs to be handed over to the Supreme Court where, in the usual fashion, they will first make a decision, then look for rationalizations to justify the decision, and after that everyone will agree that was what the Constitution said all along, only no one had ever noticed it before.

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.

    “A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.”

    So that’s why Ivanka is having her child learn Mandarin?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. newrouter says:

    Here We Go Again – Media Create “Capitulation Narrative 3.0” on Trump’s Immigration Position…

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/28/here-we-go-again-media-create-capitulation-narrative-3-0-on-trumps-immigration-position/#more-129287

    The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Jimi says:
    @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    Enforcement first then amnesty for dreamers. The Left has adopted an open borders position. I believe they will accept what little amnesty Trump gives and then immediately renege of the enforcement portion of the deal. At a minimum we should fight for:

    - Construction of a wall

    - End birthright citizenship

    - Make e-verify mandatory

    - Severe punishments for employers of illegal immigrants

    - Cute legal immigration by half (per Cotton bill)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Thomas says:

    My guess is that this is a psych-out/troll. Trump, Bannon, and Miller understand how that game is played. Right now, he’d be negotiating from a position of strength, and the Democrats from a position of weakness, and the Democrats and left are still too batshit to even accept that he’s President, and that he isn’t going anywhere for at least 4 years. This way, once a proposal that is acceptable to the majority of the public, and probably the majority of his base, but unacceptable to the treason lobby (which, as we can see, is anything short of the Gaddafi/Ahmadinejad/Ramos dissolution of the United States) is rejected, he can at least say he tried.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Crank says:
    @Autochthon
    Like other folks, I am unable to agree, disagree, etc. and I've beem unable to for days now. Anyhow, I agree.

    This issue was the only one that mattered for millions of us who realise demography is destiny; failure to address the national question makes all else irrelevant, because it makes all other decisions and policies academic decisions and policies about some other nation – we may as well debate how Mexico, China, or India should be spending on defense or managing infrastructure, because we will be, having handed over the territory and all its resources to them.

    I will travel the remaining five per cent or so of the ideological distance remaining toward living as off the grid as I can, with as little interaction with a traitorous and hostile government and populace as possible, seeking what comfort and support as I can find among a small communiry of other oppressed and disposessed persons. With the exception that we are too few to actually offer any meaningful, physical resistance we will be as was de Gaulle under the Vichy regime: an abandoned and disempowered group doing our best to survive as we can, no different than Kurds in Iraq, Copts in Egypt, or the Ainu in Japan.

    Truly, the imminent betrayal I fear is terrible, but by now unsurprising, news.

    I've never wanted to be wrong about something more in my life.

    That’s the spirit!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Where do you live?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Chrisnonymous
    I might be wrong, but I am under the impression the executive could reduce legal immigration by itself, without a legislated "trade."

    A sell out by any other name still stinks.

    Jack Hanson, where are you? Don't you have a snarky comment about gimp masks?

    You’re welcome to pick from the cream of the crop from my comments the LAST DOZEN TIMES the MSM floated this crap through the primary and campaigns.

    Maybe you can pick the ones from the day you, Steve, and everyone else here just about had to talked off the ledge when Trump went to Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Thanks!!! We missed you so!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. KevinB says:

    It’s a negotiating tactic, and he will need to negotiate, but I’d like to see him work out policy from a stronger position. The regulatory state has been used to hammer the middle class for decades, what has been called anarcho-tyranny, and it’s time to use these Leftwing tactics against the Left. We need to force the Left to put real skin in the game by making them play on the same playing field they created. Here are some ideas to strengthen Trump’s hand and widen the immigration Overton window:

    All green card holders will need to reapply for status within a two year period and let it be understood that most will not get their green cards renewed.

    Describe, through regulatory reform whereby naturalized citizens would have their naturalization reversed, and then be expelled: criminal convictions, current welfare use, fraudulent voting etc.

    Create regulations that the government will demand that at least one parent of a child born in the US must be an American citizen or a legal immigrant as a requirement for birthright citizenship. Let the courts rule on the merits, with a Trump Supreme court making the final call. Meanwhile, aggressively prosecute all those who fail the red line test.

    Announce that any non-naturalized immigrant that voted in an American election will be subject to prosecution and immediate deportation. Voluntary deportation prior to trial would remove any record of administrative action on the would be felon’s “permanent record.”

    Convey the idea of family unity as the center of immigration policy. If a parent is deported, the spouse, kids and grandparents go with the deported spouse. If any legal immigrants refuse to leave, cut off any and all government support and initiate a track of stringent compliance with all laws of the land for the family. A jaywalking ticket would get you bounced.

    Prosecute any government official who aids and abets illegal immigrants. Go after the small fish and by doing so, apply upward pressure on the movers and shakers.

    Cancel all welfare benefits to all immigrants.

    Set a minimum educational achievement for any new immigrants. A graduate degree from an accredited American University would be a starting point.

    Tie the total amount of yearly new immigration to the total amount of emigration.

    Privatize the refugee program. Allow refugees but only if they are sponsored by an American citizen. Sponsorship would include a deposit representing two years of the median American wage (approx $120,000) to pay for their care, and that any and all sponsors would be tried as co-conspirators for any crimes committed by the refugee for a period of ten years from admission.

    Create agreements with African, Asian and South American countries whereby anyone in the US who is convicted of a felony and is serving time can apply for immediate release from prison by renouncing their citizenship and emigrating to a country of their choice where we have an agreement. A one time payment to the felon of two years median US wage, 20% of which would go directly to the country of choice, would add incentive for both the felon and these countries to participate, as both would see a cash boon.

    No doubt there are plenty of other administrative initiatives that can be used to move the ball forward and the public will rally behind common sense initiatives. If he expands the boundaries of what is possible, he will have far more room to negotiate. We all understand that the Left plays to win at any cost, so telegraphing flexibility at this point will only enrage his supporters and encourage his enemies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    All your ideas are really great Kevin. However, just on your first sentence, I just don't see how basically saying one is giving up the whole fight (talking 30-40 million people here) is a negotiating tactic. I don't get that. How?

    Ron Paul should have listened to me in 2012, when I told him in person to bring up the immigration issue. Now, there's a guy you can trust and doesn't talk in circles. He's got a few extra brain cells on President Trump also.

    I agree with all who say if this guy doesn't come through on the basics, which is the plan for a great majority of illegal aliens to go home one way or another, I think this cause is lost, and I wouldn't care what happened to Trump after that - he'd be dead to me. "I have no President."

    Negotiating tactics are not my thing, and I've not read this guy's book, but man, this is worrying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Autochthon
    Like other folks, I am unable to agree, disagree, etc. and I've beem unable to for days now. Anyhow, I agree.

    This issue was the only one that mattered for millions of us who realise demography is destiny; failure to address the national question makes all else irrelevant, because it makes all other decisions and policies academic decisions and policies about some other nation – we may as well debate how Mexico, China, or India should be spending on defense or managing infrastructure, because we will be, having handed over the territory and all its resources to them.

    I will travel the remaining five per cent or so of the ideological distance remaining toward living as off the grid as I can, with as little interaction with a traitorous and hostile government and populace as possible, seeking what comfort and support as I can find among a small communiry of other oppressed and disposessed persons. With the exception that we are too few to actually offer any meaningful, physical resistance we will be as was de Gaulle under the Vichy regime: an abandoned and disempowered group doing our best to survive as we can, no different than Kurds in Iraq, Copts in Egypt, or the Ainu in Japan.

    Truly, the imminent betrayal I fear is terrible, but by now unsurprising, news.

    I've never wanted to be wrong about something more in my life.

    I couldn’t agree more. If immigration is traded away for progress on other issues, why would I be happy about that? It wouldn’t really feel like my country anymore. Not to mention there will always be another wave of illegals from somewhere or another that it would be just oh so cruel to deport.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. JohnnyD says:
    @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    @Seth,
    I think many Trump supporters would accept a deal like that. The problem is that the left/Democrats would never accept it. They basically want a complete amnesty and unlimited immigration. They’ve gotten to the point where they think it’s a crime against humanity to have any type of border and immigration enforcement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Kyle a says:
    @Guy de Champlagne

    We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

     

    And Kushner is the enemy because....what? he's jewish?

    No. Because he’s circumcised.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Lot says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    President Trump follows Ann Coulter on Twitter. President Trump only follows 42 other people. Ann Coulter will make her opinion known quite strongly if Trump tries some Jebby Bush horseshit about giving any kind of legal status to illegal alien invaders.

    Tucker Carlson could have Coulter on his TV show to persuade President Trump that illegal alien invaders -- all of them -- must be deported from the United States. Legal immigration should be stopped as well.

    President Trump won the presidency on the immigration issue; any weakness on his part will be fatal to his presidency. President Trump must realize that appearing to conspire with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other open borders mass immigration supporting Republicans will demoralize his base and embolden his enemies.

    Here I am telling Jebby Bush to go to hell in regards to legalization of illegal alien invaders and increased immigration:

    https://twitter.com/tuohy/status/588858468452425728

    Haha, nice to be in New Hampshire with 1 US Senator per 600,000 people and have one on ones with presidential candidates. SoCal with 22 million people has not had a local US Senator from here since the 1980′s.

    I am not complaining though, 30 US Senators from LA would be a disaster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Charles Pewitt
    President Trump follows Ann Coulter on Twitter. President Trump only follows 42 other people. Ann Coulter will make her opinion known quite strongly if Trump tries some Jebby Bush horseshit about giving any kind of legal status to illegal alien invaders.

    Tucker Carlson could have Coulter on his TV show to persuade President Trump that illegal alien invaders -- all of them -- must be deported from the United States. Legal immigration should be stopped as well.

    President Trump won the presidency on the immigration issue; any weakness on his part will be fatal to his presidency. President Trump must realize that appearing to conspire with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other open borders mass immigration supporting Republicans will demoralize his base and embolden his enemies.

    Here I am telling Jebby Bush to go to hell in regards to legalization of illegal alien invaders and increased immigration:

    https://twitter.com/tuohy/status/588858468452425728

    I wonder if Jeb, with all the free time he now has on his hands, ever reflects back on this exchange with you and others like it. Is he capable of considering that he had it wrong on a crucial issue? I doubt it. I suspect he figures he’s too good for us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Crank
    That's the spirit!!

    Where do you live?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crank
    On the front lines in the war for Western civilization. In Los Angeles about 5 miles south of our esteemed blog host, assuming I have correctly estimated the location of his bunker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Lot says:

    The DACA people are the hardest to deport anyway under current law. No serious criminal record, employed, better access to documents and lawyers, more likely to tug on the heart of the immigration judges.

    So yes DACA should have been repealed on day 1, but right now there are about 1 million illegals who are subject to immediate removal, and they have little to no way to slow the process down. In fact if they try to fight immediate removal, they can usually be prosecuted and imprisoned.

    If you want actual results and numbers of illegals cut, finding these skipped illegals first seems to be what ICE is doing now and makes a lot of sense. Seems like they are also detaining those who harbor fugitive illegals with deportation orders. Another good policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Seems like they are also detaining those who harbor fugitive illegals with deportation orders.
     
    Wouldn't it be great to see all the preening mayors and governors boasting of their flagrant defiance of the Law be held to account?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. MBlanc46 says:

    Give the overwhelming support for mass immigration by the elites, it would be surprising if he didn’t eventually cave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. MBlanc46 says:
    @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    But we’ll vey likely get very little of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Jim Don Bob
    A lot of people, including me, will be sitting out 2020 if he does screws us on immigration.

    I want about 40 million people to go home. Now.

    I want about 40 million people to go home. Now.

    I pretty much want everyone out who doesn’t have an ancestor who was here earlier than David Brooks’ earliest ancestor.

    (That would mean sending home my wife … but it would be worth it ;-). Heck, i’d volunteer to get booted out if i could drag Brooks, Rubin, Zuckersperg and all their ilk with me. At least my kids would have a nation.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That was funny, Another Dad. I like your posts a lot. If this all went down your way, we'd just let you in via that small door in the Wall that they don't talk about. I'll give you the Lat/Long coordinates when it becomes necessary - bring water.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @KevinB
    It's a negotiating tactic, and he will need to negotiate, but I'd like to see him work out policy from a stronger position. The regulatory state has been used to hammer the middle class for decades, what has been called anarcho-tyranny, and it's time to use these Leftwing tactics against the Left. We need to force the Left to put real skin in the game by making them play on the same playing field they created. Here are some ideas to strengthen Trump's hand and widen the immigration Overton window:

    All green card holders will need to reapply for status within a two year period and let it be understood that most will not get their green cards renewed.

    Describe, through regulatory reform whereby naturalized citizens would have their naturalization reversed, and then be expelled: criminal convictions, current welfare use, fraudulent voting etc.

    Create regulations that the government will demand that at least one parent of a child born in the US must be an American citizen or a legal immigrant as a requirement for birthright citizenship. Let the courts rule on the merits, with a Trump Supreme court making the final call. Meanwhile, aggressively prosecute all those who fail the red line test.

    Announce that any non-naturalized immigrant that voted in an American election will be subject to prosecution and immediate deportation. Voluntary deportation prior to trial would remove any record of administrative action on the would be felon's "permanent record."

    Convey the idea of family unity as the center of immigration policy. If a parent is deported, the spouse, kids and grandparents go with the deported spouse. If any legal immigrants refuse to leave, cut off any and all government support and initiate a track of stringent compliance with all laws of the land for the family. A jaywalking ticket would get you bounced.

    Prosecute any government official who aids and abets illegal immigrants. Go after the small fish and by doing so, apply upward pressure on the movers and shakers.

    Cancel all welfare benefits to all immigrants.

    Set a minimum educational achievement for any new immigrants. A graduate degree from an accredited American University would be a starting point.

    Tie the total amount of yearly new immigration to the total amount of emigration.

    Privatize the refugee program. Allow refugees but only if they are sponsored by an American citizen. Sponsorship would include a deposit representing two years of the median American wage (approx $120,000) to pay for their care, and that any and all sponsors would be tried as co-conspirators for any crimes committed by the refugee for a period of ten years from admission.

    Create agreements with African, Asian and South American countries whereby anyone in the US who is convicted of a felony and is serving time can apply for immediate release from prison by renouncing their citizenship and emigrating to a country of their choice where we have an agreement. A one time payment to the felon of two years median US wage, 20% of which would go directly to the country of choice, would add incentive for both the felon and these countries to participate, as both would see a cash boon.

    No doubt there are plenty of other administrative initiatives that can be used to move the ball forward and the public will rally behind common sense initiatives. If he expands the boundaries of what is possible, he will have far more room to negotiate. We all understand that the Left plays to win at any cost, so telegraphing flexibility at this point will only enrage his supporters and encourage his enemies.

    All your ideas are really great Kevin. However, just on your first sentence, I just don’t see how basically saying one is giving up the whole fight (talking 30-40 million people here) is a negotiating tactic. I don’t get that. How?

    Ron Paul should have listened to me in 2012, when I told him in person to bring up the immigration issue. Now, there’s a guy you can trust and doesn’t talk in circles. He’s got a few extra brain cells on President Trump also.

    I agree with all who say if this guy doesn’t come through on the basics, which is the plan for a great majority of illegal aliens to go home one way or another, I think this cause is lost, and I wouldn’t care what happened to Trump after that – he’d be dead to me. “I have no President.”

    Negotiating tactics are not my thing, and I’ve not read this guy’s book, but man, this is worrying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @AnotherDad

    I want about 40 million people to go home. Now.
     
    I pretty much want everyone out who doesn't have an ancestor who was here earlier than David Brooks' earliest ancestor.

    (That would mean sending home my wife ... but it would be worth it ;-). Heck, i'd volunteer to get booted out if i could drag Brooks, Rubin, Zuckersperg and all their ilk with me. At least my kids would have a nation.)

    That was funny, Another Dad. I like your posts a lot. If this all went down your way, we’d just let you in via that small door in the Wall that they don’t talk about. I’ll give you the Lat/Long coordinates when it becomes necessary – bring water.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Broski
    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court willing to expansively interpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the Citizenship Clause's original intended meaning, which is absurd. Plenty of children of illegal immigrants are in jail, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction, as are plenty of illegal immigrants.

    There are other words in that clause, and a plausible interpretation that lines up with the original intent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. peterike says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    The distinction between Dreamers and US citizens can be a fine line. Be born a week before mom arrived in the US and you are a dreamer, be born a week after mom arrived in the US and you are qualified to be a future president.

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

    The whole business really needs to be handed over to the Supreme Court where, in the usual fashion, they will first make a decision, then look for rationalizations to justify the decision, and after that everyone will agree that was what the Constitution said all along, only no one had ever noticed it before.

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

    You mean like their parents, who went to school in Mexico and speak only Spanish, were poorly qualified to sneak into America? Well they survived, somehow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "You mean like their parents, who went to school in Mexico and speak only Spanish, were poorly qualified to sneak into America? Well they survived, somehow."

    Right? The people being sent back at least have cultural ties to their home country, even if they don't fully speak the language (yet). They're fully capable of readapting themselves to the country of their birth.
    , @Rob McX
    Good point, and it's funny how you never see the argument being turned the other way like this. "It would be inhumane to deport 10m people" - but how did they get to America in the first place? Often by walking through desert and running the risk of getting their throats cut for the cash they're carrying, or of being kidnapped and then murdered if their families can't pay the ransom. Making the return journey w0uld be easy by comparison.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. George says:

    Is he going to require e-verify for all workers?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Anon7 says:

    “We will enforce immigration laws…

    “A great, Great Wall along our southern border…

    “America must defend its borders. What would we say to people who lost family members or lost jobs?

    “We have seen the attacks throughout America from radical Islamic terrorism.

    “People coming from places where proper vetting cannot occur… we cannot allow a beachhead of terrorists to form in America.”

    All sounds pretty familiar so far. Of course, if the courts won’t permit the enforcement of what we believe to be the law, we’re in trouble. Impeaching judges is extremely difficult.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Anon7 says:

    On the other hand, take a look at this NYTimes article that basically states that Trump has agreed to give away the store:

    In a conversation with news anchors just hours before he spoke, Mr. Trump broke from his tough immigration stance and said he was open to a the kind of broad overhaul that many Republicans and some of his core supporters have derided as “amnesty.”

    “The time is right for an immigration bill as long as there is compromise on both sides,” the president told the TV anchors at the White House, according to people present during the discussion. Those present requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the private meeting.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-address-congress.html?_r=0

    And now Trump is talking about it, and it sounds like compromise to me. As the camera pans around the room, I see that few if any democrats stand to applaud. Which is typical.

    Smells like betrayal to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. Wilkey says:

    If Trump wants to get any significant enforcement done he’s probably going to have to give a little on legalization of *some* illegals. How he does that in a way that assures his supporters he actually still intends to enforce the law and prevents his successor from sticking with the legalization part while ignoring the enforcement provisions is anybody’s guess. Giving way on the DACA crowd is probably his best bet, and probably why he’s not extended enforcement to them. They’re a good bargaining chip.

    I won’t be convinced that Trump’s sincere until we see a million-plus illegals leaving every year, via government deportation or self-deportation. I won’t be convinced until there’s a fully funded wall under construction, until sanctuary cities have been defunded, 287(g) has been fully restored, countries with high percentages of visa overstayers have had their visas curtailed, we have an entry/exit tracking system in place, and every government benefit available to illegals has been revoked.

    How do you get a successful enforcement policy in place? Well for one you start with the assumption that you can and will succeed. You are obviously not doing that if you’re giving out benefits to illegals ‘because they’re going to be here anyway.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. eah says:

    I actually have no trouble believing Trump would be that stupid and hypocritical — after all, since he’s run for office/has entered politics, he can not unfairly be called a politician (albeit not a career one) — but I have trouble believing many of the people around him would be that stupid and hypocritical — Trump is human, and probably gets tired of being ‘hated on’ — I always expected him to cave/compromise on DACA.

    In the end, without massive changes/reductions to legal immigration, including family-based chain migration, he would not be buying ‘dying white America’ much more time anyway:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. Crank says:
    @Autochthon
    Where do you live?

    On the front lines in the war for Western civilization. In Los Angeles about 5 miles south of our esteemed blog host, assuming I have correctly estimated the location of his bunker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    My apoligies and my respect, sir. I confess I wrongly expected you were another sort in rural Iowa or some such not aware of the situation.

    I also confess my fears were just proven wrong, at least as yet.

    If this keeps up, I may well yet stay on and fight here.

    Whatever his faults, Donald Trump is a great man. His unwavering resolve and ferocious tenacity in the face of evil makes me think of no one more than a kind of sociopolitical (rather than military) Stonewall Jackson or Audie Murphy.

    To call this man divisive is preposterous. He makes me fondly recall the days when I fought alongside black, yellow, and brown people as brothers because we were all blue – before I was abused and beaten into hating them as a matter of self-preservation in the face of an ongoing attempted genocide.

    It's very early days, but he may prove to be the greatest president of my lifetime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Boomstick says:

    Eh. Any enforcement, period, is better than what we’ve got now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Felix.. says:
    @gregor
    Relax, guys. After the first month it should be clear Trump means business. How many times has the press run a story about Trump "softening" on immigration? Have we forgotten back in August?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/24/trump-says-hes-open-to-softening-immigration-laws-in-hannity-town-hall.html

    He was supposedly selling out, then he went to Mexico and came back and gave the Arizona speech.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/09/01/492203102/donald-trump-delivers-immigration-policy-speech-in-arizaon

    And this recent example is just some second hand account. Trump probably said he would "think about it" as part of the "right deal." Personally, if it came to it I would trade some sort of path for green cards for "dreamers" in exchange for elimination of birthright citizenship.

    The thing is, Trump has already cucked us on immigration. He loudly and unambiguously promised during the campaign to end DACA immediately upon assuming office. Not only has he not ended DACA, but in fact continues to issue new DACA papers to the tune of hundreds of new ones a day.

    He has lied, pure and simple. There can no longer be any benefit of the doubt when it comes to Trump and immigration. He has to earn his credibility back on the issue, cause right now he doesn’t have any.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Listening to Trump’s speech on changing the way legal immigrants get into the country, I would say comprehensive immigration reform will include legal immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. Redman says:
    @D. K.
    The Kushner family has been a Democratic Party backer for generations. Ivanka could not vote for her own father in last year's New York primary-- because she was not registered in time as a Republican!

    New York’s election laws are designed to protect incumbents and need to be changed.

    If you are an independent trying to change status (as I was) to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, you need to do so nearly a full year before the election. That’s what happened to Ivanka, as it did to many in my family who wanted to vote RP in 2008. Very unfair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    My point was merely that Jared and Ivanka are neither philosophical conservatives nor lifetime Republicans. They support Donald Trump because he is her father and his father-in-law. They would have supported him if he had run as an independent third-party candidate, as a Democrat, or as whatever else might have appealed to Donald Trump, back in June 2015. I am not criticizing Jared and Ivanka, let alone condemning them, for respectively supporting their father-in-law and father. I find that type of family loyalty to be both understandable and commendable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Clyde says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    I read that article in the Times over the weekend. My initial reaction was that it actually was in his own best interest that he was deported when he was because as an illiterate illegal immigrant with a history of criminality he never could have risen as high in the NY restaurant scene as he has in Mexico.

    He recognizes that the training he received in the U.S., and the people he met here, were a blessing to him and has no animus toward the U.S. for returning him to Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Wilkey says:
    @peterike

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

     

    You mean like their parents, who went to school in Mexico and speak only Spanish, were poorly qualified to sneak into America? Well they survived, somehow.

    “You mean like their parents, who went to school in Mexico and speak only Spanish, were poorly qualified to sneak into America? Well they survived, somehow.”

    Right? The people being sent back at least have cultural ties to their home country, even if they don’t fully speak the language (yet). They’re fully capable of readapting themselves to the country of their birth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    A homeland of their own, where they can bask in their glorious indigenous culture, and be forever free of the white man's savagery and oppression. I call it Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Broski
    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court willing to expansively interpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the Citizenship Clause's original intended meaning, which is absurd. Plenty of children of illegal immigrants are in jail, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction, as are plenty of illegal immigrants.

    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court willing to expansively interpret the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to mean children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the Citizenship Clause’s original intended meaning, which is absurd.

    Or you can just look at the verb tense/mood. The verb is “are”, not the standard “shall be”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. The big accomplishment here is that Trump went over the heads of the media and made a sane, measured speech directly to the electorate. It undermines the media’s incessant screaming.

    He didn’t really say anything new, but that wasn’t the point.

    He sounded sane and all his points were things a reasonable person might agree with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. @Crank
    On the front lines in the war for Western civilization. In Los Angeles about 5 miles south of our esteemed blog host, assuming I have correctly estimated the location of his bunker.

    My apoligies and my respect, sir. I confess I wrongly expected you were another sort in rural Iowa or some such not aware of the situation.

    I also confess my fears were just proven wrong, at least as yet.

    If this keeps up, I may well yet stay on and fight here.

    Whatever his faults, Donald Trump is a great man. His unwavering resolve and ferocious tenacity in the face of evil makes me think of no one more than a kind of sociopolitical (rather than military) Stonewall Jackson or Audie Murphy.

    To call this man divisive is preposterous. He makes me fondly recall the days when I fought alongside black, yellow, and brown people as brothers because we were all blue – before I was abused and beaten into hating them as a matter of self-preservation in the face of an ongoing attempted genocide.

    It’s very early days, but he may prove to be the greatest president of my lifetime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Yeah, I certainly wouldn't incline to any despair that Trump is going to break his promises -- at least not the major ones.

    My take on Trump is that he -- uniquely among Presidents at least in the last century -- really has no other goal than to keep those promises. He intended those promises sincerely when he made them -- why otherwise make them, given the hell doing so has visited upon him? -- and I believe he quite as sincerely seeks to keep them.

    From what I can see, that, and very little else, is what motivates the man in his role as President.

    One must remember that all other Presidents have come into office already well jaded from previous, long experience as politicians. Trump never went through that process of being beaten down, or, worse, being defenestrated from public office because of a failure to "compromise". He is completely fresh and optimistic in his outlook, endlessly energetic and resilient, and never backs out of a necessary (and sometimes unnecessary) confrontation.

    I don't, of course, expect that he will get everything he wants, because other parties are involved. But I do now expect that he will push things as hard as they can be pushed. (What the end product will be remains to be seen, of course.)

    And, as his speech just demonstrated, he seems to be well advised, and is obviously learning.

    , @eah
    It’s very early days, but he may prove to be the greatest president of my lifetime.

    In my view the bar is not all that high -- we just experienced the worst -- so you may be right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. His first 30 days makes me think of the business book “Great by Choice”. One of the ideas in it was to “fire bullets before cannonballs” fire bullets to see what hits, then fire cannonballs -pour resources- at where you scored a hit. Constantly test and see what’s working…
    I think he has been firing bullets, seeing what works, how D.C. and media reactions work, how the civil service works, where leaks are etc.
    Now he’s going to start firing cannonballs.
    It is going to be awesome

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. D. K. says:
    @Redman
    New York's election laws are designed to protect incumbents and need to be changed.

    If you are an independent trying to change status (as I was) to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, you need to do so nearly a full year before the election. That's what happened to Ivanka, as it did to many in my family who wanted to vote RP in 2008. Very unfair.

    My point was merely that Jared and Ivanka are neither philosophical conservatives nor lifetime Republicans. They support Donald Trump because he is her father and his father-in-law. They would have supported him if he had run as an independent third-party candidate, as a Democrat, or as whatever else might have appealed to Donald Trump, back in June 2015. I am not criticizing Jared and Ivanka, let alone condemning them, for respectively supporting their father-in-law and father. I find that type of family loyalty to be both understandable and commendable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Redman
    The way this country has changed so swiftly, there are a lot of people who may have been lifelong Democrats or independents who have seen the light of (true) liberalism and nationalism.

    Trump has tapped into a disgust with government that crosses party lines, and prior ideological allegiances. We are at a transitional moment in US history. Let's ride the wave.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Why is the negotiation with Congress or the Left or with Chuck Schumer?

    How about negotiating with . . . Mexico! For sake of argument, here, I am restricting discussion to those DACAs and law-abiding and law-breaking . . . Mexicans . . . who are here, and maybe add the Central Americans who are pointedly not welcome in Mexico but offered transit through Mexico up to the U.S. border.

    These are your people, Mexico (or your responsibility in the case of the U.N. Charter and persons seeking refugee status from their direct Central-American neighbors), so what do you want for them? You want them to have U.S. citizenship? So you are telling us we are supposed to settle your people who are unwanted as Mexican citizens? Is your country that crummy and hard-hearted that this is what you want?

    You want them to retain Mexican citizenship but have work permits and be granted free passage across the U.S.-Mexican border. Ho-kay, so, you are offering U.S. citizens the same deal to set up shop in Mexico? Tell us, Mexico, what privileges and accommodations you want for your people, and tell us what you are granting U.S. citizens and their government in return.

    You want your people to be granted U.S. citizenship, to have dual citizenship, so they can vote in U.S. elections? Can our people be extended the same courtesy to vote in your elections?

    I find it . . . interesting . . . that Mexican officials are expressing outrage that the terrible thing that could happen to their people, their citizens, is to be sent home?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    I find it . . . interesting . . . that Mexican officials are expressing outrage that the terrible thing that could happen to their people, their citizens, is to be sent home?
     
    I live in a state along the Canadian border, and in the 1980s Mexican nationals would show up with a card listing all the state welfare programs to which they could apply. Clearly the Mexican government was researching these give-away programs and sending their shock troops north to loot at maximum speed; just a brazen invasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. You guys of the Gimp Mask Crew can safely remove your masks and go back to your daily scheduled handwringing,

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    She's the one wearing the...oh, you meant metaphorically.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. bomag says:
    @TheBoom
    He has been hinting at it ever since the election with statements like we are going to working something out and you'll be proud. If he does wimp out, it won't buy him anything and will a huge nail in the coffin of the country.

    If he does wimp out, it won’t buy him anything and will a huge nail in the coffin of the country.

    Absolutely. If you give the other side anything, it is total flood gates. Trump has to go 100% against the usual suspects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. bomag says:
    @Inquiring Mind
    Why is the negotiation with Congress or the Left or with Chuck Schumer?

    How about negotiating with . . . Mexico! For sake of argument, here, I am restricting discussion to those DACAs and law-abiding and law-breaking . . . Mexicans . . . who are here, and maybe add the Central Americans who are pointedly not welcome in Mexico but offered transit through Mexico up to the U.S. border.

    These are your people, Mexico (or your responsibility in the case of the U.N. Charter and persons seeking refugee status from their direct Central-American neighbors), so what do you want for them? You want them to have U.S. citizenship? So you are telling us we are supposed to settle your people who are unwanted as Mexican citizens? Is your country that crummy and hard-hearted that this is what you want?

    You want them to retain Mexican citizenship but have work permits and be granted free passage across the U.S.-Mexican border. Ho-kay, so, you are offering U.S. citizens the same deal to set up shop in Mexico? Tell us, Mexico, what privileges and accommodations you want for your people, and tell us what you are granting U.S. citizens and their government in return.

    You want your people to be granted U.S. citizenship, to have dual citizenship, so they can vote in U.S. elections? Can our people be extended the same courtesy to vote in your elections?

    I find it . . . interesting . . . that Mexican officials are expressing outrage that the terrible thing that could happen to their people, their citizens, is to be sent home?

    I find it . . . interesting . . . that Mexican officials are expressing outrage that the terrible thing that could happen to their people, their citizens, is to be sent home?

    I live in a state along the Canadian border, and in the 1980s Mexican nationals would show up with a card listing all the state welfare programs to which they could apply. Clearly the Mexican government was researching these give-away programs and sending their shock troops north to loot at maximum speed; just a brazen invasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    The El Norte benefit comic books so thoughtfully facilitated by our Mexican neighbors probably had some well-intentioned domestic helpers, too. A few of those thousand points of light from the elder Bush era were laser targeting scopes aimed at us taxpayers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    So another rope-a-dope on immigration where it’s leaked that Trump will propose amnesty but he doesn’t? Just an attempt to boost ratings?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Ann Coulter on the response from a Dreamer. Brutal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    That was in response to this:
    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/836785542838829056
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen
    Ann Coulter on the response from a Dreamer. Brutal.
    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/836787398864482305

    That was in response to this:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacobite
    IMHO Ann could stand to put on a few pounds herself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Charles Pewitt
    President Trump follows Ann Coulter on Twitter. President Trump only follows 42 other people. Ann Coulter will make her opinion known quite strongly if Trump tries some Jebby Bush horseshit about giving any kind of legal status to illegal alien invaders.

    Tucker Carlson could have Coulter on his TV show to persuade President Trump that illegal alien invaders -- all of them -- must be deported from the United States. Legal immigration should be stopped as well.

    President Trump won the presidency on the immigration issue; any weakness on his part will be fatal to his presidency. President Trump must realize that appearing to conspire with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other open borders mass immigration supporting Republicans will demoralize his base and embolden his enemies.

    Here I am telling Jebby Bush to go to hell in regards to legalization of illegal alien invaders and increased immigration:

    https://twitter.com/tuohy/status/588858468452425728

    Now his job is to make guacamole with his dwarvish, Aztec wife. Hopefully he is better at that job than he was at the job of convincing Americans to immolate themselves….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Ivy says:
    @bomag

    I find it . . . interesting . . . that Mexican officials are expressing outrage that the terrible thing that could happen to their people, their citizens, is to be sent home?
     
    I live in a state along the Canadian border, and in the 1980s Mexican nationals would show up with a card listing all the state welfare programs to which they could apply. Clearly the Mexican government was researching these give-away programs and sending their shock troops north to loot at maximum speed; just a brazen invasion.

    The El Norte benefit comic books so thoughtfully facilitated by our Mexican neighbors probably had some well-intentioned domestic helpers, too. A few of those thousand points of light from the elder Bush era were laser targeting scopes aimed at us taxpayers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Jacobite says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    That was in response to this:
    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/836785542838829056

    IMHO Ann could stand to put on a few pounds herself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Redman says:
    @D. K.
    My point was merely that Jared and Ivanka are neither philosophical conservatives nor lifetime Republicans. They support Donald Trump because he is her father and his father-in-law. They would have supported him if he had run as an independent third-party candidate, as a Democrat, or as whatever else might have appealed to Donald Trump, back in June 2015. I am not criticizing Jared and Ivanka, let alone condemning them, for respectively supporting their father-in-law and father. I find that type of family loyalty to be both understandable and commendable.

    The way this country has changed so swiftly, there are a lot of people who may have been lifelong Democrats or independents who have seen the light of (true) liberalism and nationalism.

    Trump has tapped into a disgust with government that crosses party lines, and prior ideological allegiances. We are at a transitional moment in US history. Let’s ride the wave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Old fogey says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    President Trump won the election on a promise to deport illegal aliens, reduce legal immigration and build a wall on the border between the United States and Mexico.

    President Trump's immigration policy section on his campaign internet web site stated that we need a pause in immigration to increase wages for US workers. President Trump should stick to his stated campaign goals and not pull a bait and switch on the American people.

    I hope Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Ann Coulter tell President Trump to stop the weak cowardly bullshit about giving legal status to illegal alien invaders.

    “President Trump won the election on a promise to deport illegal aliens, reduce legal immigration and build a wall on the border between the United States and Mexico.”

    True, but another very important point was that he was eager to improve relations with Russia and bring troops home from Europe and Korea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Kirt says:
    @Daniel Williams

    When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?
     
    In living memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That’s more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike Street Station

    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That’s more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.
     
    After E-Verify is in place and it's almost impossible for illegals to get jobs based on fraudulent documents, what do you expect them to do? Common sense seems to indicate that they will self deport. There are not a lot of other good options, so your "bloodbath" seems unnecessary.
    , @Jack D
    Let's start by deporting the worst 1%.

    It's better to leave the rest in limbo than to legalize them forever. That way if they misbehave we can deport them immediately.
    , @gregor
    Not really.

    Part of the problem is unnecessary legal protections. Trump is going to expand the criteria for expedited removal (i.e., no legal proceedings) to include people arriving within two years (which the law already permits) versus the ridiculous 14 day limit we've been applying (and no longer limited to those within X miles of the border).

    Any longtime illegal residents are in all likelihood not "undocumented" but rather fraudulently documented. Start enforcing that and it will simply be impossible to live here unless you're living Unabomber style. If they can't work or get any government services, they will likely go back.

    If there were a large, coordinated mass revolt and, say, all of California refused to comply with labor laws, etc, that could make it difficult. But the smart money would be on the Feds winning that battle. It would probably be far milder than forcible desegregation was in the South which was not a "bloodbath."
    , @Autochthon
    It's one Hell of rhetorical and logical lea from the (conceded) point that 1) many more people are involved so the task presented ia much greater to the (dubious to the point of being silly) point that 2) only a bloodbath will suffice.

    Are we discussing the deportation of Mestizos or some weird concept album by a Mexican heavy metal band performing in the tradition of Iron Maiden?!

    I forsee tedium, not bloodbaths.

    Scads of invaders leaving on their own when no one will hire them, not even illicitly, for fear of raids, fines, and imprisonment imposed by sensible statutes enforced by a sensible executive and reviewed by a sensible judiciary.

    What force is needed will involve:

    1) Narcotraficantes, gangbangers, and other reprobates who were going to require violence to subdue even if they'd been citizens.

    2) Pudgy, quasi-midgets unable to run a nine minute mile, who've the cunning of a twelve-year-old and who've likely never handled a firearm in their lives (but can mow a mean lawn).

    Hell, finding and capturing the guileful Hindoos and Chinamen overstaying visas and dodging around from one uncle's liquor-store to another's motel is going to be more challenging than clearing out the barrios of southeastern San José and blighted dumps like Castroville and Gonzales.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Autochthon
    My apoligies and my respect, sir. I confess I wrongly expected you were another sort in rural Iowa or some such not aware of the situation.

    I also confess my fears were just proven wrong, at least as yet.

    If this keeps up, I may well yet stay on and fight here.

    Whatever his faults, Donald Trump is a great man. His unwavering resolve and ferocious tenacity in the face of evil makes me think of no one more than a kind of sociopolitical (rather than military) Stonewall Jackson or Audie Murphy.

    To call this man divisive is preposterous. He makes me fondly recall the days when I fought alongside black, yellow, and brown people as brothers because we were all blue – before I was abused and beaten into hating them as a matter of self-preservation in the face of an ongoing attempted genocide.

    It's very early days, but he may prove to be the greatest president of my lifetime.

    Yeah, I certainly wouldn’t incline to any despair that Trump is going to break his promises — at least not the major ones.

    My take on Trump is that he — uniquely among Presidents at least in the last century — really has no other goal than to keep those promises. He intended those promises sincerely when he made them — why otherwise make them, given the hell doing so has visited upon him? — and I believe he quite as sincerely seeks to keep them.

    From what I can see, that, and very little else, is what motivates the man in his role as President.

    One must remember that all other Presidents have come into office already well jaded from previous, long experience as politicians. Trump never went through that process of being beaten down, or, worse, being defenestrated from public office because of a failure to “compromise”. He is completely fresh and optimistic in his outlook, endlessly energetic and resilient, and never backs out of a necessary (and sometimes unnecessary) confrontation.

    I don’t, of course, expect that he will get everything he wants, because other parties are involved. But I do now expect that he will push things as hard as they can be pushed. (What the end product will be remains to be seen, of course.)

    And, as his speech just demonstrated, he seems to be well advised, and is obviously learning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Miller Lite is only draft that is allowed for a wide consumption in halls of Congress.

    Still beats Corona.

    What a novel approach:

    My job is not to represent the world.

    My job is to represent the United States of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. Old fogey says:
    @Clyde
    Eduardo García’s Path: Migrant Worker, Convict, Deportee, Star Chef
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/style/eduardo-garcia-restaurants-mexico-migrant-worker-convict-deportee-star-chef.html?ref=dining

    I read that article in the Times over the weekend. My initial reaction was that it actually was in his own best interest that he was deported when he was because as an illiterate illegal immigrant with a history of criminality he never could have risen as high in the NY restaurant scene as he has in Mexico.

    He recognizes that the training he received in the U.S., and the people he met here, were a blessing to him and has no animus toward the U.S. for returning him to Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    He picked lots of lettuce and other produce when he was an illegal alien child here. So he has paid his dues. I like the guy and his work ethic. I hope he is making efforts to straighten things out with the US Government so he can visit family that live here. Currently they must go to Mexico to see him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Svigor says:

    An added bonus, if this is a ploy, is Big Media loses more legitimacy points.

    Personally, I think Trump should split the Democrats by offering them choice plums that get their base all hot and bothered, but link them each step of the way to quid pro quo on immigration. Worst case, let the Dems explain to their base why foreigners are more important to them than lots of lovely bling for their constituents.

    So I feel like I’ve heard this before. Trump trolling the media and establishment on what is to them, their most important issue.

    Yes, it’s paramount for the Democrat Party and Big Media. It’s kind of the opposite for their most loyal voters, blacks. It’s not far from that for another important constituency, blue collar whites. It’s rather less important to east and south Asians, too, who would fare better under a high-skill immigration policy than NAMs.

    America watching the Party Elite ride and die for open borders uber alles 24/7/365 is probably a good thing.

    I think many Trump supporters would accept a deal like that. The problem is that the left/Democrats would never accept it. They basically want a complete amnesty and unlimited immigration. They’ve gotten to the point where they think it’s a crime against humanity to have any type of border and immigration enforcement.

    The Democrats are perfectly happy with immigration the way it is. Was. Trump only has so much to bargain with vis-a-vis immigration policy. But he has plenty of other stuff…

    What I don’t like is how GOPe concerns (Husseincare, tax reform) have been placed at the front of the queue. I’d rather see that stuff dangled as carrots for the cucks.

    Impeaching judges is extremely difficult.

    With McInsane and Gayhamnesty as “Republican” senators #51 and #52, yeah. But seriously, it’s no harder than passing a law. One law through Congress and signed by the President, and every inferior court judge can be cashiered at once.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Autochthon

    The Democrats are perfectly happy with immigration the way it is. Was. Trump only has so much to bargain with vis-a-vis immigration policy. But he has plenty of other stuff….
     
    Yes and no. The Democrats are happy with the status quo ante only because it has entailed not actually enforcing longstanding statutes. As the executive, Trump needs nothing from the Democratic legislators because the statutes already enable (indeed command!) him to prevent further invasion, capture and deport invaders already here, etc.

    What's more, to the extent he seeks legislation (say, mandating use of e-Verify, increased punishment for those employing illegal aliens, or changes to the H1B scam) he does have Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, and a mandate from the electorate, whom I've no doubt will make known their contempt for attempts to foil Trump by legislators from any meaningful place (e.g., West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.; any fool knows the evil lunatics (mis)representing California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. are incorrigible in any event).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. eah says:
    @Autochthon
    My apoligies and my respect, sir. I confess I wrongly expected you were another sort in rural Iowa or some such not aware of the situation.

    I also confess my fears were just proven wrong, at least as yet.

    If this keeps up, I may well yet stay on and fight here.

    Whatever his faults, Donald Trump is a great man. His unwavering resolve and ferocious tenacity in the face of evil makes me think of no one more than a kind of sociopolitical (rather than military) Stonewall Jackson or Audie Murphy.

    To call this man divisive is preposterous. He makes me fondly recall the days when I fought alongside black, yellow, and brown people as brothers because we were all blue – before I was abused and beaten into hating them as a matter of self-preservation in the face of an ongoing attempted genocide.

    It's very early days, but he may prove to be the greatest president of my lifetime.

    It’s very early days, but he may prove to be the greatest president of my lifetime.

    In my view the bar is not all that high — we just experienced the worst — so you may be right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Clyde says:

    Form LA Times
    It’s legal for an immigration agent to pretend to be a police officer outside someone’s door. But should it be? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-immigration-deportation-ruses-20170219-story.html

    During a nationwide operation this month by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a team of ICE agents in Los Angeles approached the house of a man targeted for deportation.
    “Good morning, police,” one agent announced in the pre-dawn darkness.
    A man opened the door moments later.
    “Good morning, how you doing? I’m a police officer. We’re doing an investigation,” the agent said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas
    This is as much a matter of safety for ICE as anything else, because people with limited/no English proficiency, which obviously ICE deals with regularly, might or might not know what "ICE" is, but everyone knows what "police" or "policia" is. And they are federal criminal investigators who are entitled to carry guns, wear badges, and arrest people, which makes them "police" as much as anything else does.

    And, more importantly, ICE and the federal government generally are under and should be under no obligation whatsoever to make it any easier for Los Angeles or any other "sanctuary city" to basically thumb their noses at federal law, which is essentially what they're doing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Dissident says:

    [(not entirely) Off-Topic]

    From the Its Increasingly Difficult to Parody SJWs (because they do such a thorough job of it themselves without even intending to) and the Don’t Know Whether to Laugh or Cry Departments:

    12-YEAR-OLD LOCAL ARTIST CREATES ‘EVERYDAY SUPERHEROES’ TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE ACLU

    A 12-year-old Upper West Side girl has found a way to fight the “sadness” she feels about, what she diplomatically calls, “current events.”

    The superheroes Sasha draws are all around us. “They’re you,” she said, “what you do or are interested in that makes you an interesting person.” Like her mom, Amy Harmon, a New York Times reporter.

    “This project is really not just a response to Trump. It’s also for any other reason people might feel sad. Trump is probably the main shadow in people’s lives, but there’s also a lot of other things to be sad about. People can get in touch with their inner superheroes.

    [emphases mine- Dissident]

    I don’t think there would be anything pejorative in describing this kid’s drawings as caricatures. But they are certainly not the only caricatures on display here…

    (Those following the link may want to look for my contribution in the comments. It shouldn’t be too difficult to find.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I read the story. One commenter, Independent (maybe Dissident's alias there) points out, quite civilly, that some may wish to commission a drawing and have money go not to the politicized ACLU but rather a nonpartisan charity helping veterans or disabled children. Another commenter immediately responds that this situation is "clearly not the time and/or [sic] place" for "political debate" and that "[t]here is more to life than politics and provocations."

    The girl's father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to "freedom of speech," clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against "hate speech" and the like.

    The lack of self-awareness among these jackasses is epic, especially when one knows good and well a child like Sasha, at her age, only holds these melodramatic views about the president because she has been brainwashed to do so and inculcated with them by her hateful, embittered parents.

    Of course, the most important question raised by this article is whether advertiser Anya Brodsky, D.D.S., is single....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. eah says:

    Trump should also take on affirmative action — which is not unrelated to immigration, since the vast majority of immigrants are non-white, which means they qualify for preferences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    If she scored a 20 on the ACT she qualifies for LA's TOPS Scholarship which pays about 2/3 of tuition to a Louisana state school. If she scores 30 or above they pay all of it. Maybe she's not that bright?

    In fact since relatively few blacks in Louisana can score a 20 on the ACT there are cries that it's racist or has moved beyond its intent. The scholarship started off as a private scholarship founded by a white couple that specifically targeted blacks.

    People need to stop blaming black folks for their short comings.
    , @Discard
    Affirmative action is wholly indefensible. It's a White man in a suit making six figures telling a White man with dirty fingernails and $25K per year that he has enough already, and that a non-White dullard deserves the good job because of slavery or immigration or diversity.

    I am deaf to all excuses for this. It's a causus belli if I've ever seen one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. I don’t know the man at all, but I’m slowly beginning to suspect that President Trump is quite impressionable, as long as he gets a lot of respect from the person who is speaking with him, and who has credentials he understands and respects, whatever those may be.

    I expect that, ever since his election, he meets and hears ideas from many, many people, and perhaps the apparent sudden changes in plans spring from such a character trait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. Dan Hayes says:
    @Lord Jeff Sessions
    On Twitter I see this guy Charlie Sykes taunting Ann Coulter over Trump floating amnesty. Here is his twitter bio:

    Author/Commentator; MSNBC Contributor; Host "Indivisible," WNYC; Writing: "How The Right Lost Its Mind," Editor, RightWisconsin; Email: cjaysykes@gmail.com
     
    Also, here is the description of his book:

    In March 2016, Wisconsin’s #1 conservative talk-radio host Charles Sykes did the unthinkable: He ferociously challenged the then Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in a live interview. Afterward, Sykes alone among conservative media figures continued to denounce Trump, and extended his attack to include the larger right-wing media and other politicians that enabled his rise.

    Now, in How the Right Lost Its Mind, Sykes presents an impassioned, regretful, and deeply thoughtful account of how the American conservative movement came to lose its values. How did a movement that was defined by its belief in limited government, individual liberty, free markets, traditional values, and civility find itself embracing bigotry, political intransigence, demagoguery, and outright falsehood?
     

    Unbelievable. He might be even worse than Egg McMuffin.

    Lord Jeff Sessions:

    Anyone associated with radio station WNYC like Sykes is well beyond redemption.

    The most galling and irritating fact about WNYC is that the smug liberalism of its news readers, presenters and guests is paid for by taxpayers.

    New York City radio listeners have an even more baying at the moon leftist Pacifica station, WBAI. But at least it is not taxpayer supported.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Mr. Anon says:
    @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    “There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country.”

    That is simply ridiculous. Of course he could deport 11 million people. Eisenhower deported a million illegal aliens in 1954 alone, during “Operation Wetback”. “Killing Thousands”? How is putting them on a bus killing them? “Igniting guerrilla warfare”? Nonsense. The only people capable of carrying out guerilla warfare in this country are the people who want the illegals deported.

    Get a grip, man.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Many will return home on their own if they are told they are no longer welcome. I am serious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Thomas says:
    @Clyde
    Form LA Times
    It's legal for an immigration agent to pretend to be a police officer outside someone's door. But should it be? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-immigration-deportation-ruses-20170219-story.html

    During a nationwide operation this month by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a team of ICE agents in Los Angeles approached the house of a man targeted for deportation.
    “Good morning, police,” one agent announced in the pre-dawn darkness.
    A man opened the door moments later.
    “Good morning, how you doing? I’m a police officer. We’re doing an investigation,” the agent said.

    This is as much a matter of safety for ICE as anything else, because people with limited/no English proficiency, which obviously ICE deals with regularly, might or might not know what “ICE” is, but everyone knows what “police” or “policia” is. And they are federal criminal investigators who are entitled to carry guns, wear badges, and arrest people, which makes them “police” as much as anything else does.

    And, more importantly, ICE and the federal government generally are under and should be under no obligation whatsoever to make it any easier for Los Angeles or any other “sanctuary city” to basically thumb their noses at federal law, which is essentially what they’re doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Exactly so. Agents of ICE are peace officers, just as federal marshals, park rangers, bailiffs at the courthouse, county sheriffs, and actual police officers (i.e., members of cities' and similar municipalities' police departments) are. Technically, only the last group are police.

    Thus, statutes invariably use the term "peace officer" and not "police officer" when designating persons authorised by the government to enforce the law and imbued with the power to arrest, detain, and otherwise use physical force in so doing.

    The person who wrote this drivel is truly grasping at semantic straws. The headline might as well read "It's legal for a sheriff's deputy to pretend to be a police officer...but should it be?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Rob McX says:
    @peterike

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

     

    You mean like their parents, who went to school in Mexico and speak only Spanish, were poorly qualified to sneak into America? Well they survived, somehow.

    Good point, and it’s funny how you never see the argument being turned the other way like this. “It would be inhumane to deport 10m people” – but how did they get to America in the first place? Often by walking through desert and running the risk of getting their throats cut for the cash they’re carrying, or of being kidnapped and then murdered if their families can’t pay the ransom. Making the return journey w0uld be easy by comparison.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @D. K.
    P.S. I wrote that before even seeing that "New York Times" blurb! I get tired of having to point out to others, but: the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are unprosecuted felons! "They come here to work" is the standard defense of illegal aliens, both from highly placed shills and from lowly placed proles. Well, guess what, kids? In order to work without legal authorization, an illegal alien needs either to engage in identity fraud-- which is a federal felony-- or to work "under the table"-- which entails tax evasion, as a direct result, which means multiple and ongoing felonies. On top of those realities, the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are young men. Young men-- including even illegal aliens-- are required to register with Selective Service, as I was required to do, back in the autumn of 1974. Failure to do so also is a serious felony. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the percentage of illegal aliens complying with the Selective Service Act is vanishingly small. If President Trump considers federal felonies not to be serious crimes, so long as they do not involve actual violence, he is unfit to hold the office to which I, for better and worse, helped to elect him, last November 8.

    Very good points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Daniel Williams

    When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?
     
    In living memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

    Good catch, Dan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Good catch, Dan
     
    No, good catch, Ike.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Guy de Champlagne
    And what's to stop the next president, republican or democrat, from just increasing immigration to even higher levels? Or just going back to not enforcing what immigration laws there are?

    Us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Broski
    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court willing to expansively interpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the Citizenship Clause's original intended meaning, which is absurd. Plenty of children of illegal immigrants are in jail, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction, as are plenty of illegal immigrants.

    Birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment, or a very ideologically conservative Court…

    Or a Congress with 1,070 working testicles.

    They have the authority to pull naturalization off the courts’ docket.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @SteveRogers42
    Good catch, Dan.

    Good catch, Dan

    No, good catch, Ike.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Heh!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @jimbojones
    Here's a question - what do you do with, say, a person who was dragged over the border by relatives at the age of two? Grew up in the US, knows nothing else, speaks English, etc.

    The illegal immigration problem has metastasized into an utter monstrosity. Solving it will require both compromise and resolute effort.

    If Trump shows willingness to compromise, that would perhaps be a good thing. Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that building a wall and deporting all illegals is a good idea, accomplishing both tasks still seems both physically and politically impossible. And, given cases such as the one described above, perhaps also morally objectionable.

    It would “perhaps” be even more “morally objectionable” to p!$$ my father’s country down the drain so that my kids have to live in a giant Mexifornia from agua to shining agua.

    If that means that your hypothetical trespasser has to andele back across the border, that is just el tough-o.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Trump is the best chance we will probably ever have of an immigration restrictionist president. Why? Because it takes too much money to win an American national election and the Republican donor class is 100% open borders. Trump, being a billionaire celebrity, didn’t need their money.

    So let’s pray to a God he doesn’t cave on the issue. Otherwise, this country is finished(might be finished anyway.)

    Before you get too fatalistic, realize that two of his top advisors are immigration patriots Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. He also has immigration patriots Mike Anton and Julia Hahn working for him. And, of course, we have the best of them all Jeff Sessions as AG.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike Street Station

    Trump is the best chance we will probably ever have of an immigration restrictionist president. Why? Because it takes too much money to win an American national election and the Republican donor class is 100% open borders. Trump, being a billionaire celebrity, didn’t need their money.
     
    That's a point I agree with. That's why in the primaries we had 16 Republican candidates who all had more or less the same position on immigration and illegals (to a greater or lessor degree) and only one real immigration restrictionist; the self funding one. And we will be in that same position in 8 years. Even if you raise potential successors to run, how are they going to afford it when the party and donors will oppose them? We may have to wait for another restrictionist billionaire. That's not a very large group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Anon
    He probably intends to legalize immigrant children who have been raised in the US for most of their lives. I don't care for it, but from a practical point of view, I understand why he would do it. The problem is, we don't need any more of them, and I'd like a lot fewer. As for their parents, he may take a hard line and say they have to apply for citizenship. After all, they're the ones who chose to break the law, not their kids, so it's appropriate to make the parents jump through hoops for green cards or permanent resident status. I'd much rather we grant permanent resident status to the kids instead of granting them citizenship, because we really need to make citizenship a rare thing that's hard to get, not hand it out to the rest of the world so easily. Permanent residents should be required to pay taxes, but they shouldn't be eligible for social security or welfare benefits.

    All in all, I'd love to see all persons with illegal status deported, but the top priority would be any illegal who's committed a crime; any person on welfare; any person who's registered to vote who isn't a citizen; any person using someone else's social security numbers or their ID because that can cause the real person a lot of trouble; any person taking scholarship money that ought to go to a real US citizen; anyone running up expensive medical costs in our healthcare system that they can't pay; people taking out loans they can't pay because if they do it en masse, they can cause our banks to fail; and finally, any illegal who writes pro-immigrant articles for our press anywhere. All of these people are nothing but a lot of hassle.

    Permanent residents should be required to pay taxes…

    They should be required to earn enough to pay taxes, i.e., belong to Romney’s 53%. That alone would cut the numbers; how many already do?

    …immigrant children who have been raised in the US for most of their lives.

    Whether or not they are US citizens, every single one under the age of eighteen possesses citizenship of another country. So those kids have an advantage native Americans don’t.

    And don’t tell me young, energetic people fluent in American English have no prospects back home. They’re an élite the moment they land.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Wilkey
    "You mean like their parents, who went to school in Mexico and speak only Spanish, were poorly qualified to sneak into America? Well they survived, somehow."

    Right? The people being sent back at least have cultural ties to their home country, even if they don't fully speak the language (yet). They're fully capable of readapting themselves to the country of their birth.

    A homeland of their own, where they can bask in their glorious indigenous culture, and be forever free of the white man’s savagery and oppression. I call it Mexico.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Svigor
    An added bonus, if this is a ploy, is Big Media loses more legitimacy points.

    Personally, I think Trump should split the Democrats by offering them choice plums that get their base all hot and bothered, but link them each step of the way to quid pro quo on immigration. Worst case, let the Dems explain to their base why foreigners are more important to them than lots of lovely bling for their constituents.

    So I feel like I’ve heard this before. Trump trolling the media and establishment on what is to them, their most important issue.
     
    Yes, it's paramount for the Democrat Party and Big Media. It's kind of the opposite for their most loyal voters, blacks. It's not far from that for another important constituency, blue collar whites. It's rather less important to east and south Asians, too, who would fare better under a high-skill immigration policy than NAMs.

    America watching the Party Elite ride and die for open borders uber alles 24/7/365 is probably a good thing.

    I think many Trump supporters would accept a deal like that. The problem is that the left/Democrats would never accept it. They basically want a complete amnesty and unlimited immigration. They’ve gotten to the point where they think it’s a crime against humanity to have any type of border and immigration enforcement.
     
    The Democrats are perfectly happy with immigration the way it is. Was. Trump only has so much to bargain with vis-a-vis immigration policy. But he has plenty of other stuff...

    What I don't like is how GOPe concerns (Husseincare, tax reform) have been placed at the front of the queue. I'd rather see that stuff dangled as carrots for the cucks.

    Impeaching judges is extremely difficult.
     
    With McInsane and Gayhamnesty as "Republican" senators #51 and #52, yeah. But seriously, it's no harder than passing a law. One law through Congress and signed by the President, and every inferior court judge can be cashiered at once.

    The Democrats are perfectly happy with immigration the way it is. Was. Trump only has so much to bargain with vis-a-vis immigration policy. But he has plenty of other stuff….

    Yes and no. The Democrats are happy with the status quo ante only because it has entailed not actually enforcing longstanding statutes. As the executive, Trump needs nothing from the Democratic legislators because the statutes already enable (indeed command!) him to prevent further invasion, capture and deport invaders already here, etc.

    What’s more, to the extent he seeks legislation (say, mandating use of e-Verify, increased punishment for those employing illegal aliens, or changes to the H1B scam) he does have Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, and a mandate from the electorate, whom I’ve no doubt will make known their contempt for attempts to foil Trump by legislators from any meaningful place (e.g., West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.; any fool knows the evil lunatics (mis)representing California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. are incorrigible in any event).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Is Trump Going to Sell Out on Amnesty?

    Using the weasel word “amnesty” is itself selling out.

    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    Permanent legal residence in America is not “amnesty”, it’s an unearned gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    A rhetorical frame that may be worth using in debate.
    , @ben tillman

    Using the weasel word “amnesty” is itself selling out.

    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    Permanent legal residence in America is not “amnesty”, it’s an unearned gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
     
    You are right. I still remember my father explaining this to me in connection with the "amnesty" for the draft dodgers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Reg Cæsar

    Good catch, Dan
     
    No, good catch, Ike.

    Heh!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Guy de Champlagne

    We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

     

    And Kushner is the enemy because....what? he's jewish?

    You must be new to this stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Mr. Anon
    "There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country."

    That is simply ridiculous. Of course he could deport 11 million people. Eisenhower deported a million illegal aliens in 1954 alone, during "Operation Wetback". "Killing Thousands"? How is putting them on a bus killing them? "Igniting guerrilla warfare"? Nonsense. The only people capable of carrying out guerilla warfare in this country are the people who want the illegals deported.

    Get a grip, man.

    Many will return home on their own if they are told they are no longer welcome. I am serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Remember the colossal crowds of marching illegal aliens waving Mexican flags in 2006, demanding amnesty? They were doing that in large part because President Bush, Senator Kennedy, and Senator McCain were encouraging them to do that. When their amnesty bill got defeated, they stopped marching.
    , @Jack D
    Just telling them won't work. What is needed is to withdraw the government benefits and eligibility for employment. Illegal aliens receive all sorts of government services - free public school for their children, medical care if they present themselves at a hospital emergency room, etc. That's only the legal benefits. In addition, while technically they are not eligible for welfare, the welfare intake clerks are instructed (wink-wink, nod-nod) that they are not La Migra and if someone presents documents indicating that they are a legal US resident the clerk is supposed to accept them and not question them further. You are supposed to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt - if you question whether someone who speaks no English is not a US citizen then you are some kind of racis'. The local police are instructed in "sanctuary" cities not to cooperate with the INS and employers are not concerned that they will be fined heavily for hiring illegal aliens with obviously fake documents. In some states they can even get driver's licenses. Even the IRS is aware of millions of duplicate social security #'s. xxx-xxx-xxxx can't be working 2 jobs at the same time, one in LA and one in Dallas but if they are both sending in withholding the IRS just takes their $.

    There is a whole wink-wink, nod-nod structure geared toward supporting illegal aliens and making their life almost as comfortable as that of citizens. Take away that structure and make their life less comfortable and many will self deport. They only came here because life was better here so if life is worse here then they go back. Many Mexicans have built a house back home (using $ made here) for just this eventuality. There is some hard core that will stay no matter what like Japanese soldiers hiding out in the Philippine jungle after the war was over but most will go if you make their life hard enough.

    Up until now we have done the opposite - made it as easy as possible so naturally millions came and told their friends how great it was and then millions more followed. Nowadays illegals have cell phones and talk to the folks back home every day so they know exactly what the climate is in every destination. You see this in Europe where the illegals are keenly aware that the UK is paradise and try desperately to get on the trucks going thru the Chunnel in order to make it there even though they are already in France.
    , @ben tillman

    Many will return home on their own if they are told they are no longer welcome. I am serious.
     
    More than that -- you're right!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Reg Cæsar

    Is Trump Going to Sell Out on Amnesty?
     
    Using the weasel word "amnesty" is itself selling out.

    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    Permanent legal residence in America is not "amnesty", it's an unearned gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    A rhetorical frame that may be worth using in debate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Opinionator
    Many will return home on their own if they are told they are no longer welcome. I am serious.

    Remember the colossal crowds of marching illegal aliens waving Mexican flags in 2006, demanding amnesty? They were doing that in large part because President Bush, Senator Kennedy, and Senator McCain were encouraging them to do that. When their amnesty bill got defeated, they stopped marching.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I remember Opus the penguin marching to legalize undocumented Antarcticans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Dissident says:
    @27 year old
    >When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    When has mass invasion on this scale ever occurred in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    Good rejoinder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Kirt
    There is no way Trump was ever going to engage in the mass deportation of anywhere from 10 to 40 million US residents, however illegal their status. This simply could not be done without the killing of thousands and igniting guerrilla warfare throughout large sections of the country. When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre? Most Americans, like most sane people anywhere, do not want this; they just want to live in peace. Single issue anti-immigrationists will have to settle for the deportation of illegal alien felons and restrictions on immigration going forward.

    Could someone define “mass deportation” for me? I would like to know the number of illegals, and the time window, that would classify deportations (upholding of immigration law) as “mass.” This is a scary, boogeyman term the media loves using, along with ‘maverick’ ‘firebrand’ ‘controversial’ ‘far right’ and ‘crackdown’ on immigration law enforcement and enforcers. OK, I got it, the media hates enforcement of immigration law, ho hum. Myself, I am all in for any and all kinds of deportations/upholding of US immigration law. But perhaps someone could define the parameters so we know what we are talking about. If the idea is that we aren’t going to deport 30 million people by next weekend, that does not sound feasible but I would be delighted to see it happen. I also am not buying an assertion that thousands of people have to be killed in order to see significant deportations? Why, exactly, are people going to die? That sounds like something only a NYT writer could conjure up. Laws are laws and the voters and workers in this country want to see them enforced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kirt
    Ten or tens of millions in the space of a few months or a couple of years would certainly be mass deportation, exceeding by far the deportations of Palestinians in the naqba or East Germans at the conclusion of WWII. If the process is simply a gradual one over several decades, the single issue anti-immigrationists will argue that it is not happening at all and Trump has sold out. It is also a mistake to think that the bloodshed would not take place or even be confined only to the US. There would be retaliatory deportations in many countries aimed at relatively small (but still numbering in the thousands) American expat communities. A contemporary "Asiatic vespers", but on a world-wide scale and not just confined to one small part of Asia, could cause the death of thousands of Americans and the displacement of tens of thousands - all this apart from the damage to the US homeland. I was and am not a Trump supporter, but I was never in the least worried about his anti-immigration "stance". I believe not a word that politicians say during a campaign but look at their record. Trump is a mass employer of immigrants, including illegal ones, and a serial marryer of immigrants. Why would anyone think he was really anti-immigrant? Did you trust him? Well, he's Lucy moving the football.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, this was just from a quick search and it is from 2012 - this is from the FBI website:

    The estimated arrest rate for the United States in 2012 was 3,888.2 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants. The arrest rate for violent crime (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) was 166.3 per 100,000 inhabitants, and the arrest rate for property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) was 528.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. (See Table 30.)
     
    So, for 330,000,000 inhabitants of this country that means 1/2 a million or so arrests for violent crimes and almost 13 million arrests total. Let's just think about that. Nobody could call "mass arrests" a situation where about the same many illegal aliens are arrested each year, for a few years running, spread out over the whole country (yeah, it may be triple that rate in CA, NV, FL, and 1/10 that rate in VT, but you get the idea). Even that would not be necessary, as, as we all know around here and has just been described very well, not even 1/4 of the rate needed to get everyone would probably be enough to get the others to trickle out home on their own.

    After all, they are already scared silly at this point, according to the LP, when only a very miniscule insignificant amount extra have been arrested so far. They have a real reason to be scared of what's coming (hopefully, unless Trump fails to deliver by either going native there in Washington, FS, or by just not getting enough support against too much pressure).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Dissident
    [(not entirely) Off-Topic]

    From the Its Increasingly Difficult to Parody SJWs (because they do such a thorough job of it themselves without even intending to) and the Don't Know Whether to Laugh or Cry Departments:

    12-YEAR-OLD LOCAL ARTIST CREATES ‘EVERYDAY SUPERHEROES’ TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE ACLU

    A 12-year-old Upper West Side girl has found a way to fight the “sadness” she feels about, what she diplomatically calls, “current events.”
     

    The superheroes Sasha draws are all around us. “They’re you,” she said, “what you do or are interested in that makes you an interesting person.” Like her mom, Amy Harmon, a New York Times reporter.
     

    “This project is really not just a response to Trump. It’s also for any other reason people might feel sad. Trump is probably the main shadow in people’s lives, but there’s also a lot of other things to be sad about. People can get in touch with their inner superheroes.
     
    [emphases mine- Dissident]

    I don't think there would be anything pejorative in describing this kid's drawings as caricatures. But they are certainly not the only caricatures on display here...

    (Those following the link may want to look for my contribution in the comments. It shouldn't be too difficult to find.)

    I read the story. One commenter, Independent (maybe Dissident’s alias there) points out, quite civilly, that some may wish to commission a drawing and have money go not to the politicized ACLU but rather a nonpartisan charity helping veterans or disabled children. Another commenter immediately responds that this situation is “clearly not the time and/or [sic] place” for “political debate” and that “[t]here is more to life than politics and provocations.”

    The girl’s father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to “freedom of speech,” clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against “hate speech” and the like.

    The lack of self-awareness among these jackasses is epic, especially when one knows good and well a child like Sasha, at her age, only holds these melodramatic views about the president because she has been brainwashed to do so and inculcated with them by her hateful, embittered parents.

    Of course, the most important question raised by this article is whether advertiser Anya Brodsky, D.D.S., is single….

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))

    The girl’s father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to “freedom of speech,” clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against “hate speech” and the like.
     
    Lies. The ACLU backs the First Amendment.

    Provide one example otherwise.
    , @SFG
    From Zocdoc:

    She and her husband are the proud parents of identical twin boys.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Thomas
    This is as much a matter of safety for ICE as anything else, because people with limited/no English proficiency, which obviously ICE deals with regularly, might or might not know what "ICE" is, but everyone knows what "police" or "policia" is. And they are federal criminal investigators who are entitled to carry guns, wear badges, and arrest people, which makes them "police" as much as anything else does.

    And, more importantly, ICE and the federal government generally are under and should be under no obligation whatsoever to make it any easier for Los Angeles or any other "sanctuary city" to basically thumb their noses at federal law, which is essentially what they're doing.

    Exactly so. Agents of ICE are peace officers, just as federal marshals, park rangers, bailiffs at the courthouse, county sheriffs, and actual police officers (i.e., members of cities’ and similar municipalities’ police departments) are. Technically, only the last group are police.

    Thus, statutes invariably use the term “peace officer” and not “police officer” when designating persons authorised by the government to enforce the law and imbued with the power to arrest, detain, and otherwise use physical force in so doing.

    The person who wrote this drivel is truly grasping at semantic straws. The headline might as well read “It’s legal for a sheriff’s deputy to pretend to be a police officer…but should it be?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Ed says:
    @eah
    Trump should also take on affirmative action -- which is not unrelated to immigration, since the vast majority of immigrants are non-white, which means they qualify for preferences.

    https://twitter.com/ScottMcConnell9/status/836624065263710210

    If she scored a 20 on the ACT she qualifies for LA’s TOPS Scholarship which pays about 2/3 of tuition to a Louisana state school. If she scores 30 or above they pay all of it. Maybe she’s not that bright?

    In fact since relatively few blacks in Louisana can score a 20 on the ACT there are cries that it’s racist or has moved beyond its intent. The scholarship started off as a private scholarship founded by a white couple that specifically targeted blacks.

    People need to stop blaming black folks for their short comings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Discard says:
    @eah
    Trump should also take on affirmative action -- which is not unrelated to immigration, since the vast majority of immigrants are non-white, which means they qualify for preferences.

    https://twitter.com/ScottMcConnell9/status/836624065263710210

    Affirmative action is wholly indefensible. It’s a White man in a suit making six figures telling a White man with dirty fingernails and $25K per year that he has enough already, and that a non-White dullard deserves the good job because of slavery or immigration or diversity.

    I am deaf to all excuses for this. It’s a causus belli if I’ve ever seen one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Kirt says:
    @Buck Turgidson
    Could someone define "mass deportation" for me? I would like to know the number of illegals, and the time window, that would classify deportations (upholding of immigration law) as "mass." This is a scary, boogeyman term the media loves using, along with 'maverick' 'firebrand' 'controversial' 'far right' and 'crackdown' on immigration law enforcement and enforcers. OK, I got it, the media hates enforcement of immigration law, ho hum. Myself, I am all in for any and all kinds of deportations/upholding of US immigration law. But perhaps someone could define the parameters so we know what we are talking about. If the idea is that we aren't going to deport 30 million people by next weekend, that does not sound feasible but I would be delighted to see it happen. I also am not buying an assertion that thousands of people have to be killed in order to see significant deportations? Why, exactly, are people going to die? That sounds like something only a NYT writer could conjure up. Laws are laws and the voters and workers in this country want to see them enforced.

    Ten or tens of millions in the space of a few months or a couple of years would certainly be mass deportation, exceeding by far the deportations of Palestinians in the naqba or East Germans at the conclusion of WWII. If the process is simply a gradual one over several decades, the single issue anti-immigrationists will argue that it is not happening at all and Trump has sold out. It is also a mistake to think that the bloodshed would not take place or even be confined only to the US. There would be retaliatory deportations in many countries aimed at relatively small (but still numbering in the thousands) American expat communities. A contemporary “Asiatic vespers”, but on a world-wide scale and not just confined to one small part of Asia, could cause the death of thousands of Americans and the displacement of tens of thousands – all this apart from the damage to the US homeland. I was and am not a Trump supporter, but I was never in the least worried about his anti-immigration “stance”. I believe not a word that politicians say during a campaign but look at their record. Trump is a mass employer of immigrants, including illegal ones, and a serial marryer of immigrants. Why would anyone think he was really anti-immigrant? Did you trust him? Well, he’s Lucy moving the football.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. SFG says:
    @Jack Hanson
    You guys of the Gimp Mask Crew can safely remove your masks and go back to your daily scheduled handwringing,

    She’s the one wearing the…oh, you meant metaphorically.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @me
    Of course.

    I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn't have 'Game' but is 100% moral.

    It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

    That was the red flag.

    We're looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don't hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    I'm also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I've followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He's a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don't put that s--- on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

    That was the red flag.

    The red flag is anti-Semitic agents provocateurs like you insulting Trump and trying to divide patriotic Americans. Your top agenda item is always the same: Deny the American nationalist agenda the Jewish intellects it needs to support its program by associating us with Nazis like you.

    And I expect that like most of your kind, you’re really just an anti-American open borders hasbara. The Jews are all coming over to our side and you’d better just get used to it. Enjoy all the low-IQ Moslems you’ve invited into the country to run your side of the debate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Kirt
    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That's more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.

    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That’s more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.

    After E-Verify is in place and it’s almost impossible for illegals to get jobs based on fraudulent documents, what do you expect them to do? Common sense seems to indicate that they will self deport. There are not a lot of other good options, so your “bloodbath” seems unnecessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-27/terry-mcauliffe-receives-assurances-from-trump-administration-on-immigration

    McAuliffe: Trump Like Obama on Immigration

    Secretary John Kelly told the Virginia governor the administration would leave in place the Obama policy on Dreamers.

    Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said the Trump administration has assured him privately that it will move to deport only individuals who have come into the country illegally and will allow minors without documentation to remain in the country, essentially continuing former President Barack Obama’s immigration policy.

    McAuliffe, a term-limited Democrat, broached the topic of immigration with both President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly in separate conversations Sunday. He said he vividly conveyed the amount of fear permeating immigrant communities in his commonwealth, but left heartened that the approach won’t be as draconian as it has been billed rhetorically.

    “Can I leave this meeting, General Secretary, and say that there will be no deportations of any individuals in the USA unless they have been involved in a criminal enterprise? He said, ‘Yes.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    McAuliffe is a complete Clinton bag man POS who I would not believe if he told me the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. He recently vetoed a bill to require election officials to scrub voter rolls saying it would be too much work for these exhausted civil servants. Some Virginia counties have more registered voters than eligible voters.

    The Public Interest Legal Foundation found 1,046 aliens who were illegally registered to vote in just eight counties. The last gubernatorial election was very close; the Attorney General's race, which the D won, was decided by fewer than 1000 votes.

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/mcauliffe-vetoes-bill-investigate-virginia-voter-rolls-registered-eligible-voters/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Jack D says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    The distinction between Dreamers and US citizens can be a fine line. Be born a week before mom arrived in the US and you are a dreamer, be born a week after mom arrived in the US and you are qualified to be a future president.

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

    The whole business really needs to be handed over to the Supreme Court where, in the usual fashion, they will first make a decision, then look for rationalizations to justify the decision, and after that everyone will agree that was what the Constitution said all along, only no one had ever noticed it before.

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.

    Usually 1st generation immigrant children are bilingual because their parents speak their native language at home. Maybe there are some illegal alien children from Mexico who never learned Spanish but not many. Chances are mom has Mexican soap operas on TV all day, making Haim Saban richer. They call home all the time and talk to their abuela and cousins, making Carlos Slim richer. Their Spanish may not be perfect but after a few months back home in their native country it improves.

    As others point out, their parents probably spoke only Spanish so they were “poorly qualified” to enter the US, but that didn’t stop them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @jimbojones
    Here's a question - what do you do with, say, a person who was dragged over the border by relatives at the age of two? Grew up in the US, knows nothing else, speaks English, etc.

    The illegal immigration problem has metastasized into an utter monstrosity. Solving it will require both compromise and resolute effort.

    If Trump shows willingness to compromise, that would perhaps be a good thing. Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that building a wall and deporting all illegals is a good idea, accomplishing both tasks still seems both physically and politically impossible. And, given cases such as the one described above, perhaps also morally objectionable.

    what do you do with, say, a person who was dragged over the border by relatives at the age of two? Grew up in the US, knows nothing else, speaks English, etc.

    English is not actually illegal in Mexico yet.
    Europeans do this all the time, drag their kids from country to country, school to school, and just expect the kids to pick up the local jibber-jabber naturally, and they do. The Metric System is no biggie, I can convert weights & measures in my head, having learned both God’s Own Imperial and Boney’s Wicked Frog Inches as a kid. And can still do £.s.d. and furlongs, rods, poles and perches, if pushed.

    Made-up problem. Only fundamentally unemployable morons will suffer from relocating from one culture to another.
    Driving on the wrong side of the road isn’t even an issue for US/Mex deportees. Now that is hard, mainly because it’s governed by ingrained habit and reactions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Jack D says:
    @Kirt
    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That's more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.

    Let’s start by deporting the worst 1%.

    It’s better to leave the rest in limbo than to legalize them forever. That way if they misbehave we can deport them immediately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @jimbojones
    Here's a question - what do you do with, say, a person who was dragged over the border by relatives at the age of two? Grew up in the US, knows nothing else, speaks English, etc.

    The illegal immigration problem has metastasized into an utter monstrosity. Solving it will require both compromise and resolute effort.

    If Trump shows willingness to compromise, that would perhaps be a good thing. Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that building a wall and deporting all illegals is a good idea, accomplishing both tasks still seems both physically and politically impossible. And, given cases such as the one described above, perhaps also morally objectionable.

    Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that building a wall and deporting all illegals is a good idea, accomplishing both tasks still seems both physically and politically impossible.

    Jimbo, don’t keep letting this bull get pounded into your head by the LP. 50,000 miles of interstate highway were built well within a decade, and we have better machines today. Give me a break – we’re talking about 2,000 miles or so, drainage is not as important as with a road, and there will be much less concrete involved (don’t assume it looks like a wall in someone’s cartoon or photoshop drawing), and much cheaper per mile in terms of property purchasing (I imagine many ranchers would be just happy to give up the 100 yard or so for the “zone” or even put in some funds!)

    We put 12 men on the freakin moon*, man, quit talking like a Millenial – yes people will not be able to do all of it via touchscreen at the coffee shop, if that’s what’s bothering y’all.

    Deportation and self-deportation is also not a hard thing. It doesn’t require civil engineering, just people who are on our side and do the job they’ve been payed to do for years (but haven’t been allowed to do).

    * With a lotta help from a few old black math ladies. Memo to border-barrier chief engineer: we need to get these ladies out of the home prontomundo and set them up in a trailer just N. of Nogales with white boards and markers black boards and chalk (whoo almost a faux paw there) and a metric shit-ton of number 2 pencils. What, Aunt Esther’s passed, how ’bout Weezy? We’re gonna need top men POC’s here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Sal Paradise
    Trump is the best chance we will probably ever have of an immigration restrictionist president. Why? Because it takes too much money to win an American national election and the Republican donor class is 100% open borders. Trump, being a billionaire celebrity, didn't need their money.

    So let's pray to a God he doesn't cave on the issue. Otherwise, this country is finished(might be finished anyway.)

    Before you get too fatalistic, realize that two of his top advisors are immigration patriots Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. He also has immigration patriots Mike Anton and Julia Hahn working for him. And, of course, we have the best of them all Jeff Sessions as AG.

    Trump is the best chance we will probably ever have of an immigration restrictionist president. Why? Because it takes too much money to win an American national election and the Republican donor class is 100% open borders. Trump, being a billionaire celebrity, didn’t need their money.

    That’s a point I agree with. That’s why in the primaries we had 16 Republican candidates who all had more or less the same position on immigration and illegals (to a greater or lessor degree) and only one real immigration restrictionist; the self funding one. And we will be in that same position in 8 years. Even if you raise potential successors to run, how are they going to afford it when the party and donors will oppose them? We may have to wait for another restrictionist billionaire. That’s not a very large group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Barnabas says:
    @TheBoom
    He has been hinting at it ever since the election with statements like we are going to working something out and you'll be proud. If he does wimp out, it won't buy him anything and will a huge nail in the coffin of the country.

    He is essentially holding globalism hostage. He could name his price.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Jack Hanson
    You're welcome to pick from the cream of the crop from my comments the LAST DOZEN TIMES the MSM floated this crap through the primary and campaigns.

    Maybe you can pick the ones from the day you, Steve, and everyone else here just about had to talked off the ledge when Trump went to Mexico.

    Thanks!!! We missed you so!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    You bit hard on MSM bait and all you got is womanly snark. Surprise surprise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. JSM says:
    @jimbojones
    Here's a question - what do you do with, say, a person who was dragged over the border by relatives at the age of two? Grew up in the US, knows nothing else, speaks English, etc.

    The illegal immigration problem has metastasized into an utter monstrosity. Solving it will require both compromise and resolute effort.

    If Trump shows willingness to compromise, that would perhaps be a good thing. Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that building a wall and deporting all illegals is a good idea, accomplishing both tasks still seems both physically and politically impossible. And, given cases such as the one described above, perhaps also morally objectionable.

    NUH-UH. We compromised when Reagan took office. In exchange for amnesty of one million, we were supposed to get border enforcement. So what did we get? Amnesty for, actually, three million and NO border enforcement. And, in truth, it’s worse than that. That 3 million amnestied acted as the acorn from which the Mighty, mighty diseased, Oak of today’s monstrosity of illegal aliens grew. Because that 3 million legalized bunch gave their recently-arrived illegal relatives housing, help finding work under the table, and junker cars so that those illegals have been able to stay here without starving all these years.

    NUH-UH.

    And, frankly, I don’t GIVE a damn about the poor widdle guy dragged over the border at Age 2. He can go to Mexico and learn the language. His relatives still back home in Mexico can give him his start, just like his Reagan-amnesty-ed relatives here gave his relatives their illegal start here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Remember what Phil Leotardo had to say about compromise?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ0pCxG5Iok

    "You see where I'm goin'?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Jack Hanson
    The zipper mask contingent is pretty strong here.

    People (including Steve) keep reaching for any reason to quit. Easier to post pithy blog posts than actually work.

    I think you are misinterpreting a large portion or all of the comments, Jack. You may be right that Trump knows what he’s doing and will get this thing done mostly in the manner Americans elected him to. I hope you are, though I don’t understand this negotiating thing. What you do is put the pressure on in all sorts of ways, on the LP, on the Repub-traitors, even on the Lefties as some commenters here has suggested.

    You’re wrong if you think people want to quit – quit what, first of all? Nobody here wants things to continue the way they have obviously. Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy – the ball will keep rolling without him.

    If you mean quit supporting Trump, well, if he isn’t going to do the job we elected him to, he should be fired like the people on the TV show. (He does need lots help of regular Americans in a lot of ways of course. I understand who he’s up against.) Trump needs the pressure on him from Americans, so that it can counteract the tremendous pressure he is under from the elite, LP, most politicians, etc. Possibly the wife and/or daughter are involved “we need to fit in, I want to be able to wear my new dress to more cocktail parties – we aren’t getting invited, sob, sob,…”.

    As a man suggested above, possibly Trump is very impressionable. That is a bad thing for a leader (opposite of a Ronald Reagan, for example, who spent years making his mind up on his principles; before you chime in on the ’86 amnesty, his fault was he trusted US politicians more than he did the Russkies – big mistake.). If this is the case, we need to keep up the deep impressioning on his ass, such as when he did hear the stories from the families of the people killed by reckless multiply-deported illegal aliens, but there are lots of other stories, say the imminent death of the middle class – I think Trump does have a lot of empathy for the common man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There is a modest possibility that the phrase "Sailer's commenters are not happy about this latest trial balloon" occasionally gets passed up the chain.
    , @Jack Hanson
    This is very cute revisionism. Unfortunately, you're either ignorant of OR mendaciously handwaving away the primaries and the general, where every news story was viewed through the most defeatist lens possible here by the commentariat. There was a chorus around here that, up to the minute Trump was announced the winner, continued to insist how we doomed we are were.

    The Gimp Mask Crew around here has the memory of a goldfish (witness how many, including our host, bit HARD on "Trump's Amnesty: Episode MCMVII) and is looking for any excuse to show their belly and declare how much of a victim they are. Many of these overlap with the group of people who think they're the Secret Masters of the Trump Admin simultaneously. I'm not sure how they square that circle, but that's the way it seems where every victory is met with resounding backpatting about how influential "they" are and every leaked story with "anonymous sources" means that Trump is preparing to declare an amnesty and push through the Zeroth Amendment.

    Also, an anon commenter calling Trump "impressionable" in the face of his accomplishment is top kek. I'd say Trump hears about something, makes a decision based off what he knows, does some research, and then refines from there. But again, some people think Trump woulda been helpless without the help of a bunch of anonymous commenters on a niche blog. Go figure.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. CK says:

    March 1, 2017
    39 days into 2922 day administration and already the caterwauling that he hasn’t reversed 52 years of immigration, that he hasn’t personally rewritten the laws and removed all the Others from our midst.
    It would probably be as helpful for those here to understand that Trump is not a politician and is not beholden to your mental metaphors of what a politician should behave like.
    The ingrained mental metaphor of presidential behaviour, of political skills of the ” necessary” wonkery of the presidential aspirant is what caused the MSM to under appreciate what Trump is and why his election was inevitable from the moment he rode that escalator down to announce his intent. And they still cannot see it. They try to analyze his actions and words as if it were a Clinton or a Bush or a Nixon. Novice lawyer/politicians do not just win the presidency; Trump is not a novice lawyer. He has a 40+ year record of Big League successes and Big League failures, and Big League recoveries from those failures in the world of business and the literary world and in the world of entertainment. He is the only president to have 15 published ( and supposedly best selling ) books … before he was elected. He was more successful in the entertainment world than Reagan; he was more successful in the business world than either Herbert Hoover or Nelson Rockefeller.
    It is well to remember that when he had to win debates against the 16 known politicians in the primaries he did and when he faced Hillary in the 3 national debates he pretty much ignored all the wonkery prep and just walked through them. He knew and we knew that the Hillary debates were irrelevancies. We all knew that Hillary and Donald were the same age and yet he looks at least a decade younger and healthier by miles. She lost the debates by being on the same stage with him. The dems are currently losing all the debates to him because they refuse to change their mental metaphors. The MSM cannot change its metal metaphors either without admitting to the world that they were clueless as well as morally degenerate.
    There is a lot of inertia built up in the government over the last 52 years; a huge amount of energy will need to be expended to change the direction of foreign policy, to retard the levels of immigration and brake refugee policy, to repair industry and infrastructure.
    There is a high probability that Donald Trump will be recognized as the greatest president the USA has had since Andrew Jackson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Dude, your post looked interesting and I might have read it if it had things like line breaks and paragraphs in it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Dissident says:
    @anony-mouse
    Anybody here ever read 'The Art of the Deal'? I haven't.

    Why would anybody expect its author to stand pat on anything that he couldn't absolutely win 100%? Obviously there would be give.

    I am happy however that people are blaming his daughter and son-in-law for this. I especially like the part about his giving his daughter to the Kushners.

    I especially like the part about his giving his daughter to the Kushners.

    Yeah, the suggestion that Ivanka Trump’s choice in marriage was not her own but her father’s is rather amusing, isn’t it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Dissident says:
    @Guy de Champlagne
    That's why self deportation is the right strategy. You fine their employers so that they can't get jobs, fine their landlords so that they can't find housing, fine their banks and money transfer services so that they can't send money home, fine their colleges and other non profits that aid and abet them, cut off what government services you can, and supplement that with deportations, especially high profile ones, and illegal immigrants will silently leave in massive numbers.

    And if you do it right it won't end up costing anything.

    A number of people have suggested exactly what you do. It sounds quite reasonable to me and I can only hope that we will see it successfully implemented.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Bill says:
    @seth
    I've been a Trump supporter since July 2015, and consider myself a single-issue voter on the national question.

    That being said, if Trump were to say that 1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens should be given some kind of path to citizenship, I would say that's a fair trade for a wall, eVerify, deporting millions of non-assimilated illegals, ending family chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and ending H1B.

    We elected him as a dealmaker, not a hardcore ideologue.

    Hey, kinda like what Reagan did in 1986! What a great idea!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Jack D says:
    @Opinionator
    Many will return home on their own if they are told they are no longer welcome. I am serious.

    Just telling them won’t work. What is needed is to withdraw the government benefits and eligibility for employment. Illegal aliens receive all sorts of government services – free public school for their children, medical care if they present themselves at a hospital emergency room, etc. That’s only the legal benefits. In addition, while technically they are not eligible for welfare, the welfare intake clerks are instructed (wink-wink, nod-nod) that they are not La Migra and if someone presents documents indicating that they are a legal US resident the clerk is supposed to accept them and not question them further. You are supposed to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt – if you question whether someone who speaks no English is not a US citizen then you are some kind of racis’. The local police are instructed in “sanctuary” cities not to cooperate with the INS and employers are not concerned that they will be fined heavily for hiring illegal aliens with obviously fake documents. In some states they can even get driver’s licenses. Even the IRS is aware of millions of duplicate social security #’s. xxx-xxx-xxxx can’t be working 2 jobs at the same time, one in LA and one in Dallas but if they are both sending in withholding the IRS just takes their $.

    There is a whole wink-wink, nod-nod structure geared toward supporting illegal aliens and making their life almost as comfortable as that of citizens. Take away that structure and make their life less comfortable and many will self deport. They only came here because life was better here so if life is worse here then they go back. Many Mexicans have built a house back home (using $ made here) for just this eventuality. There is some hard core that will stay no matter what like Japanese soldiers hiding out in the Philippine jungle after the war was over but most will go if you make their life hard enough.

    Up until now we have done the opposite – made it as easy as possible so naturally millions came and told their friends how great it was and then millions more followed. Nowadays illegals have cell phones and talk to the folks back home every day so they know exactly what the climate is in every destination. You see this in Europe where the illegals are keenly aware that the UK is paradise and try desperately to get on the trucks going thru the Chunnel in order to make it there even though they are already in France.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Dissident says:
    @D. K.
    Elian Gonzales was legally returned to his custodial father, in Cuba, from whom he had been illegally kidnapped by the boy's non-custodial mother and her boyfriend, who both drowned while putting her son at risk of the same fate. The notion among some people that it is noble to steal children from their custodial parents in order to provide those children the incomparable blessings of living in our American Utopia, if Americans, in their infinite wisdom and beneficence, consider those children's home countries to be inherently or politically evil, is one of the most loathsome notions that I have encountered in American politics, during my sixty-plus years.

    I am inclined to agree with you, at least up to a point. The late radio icon Bob Grant incurred much wrath from many of his listeners when he insisted that young Elian Gonazalez belonged with his father, even if that be in Cuba.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Bill says:
    @27 year old
    >When were mass deportations on this scale ever carried out in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    When has mass invasion on this scale ever occurred in the absence of large scale warfare and massacre?

    Agree button does not seem to work for me any longer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    The Agree button does work in that you cannot use it again too soon, but your Agree does not show up on the post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Bill says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    The distinction between Dreamers and US citizens can be a fine line. Be born a week before mom arrived in the US and you are a dreamer, be born a week after mom arrived in the US and you are qualified to be a future president.

    A child who, through no fault of their own, has no memory of any other country, went to school in the US, and speaks only English is poorly qualified to be deported to foreign parts.

    The whole business really needs to be handed over to the Supreme Court where, in the usual fashion, they will first make a decision, then look for rationalizations to justify the decision, and after that everyone will agree that was what the Constitution said all along, only no one had ever noticed it before.

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.

    This.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Absolutely. ICE shows up at 6am at some meat packing plant and checks documents; no hot dogs that day. Coupla raids on home renovations in Greenwich, SanFran, etc. Ask the diverse nannies in Central Park, Chevy Chase, etc. for their papers.

    Then arrest the employers and keep them in jail overnight until they make bail.

    Make it hurt.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. MarcB says:

    President Trump going gonzo and expending valuable political capital on an anemic ban covering a paltry seven Islamic nations (that doesn’t even include Saudi Arabia) should have alarmed his most fervent supporters. I did not vote for him expecting INS performing mass no-knock raids on working illegal aliens during his first term, but vigorous border enforcement, stopping catch-and-release, cutting entitlements, using SSI irregularities to flag traitorous employers and rescinding unconstitutional DACA were the first steps I was looking for.

    The snakes heads are employers of illegal immigrants and welfare benefits. Until you go after those two, the rest are irrelevant. I give Trump a lot of leeway because I understand he has a complicated job with several branches of government he needs to craft alliances with. But if he doesn’t get serious about cracking down on illegal aliens without felonies during his first term, it will have been a betrayal of his base.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. Arclight says:

    Didn’t watch last night’s speech, but it must have been pretty decent – my FB feed is dominated by liberals and I haven’t seen a single comment from them today on the speech at all. That’s the first time in the last year I haven’t checked my feed and not seen some kind of screed against him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. @me
    Of course.

    I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn't have 'Game' but is 100% moral.

    It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

    That was the red flag.

    We're looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don't hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    I'm also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I've followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He's a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don't put that s--- on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

    To me:

    If you’re looking for “a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior”, you will probably not find Him among the host of politicians, even those who are as apparently noble and well-intentioned as I feel Donald Trump is.

    You may have to seek elsewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Opinionator
    Many will return home on their own if they are told they are no longer welcome. I am serious.

    Many will return home on their own if they are told they are no longer welcome. I am serious.

    More than that — you’re right!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Reg Cæsar

    Is Trump Going to Sell Out on Amnesty?
     
    Using the weasel word "amnesty" is itself selling out.

    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    Permanent legal residence in America is not "amnesty", it's an unearned gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Using the weasel word “amnesty” is itself selling out.

    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    Permanent legal residence in America is not “amnesty”, it’s an unearned gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    You are right. I still remember my father explaining this to me in connection with the “amnesty” for the draft dodgers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You are right. I still remember my father explaining this to me in connection with the “amnesty” for the draft dodgers
     
    FWIW, on other threads I referenced your namesake's opposition to drafting blacks in 1917.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Achmed E. Newman
    I think you are misinterpreting a large portion or all of the comments, Jack. You may be right that Trump knows what he's doing and will get this thing done mostly in the manner Americans elected him to. I hope you are, though I don't understand this negotiating thing. What you do is put the pressure on in all sorts of ways, on the LP, on the Repub-traitors, even on the Lefties as some commenters here has suggested.

    You're wrong if you think people want to quit - quit what, first of all? Nobody here wants things to continue the way they have obviously. Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy - the ball will keep rolling without him.

    If you mean quit supporting Trump, well, if he isn't going to do the job we elected him to, he should be fired like the people on the TV show. (He does need lots help of regular Americans in a lot of ways of course. I understand who he's up against.) Trump needs the pressure on him from Americans, so that it can counteract the tremendous pressure he is under from the elite, LP, most politicians, etc. Possibly the wife and/or daughter are involved "we need to fit in, I want to be able to wear my new dress to more cocktail parties - we aren't getting invited, sob, sob,...".

    As a man suggested above, possibly Trump is very impressionable. That is a bad thing for a leader (opposite of a Ronald Reagan, for example, who spent years making his mind up on his principles; before you chime in on the '86 amnesty, his fault was he trusted US politicians more than he did the Russkies - big mistake.). If this is the case, we need to keep up the deep impressioning on his ass, such as when he did hear the stories from the families of the people killed by reckless multiply-deported illegal aliens, but there are lots of other stories, say the imminent death of the middle class - I think Trump does have a lot of empathy for the common man.

    There is a modest possibility that the phrase “Sailer’s commenters are not happy about this latest trial balloon” occasionally gets passed up the chain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Well, they’re probably right this minute huddled together in the oval office, and at some point you’d hear: “How many divisions does Sailer have?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    “How many divisions does Sailer have?”

    Think long and hard exactly how much you really want to know the answer to that question.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayeqiTZLiSg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Buck Turgidson
    Could someone define "mass deportation" for me? I would like to know the number of illegals, and the time window, that would classify deportations (upholding of immigration law) as "mass." This is a scary, boogeyman term the media loves using, along with 'maverick' 'firebrand' 'controversial' 'far right' and 'crackdown' on immigration law enforcement and enforcers. OK, I got it, the media hates enforcement of immigration law, ho hum. Myself, I am all in for any and all kinds of deportations/upholding of US immigration law. But perhaps someone could define the parameters so we know what we are talking about. If the idea is that we aren't going to deport 30 million people by next weekend, that does not sound feasible but I would be delighted to see it happen. I also am not buying an assertion that thousands of people have to be killed in order to see significant deportations? Why, exactly, are people going to die? That sounds like something only a NYT writer could conjure up. Laws are laws and the voters and workers in this country want to see them enforced.

    OK, this was just from a quick search and it is from 2012 – this is from the FBI website:

    The estimated arrest rate for the United States in 2012 was 3,888.2 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants. The arrest rate for violent crime (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) was 166.3 per 100,000 inhabitants, and the arrest rate for property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) was 528.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. (See Table 30.)

    So, for 330,000,000 inhabitants of this country that means 1/2 a million or so arrests for violent crimes and almost 13 million arrests total. Let’s just think about that. Nobody could call “mass arrests” a situation where about the same many illegal aliens are arrested each year, for a few years running, spread out over the whole country (yeah, it may be triple that rate in CA, NV, FL, and 1/10 that rate in VT, but you get the idea). Even that would not be necessary, as, as we all know around here and has just been described very well, not even 1/4 of the rate needed to get everyone would probably be enough to get the others to trickle out home on their own.

    After all, they are already scared silly at this point, according to the LP, when only a very miniscule insignificant amount extra have been arrested so far. They have a real reason to be scared of what’s coming (hopefully, unless Trump fails to deliver by either going native there in Washington, FS, or by just not getting enough support against too much pressure).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Autochthon
    I read the story. One commenter, Independent (maybe Dissident's alias there) points out, quite civilly, that some may wish to commission a drawing and have money go not to the politicized ACLU but rather a nonpartisan charity helping veterans or disabled children. Another commenter immediately responds that this situation is "clearly not the time and/or [sic] place" for "political debate" and that "[t]here is more to life than politics and provocations."

    The girl's father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to "freedom of speech," clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against "hate speech" and the like.

    The lack of self-awareness among these jackasses is epic, especially when one knows good and well a child like Sasha, at her age, only holds these melodramatic views about the president because she has been brainwashed to do so and inculcated with them by her hateful, embittered parents.

    Of course, the most important question raised by this article is whether advertiser Anya Brodsky, D.D.S., is single....

    The girl’s father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to “freedom of speech,” clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against “hate speech” and the like.

    Lies. The ACLU backs the First Amendment.

    Provide one example otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
    , @res
    It seems the ACLU's backing of the first amendment is selective. Here is an example, would you like me to look for more? Perhaps you should reconsider your "Lies" statement?

    http://www.uexpress.com/sweet-land-of-liberty/2015/12/9/aclu-silence-enables-campus-anti-free-speech

    They sure do talk the talk though: https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

    More on free speech and the ACLU. It looks like treatment of campaign financing is an area of intra-ACLU disagreement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-rift-in-the-aclu-over_b_5787810.html

    P.S. I get cranky about this topic because I was a fan of the theory of the ACLU, but they seem to have gone full SJW.

    P.P.S. I was bored, so here is another example: https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/aclu-free-speech-opinions-contributors-blasphemy.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Clyde says:
    @Old fogey
    I read that article in the Times over the weekend. My initial reaction was that it actually was in his own best interest that he was deported when he was because as an illiterate illegal immigrant with a history of criminality he never could have risen as high in the NY restaurant scene as he has in Mexico.

    He recognizes that the training he received in the U.S., and the people he met here, were a blessing to him and has no animus toward the U.S. for returning him to Mexico.

    He picked lots of lettuce and other produce when he was an illegal alien child here. So he has paid his dues. I like the guy and his work ethic. I hope he is making efforts to straighten things out with the US Government so he can visit family that live here. Currently they must go to Mexico to see him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @ben tillman

    Using the weasel word “amnesty” is itself selling out.

    True amnesty entails going home, without a penalty being exacted.

    Permanent legal residence in America is not “amnesty”, it’s an unearned gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
     
    You are right. I still remember my father explaining this to me in connection with the "amnesty" for the draft dodgers.

    You are right. I still remember my father explaining this to me in connection with the “amnesty” for the draft dodgers

    FWIW, on other threads I referenced your namesake’s opposition to drafting blacks in 1917.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Steve Sailer
    Remember the colossal crowds of marching illegal aliens waving Mexican flags in 2006, demanding amnesty? They were doing that in large part because President Bush, Senator Kennedy, and Senator McCain were encouraging them to do that. When their amnesty bill got defeated, they stopped marching.

    I remember Opus the penguin marching to legalize undocumented Antarcticans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Anonymous
    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-27/terry-mcauliffe-receives-assurances-from-trump-administration-on-immigration

    McAuliffe: Trump Like Obama on Immigration

    Secretary John Kelly told the Virginia governor the administration would leave in place the Obama policy on Dreamers.

    Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said the Trump administration has assured him privately that it will move to deport only individuals who have come into the country illegally and will allow minors without documentation to remain in the country, essentially continuing former President Barack Obama's immigration policy.

    McAuliffe, a term-limited Democrat, broached the topic of immigration with both President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly in separate conversations Sunday. He said he vividly conveyed the amount of fear permeating immigrant communities in his commonwealth, but left heartened that the approach won't be as draconian as it has been billed rhetorically.

    "Can I leave this meeting, General Secretary, and say that there will be no deportations of any individuals in the USA unless they have been involved in a criminal enterprise? He said, 'Yes.'

     

    McAuliffe is a complete Clinton bag man POS who I would not believe if he told me the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. He recently vetoed a bill to require election officials to scrub voter rolls saying it would be too much work for these exhausted civil servants. Some Virginia counties have more registered voters than eligible voters.

    The Public Interest Legal Foundation found 1,046 aliens who were illegally registered to vote in just eight counties. The last gubernatorial election was very close; the Attorney General’s race, which the D won, was decided by fewer than 1000 votes.

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/mcauliffe-vetoes-bill-investigate-virginia-voter-rolls-registered-eligible-voters/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @CK
    March 1, 2017
    39 days into 2922 day administration and already the caterwauling that he hasn't reversed 52 years of immigration, that he hasn't personally rewritten the laws and removed all the Others from our midst.
    It would probably be as helpful for those here to understand that Trump is not a politician and is not beholden to your mental metaphors of what a politician should behave like.
    The ingrained mental metaphor of presidential behaviour, of political skills of the " necessary" wonkery of the presidential aspirant is what caused the MSM to under appreciate what Trump is and why his election was inevitable from the moment he rode that escalator down to announce his intent. And they still cannot see it. They try to analyze his actions and words as if it were a Clinton or a Bush or a Nixon. Novice lawyer/politicians do not just win the presidency; Trump is not a novice lawyer. He has a 40+ year record of Big League successes and Big League failures, and Big League recoveries from those failures in the world of business and the literary world and in the world of entertainment. He is the only president to have 15 published ( and supposedly best selling ) books ... before he was elected. He was more successful in the entertainment world than Reagan; he was more successful in the business world than either Herbert Hoover or Nelson Rockefeller.
    It is well to remember that when he had to win debates against the 16 known politicians in the primaries he did and when he faced Hillary in the 3 national debates he pretty much ignored all the wonkery prep and just walked through them. He knew and we knew that the Hillary debates were irrelevancies. We all knew that Hillary and Donald were the same age and yet he looks at least a decade younger and healthier by miles. She lost the debates by being on the same stage with him. The dems are currently losing all the debates to him because they refuse to change their mental metaphors. The MSM cannot change its metal metaphors either without admitting to the world that they were clueless as well as morally degenerate.
    There is a lot of inertia built up in the government over the last 52 years; a huge amount of energy will need to be expended to change the direction of foreign policy, to retard the levels of immigration and brake refugee policy, to repair industry and infrastructure.
    There is a high probability that Donald Trump will be recognized as the greatest president the USA has had since Andrew Jackson.

    Dude, your post looked interesting and I might have read it if it had things like line breaks and paragraphs in it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @CK
    Advice acknowledged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Bill
    Agree button does not seem to work for me any longer.

    The Agree button does work in that you cannot use it again too soon, but your Agree does not show up on the post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I knew this about the buttons, but for me they truly did stop working altogether for a few days, though they recently behan working normally again. May be some glitch occurred, or Mr. Unz made updates to accommodate some browsers' own changes....
    , @Bill
    Weird. My agree is there now, but it wasn't there for many minutes after I hit agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @(((Owen)))

    The girl’s father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to “freedom of speech,” clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against “hate speech” and the like.
     
    Lies. The ACLU backs the First Amendment.

    Provide one example otherwise.

    Refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    ????

    Not a First Amendment issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Bill

    Throwing a couple of dozen prominent employers of illegals in jail will quickly lead to mass flight of the undocumented to the extent that extra immigration officers will have to be hired to let them across the border.
     
    This.

    Absolutely. ICE shows up at 6am at some meat packing plant and checks documents; no hot dogs that day. Coupla raids on home renovations in Greenwich, SanFran, etc. Ask the diverse nannies in Central Park, Chevy Chase, etc. for their papers.

    Then arrest the employers and keep them in jail overnight until they make bail.

    Make it hurt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Nah. Using RICO to push some businesses into bankruptcy and imprisoning their owners for a couple of decades for conspiracy is more what I had in mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Achmed E. Newman
    I think you are misinterpreting a large portion or all of the comments, Jack. You may be right that Trump knows what he's doing and will get this thing done mostly in the manner Americans elected him to. I hope you are, though I don't understand this negotiating thing. What you do is put the pressure on in all sorts of ways, on the LP, on the Repub-traitors, even on the Lefties as some commenters here has suggested.

    You're wrong if you think people want to quit - quit what, first of all? Nobody here wants things to continue the way they have obviously. Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy - the ball will keep rolling without him.

    If you mean quit supporting Trump, well, if he isn't going to do the job we elected him to, he should be fired like the people on the TV show. (He does need lots help of regular Americans in a lot of ways of course. I understand who he's up against.) Trump needs the pressure on him from Americans, so that it can counteract the tremendous pressure he is under from the elite, LP, most politicians, etc. Possibly the wife and/or daughter are involved "we need to fit in, I want to be able to wear my new dress to more cocktail parties - we aren't getting invited, sob, sob,...".

    As a man suggested above, possibly Trump is very impressionable. That is a bad thing for a leader (opposite of a Ronald Reagan, for example, who spent years making his mind up on his principles; before you chime in on the '86 amnesty, his fault was he trusted US politicians more than he did the Russkies - big mistake.). If this is the case, we need to keep up the deep impressioning on his ass, such as when he did hear the stories from the families of the people killed by reckless multiply-deported illegal aliens, but there are lots of other stories, say the imminent death of the middle class - I think Trump does have a lot of empathy for the common man.

    This is very cute revisionism. Unfortunately, you’re either ignorant of OR mendaciously handwaving away the primaries and the general, where every news story was viewed through the most defeatist lens possible here by the commentariat. There was a chorus around here that, up to the minute Trump was announced the winner, continued to insist how we doomed we are were.

    The Gimp Mask Crew around here has the memory of a goldfish (witness how many, including our host, bit HARD on “Trump’s Amnesty: Episode MCMVII) and is looking for any excuse to show their belly and declare how much of a victim they are. Many of these overlap with the group of people who think they’re the Secret Masters of the Trump Admin simultaneously. I’m not sure how they square that circle, but that’s the way it seems where every victory is met with resounding backpatting about how influential “they” are and every leaked story with “anonymous sources” means that Trump is preparing to declare an amnesty and push through the Zeroth Amendment.

    Also, an anon commenter calling Trump “impressionable” in the face of his accomplishment is top kek. I’d say Trump hears about something, makes a decision based off what he knows, does some research, and then refines from there. But again, some people think Trump woulda been helpless without the help of a bunch of anonymous commenters on a niche blog. Go figure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You're not getting my point, Jack. I didn't see any defeatism on here - I mean on THIS post, just a lot of worry over whether Trump was going to reneg. If you know any history of politics in this country you would be aware of all the times that a decent man who seems to be or IS on the side of Americans, not just "America", goes native once he has been in the FS for a little while. The real Americans have been let down so many times.

    That worry about whether this is a sign of a let-down - wall or no wall, an amnesty on all but "criminals"* is a total capitulation on the part of Trump. Worry is not the same as defeatism and I wrote last time ""Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy – the ball will keep rolling without him. " The fight would continue even if Trump were to go native. It would probably have to take another form. The reason I think your reading comprehension sucks is that you mistake worry for "playing the victim" or "showing your belly". That's just stupid, as those are 2 entirely different emotions. If you realize you have chewed-up wire in the attic, is it "playing the victim" to lose some sleep about it worrying about a fire, and going to Lowes the next morning to get new Romex and wire nuts? TWO.DIFFERENT.THINGS.DUDE.

    Revisionism has been used wrt history, meaning changing around the story. It's a slur, and I don't like that you put my post in that category. It's true that I watch ZERO TV, so it's possible I made too much of what I read on here. I do remember some time ago, still during the campaign, that Trump got everyone worried about something on immigration only to get his press conference lots of coverage, and then he just spent the whole time praising some veterans and demonstrating their support for him. Damn, that was a waste of my time, as I was in a clubhouse that had a TV and wasted a half hour to see if Trump would basically say ANYTHING. Like I already wrote in the last post, I hope you are right that this development is no let down in any way.

    Also, an anon commenter calling Trump “impressionable” in the face of his accomplishment is top kek. I’d say Trump hears about something, makes a decision based off what he knows, does some research, and then refines from there. But again, some people think Trump woulda been helpless without the help of a bunch of anonymous commenters on a niche blog.
     
    I know the commenter kek, and so far don't know what you mean with that. I agree with you here, Trump has not in the past known too much about the national political situation, but he does find out, usually from the right people, and he tends to go the right way with his decisions. His consultation/hiring of Jeff Sessions and his defense of the 2nd Amendment are good examples. He just needs to quit talking in circles. I think he is smart with the press, but I just wish he was a Reagan or Ron Paul type and straight-up with people, not such a flamboyant guy.

    Lastly as for bloggers, commenters and the like, did you forget how this whole thing started? Trump would not be in the position he is in now had he not stepped outside and talked about the harm from illegal immigration. Where'd his knowledge about this come from? This is a new age, with new media to replace the old LP.

    * An exception to this would be if Trump would pull of a technicality and later say "yeah all illegal immigrants are under a deportation order. You misunderstood our deal, I guess; the deal was we would only deport felons -I forgot to mention that anyone who crosses our border has committed a felony so, there ya go. Read the law next time" (I would love that)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Chrisnonymous
    Thanks!!! We missed you so!

    You bit hard on MSM bait and all you got is womanly snark. Surprise surprise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. SFG says:
    @Autochthon
    I read the story. One commenter, Independent (maybe Dissident's alias there) points out, quite civilly, that some may wish to commission a drawing and have money go not to the politicized ACLU but rather a nonpartisan charity helping veterans or disabled children. Another commenter immediately responds that this situation is "clearly not the time and/or [sic] place" for "political debate" and that "[t]here is more to life than politics and provocations."

    The girl's father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to "freedom of speech," clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against "hate speech" and the like.

    The lack of self-awareness among these jackasses is epic, especially when one knows good and well a child like Sasha, at her age, only holds these melodramatic views about the president because she has been brainwashed to do so and inculcated with them by her hateful, embittered parents.

    Of course, the most important question raised by this article is whether advertiser Anya Brodsky, D.D.S., is single....

    From Zocdoc:

    She and her husband are the proud parents of identical twin boys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Since the buttons no longer work: LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Jack Hanson
    Refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    ????

    Not a First Amendment issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    How is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs NOT a 1Amd issue.

    Also Steve approve my comment yo Achmed.
    , @Autochthon
    Freedom of religion and freedom of association (an aspect of freedom of assembly) are all decidedly matters embraced by the federal constitution's first amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
     
    Once the legislature forces a man to sell cake to a sodomite (albeit ostensibly under the aegis of the fourteenth amendment's misapplication) in contravention of his deeply held religious beliefs – the exercise of which prohibits making cakes to celebrate homosexual mockeries of marriage, a sacrament – it has most decidedly made a law abridging his free exercise of religion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @SFG
    From Zocdoc:

    She and her husband are the proud parents of identical twin boys.

    Since the buttons no longer work: LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @JSM
    NUH-UH. We compromised when Reagan took office. In exchange for amnesty of one million, we were supposed to get border enforcement. So what did we get? Amnesty for, actually, three million and NO border enforcement. And, in truth, it's worse than that. That 3 million amnestied acted as the acorn from which the Mighty, mighty diseased, Oak of today's monstrosity of illegal aliens grew. Because that 3 million legalized bunch gave their recently-arrived illegal relatives housing, help finding work under the table, and junker cars so that those illegals have been able to stay here without starving all these years.


    NUH-UH.

    And, frankly, I don't GIVE a damn about the poor widdle guy dragged over the border at Age 2. He can go to Mexico and learn the language. His relatives still back home in Mexico can give him his start, just like his Reagan-amnesty-ed relatives here gave his relatives their illegal start here.

    Remember what Phil Leotardo had to say about compromise?

    “You see where I’m goin’?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. gregor says:
    @Kirt
    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That's more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.

    Not really.

    Part of the problem is unnecessary legal protections. Trump is going to expand the criteria for expedited removal (i.e., no legal proceedings) to include people arriving within two years (which the law already permits) versus the ridiculous 14 day limit we’ve been applying (and no longer limited to those within X miles of the border).

    Any longtime illegal residents are in all likelihood not “undocumented” but rather fraudulently documented. Start enforcing that and it will simply be impossible to live here unless you’re living Unabomber style. If they can’t work or get any government services, they will likely go back.

    If there were a large, coordinated mass revolt and, say, all of California refused to comply with labor laws, etc, that could make it difficult. But the smart money would be on the Feds winning that battle. It would probably be far milder than forcible desegregation was in the South which was not a “bloodbath.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @(((Owen)))
    ????

    Not a First Amendment issue.

    How is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs NOT a 1Amd issue.

    Also Steve approve my comment yo Achmed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @(((Owen)))
    ????

    Not a First Amendment issue.

    Freedom of religion and freedom of association (an aspect of freedom of assembly) are all decidedly matters embraced by the federal constitution’s first amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Once the legislature forces a man to sell cake to a sodomite (albeit ostensibly under the aegis of the fourteenth amendment’s misapplication) in contravention of his deeply held religious beliefs – the exercise of which prohibits making cakes to celebrate homosexual mockeries of marriage, a sacrament – it has most decidedly made a law abridging his free exercise of religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    Requiring equal treatment of the general public for businesses open to the public is not abridgment of freedom of religion.

    Otherwise people will just claim racial discrimination reflects deeply held beliefs about god and race. Marijuana smokers will demand an exception because their Rasta is so spiritual. Moslems will claim honor killing their daughters and *bacha bazi* little boys is a deep spiritual practice.

    The First Amendment protects us from special targeting against religion. It doesn't exempt you from ordinary secular laws just because you don't feel like following them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Achmed E. Newman
    Well, they're probably right this minute huddled together in the oval office, and at some point you'd hear: "How many divisions does Sailer have?"

    “How many divisions does Sailer have?”

    Think long and hard exactly how much you really want to know the answer to that question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, Chief, I got through 4 1/2 minutes of that gobbledygook, and I'm still in the dark on what you meant. Being not from Middle Earth, but more like Party Central, perhaps a scene from Ferris Buehler or Fast Times would be more enlightening to this mere mortal.

    Really, that could have been a funny retort or a serious comment - could you write back on what you meant?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Kirt
    Operation Wetback deported about a million and a half people totally. This was about one percent of US population at the time. Deporting all illegal aliens now, along with their families including US born children, would amount to about 40 million people or more than 10% of current US population. That's more than an order of magnitude different. It would take a bloodbath, which is one very good reason why it is not going to happen.

    It’s one Hell of rhetorical and logical lea from the (conceded) point that 1) many more people are involved so the task presented ia much greater to the (dubious to the point of being silly) point that 2) only a bloodbath will suffice.

    Are we discussing the deportation of Mestizos or some weird concept album by a Mexican heavy metal band performing in the tradition of Iron Maiden?!

    I forsee tedium, not bloodbaths.

    Scads of invaders leaving on their own when no one will hire them, not even illicitly, for fear of raids, fines, and imprisonment imposed by sensible statutes enforced by a sensible executive and reviewed by a sensible judiciary.

    What force is needed will involve:

    1) Narcotraficantes, gangbangers, and other reprobates who were going to require violence to subdue even if they’d been citizens.

    2) Pudgy, quasi-midgets unable to run a nine minute mile, who’ve the cunning of a twelve-year-old and who’ve likely never handled a firearm in their lives (but can mow a mean lawn).

    Hell, finding and capturing the guileful Hindoos and Chinamen overstaying visas and dodging around from one uncle’s liquor-store to another’s motel is going to be more challenging than clearing out the barrios of southeastern San José and blighted dumps like Castroville and Gonzales.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Desiderius
    “How many divisions does Sailer have?”

    Think long and hard exactly how much you really want to know the answer to that question.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayeqiTZLiSg

    OK, Chief, I got through 4 1/2 minutes of that gobbledygook, and I’m still in the dark on what you meant. Being not from Middle Earth, but more like Party Central, perhaps a scene from Ferris Buehler or Fast Times would be more enlightening to this mere mortal.

    Really, that could have been a funny retort or a serious comment – could you write back on what you meant?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Fast forward to the very end (last ten seconds), then watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os99_mnf1zs

    Sailer is Aragorn, the ship is full of your typical progtards. The Army of the Dead are those who have been disengaged from the battle for lack of a leader like Sailer (or Trump?). Who knows how many divisions there are? Enough to beat Hillary, at least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, Chief, I got through 4 1/2 minutes of that gobbledygook, and I'm still in the dark on what you meant. Being not from Middle Earth, but more like Party Central, perhaps a scene from Ferris Buehler or Fast Times would be more enlightening to this mere mortal.

    Really, that could have been a funny retort or a serious comment - could you write back on what you meant?

    Fast forward to the very end (last ten seconds), then watch this:

    Sailer is Aragorn, the ship is full of your typical progtards. The Army of the Dead are those who have been disengaged from the battle for lack of a leader like Sailer (or Trump?). Who knows how many divisions there are? Enough to beat Hillary, at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Let's just say we've got some huddled masses of our own, yearning just as much to breathe as free as their forefathers did.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Got it now. I like it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Desiderius
    Fast forward to the very end (last ten seconds), then watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os99_mnf1zs

    Sailer is Aragorn, the ship is full of your typical progtards. The Army of the Dead are those who have been disengaged from the battle for lack of a leader like Sailer (or Trump?). Who knows how many divisions there are? Enough to beat Hillary, at least.

    Let’s just say we’ve got some huddled masses of our own, yearning just as much to breathe as free as their forefathers did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Autochthon
    Freedom of religion and freedom of association (an aspect of freedom of assembly) are all decidedly matters embraced by the federal constitution's first amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
     
    Once the legislature forces a man to sell cake to a sodomite (albeit ostensibly under the aegis of the fourteenth amendment's misapplication) in contravention of his deeply held religious beliefs – the exercise of which prohibits making cakes to celebrate homosexual mockeries of marriage, a sacrament – it has most decidedly made a law abridging his free exercise of religion.

    Requiring equal treatment of the general public for businesses open to the public is not abridgment of freedom of religion.

    Otherwise people will just claim racial discrimination reflects deeply held beliefs about god and race. Marijuana smokers will demand an exception because their Rasta is so spiritual. Moslems will claim honor killing their daughters and *bacha bazi* little boys is a deep spiritual practice.

    The First Amendment protects us from special targeting against religion. It doesn’t exempt you from ordinary secular laws just because you don’t feel like following them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Cf. My much lengthier, earlier response to your initial question, if Steve decides to post it. He may not (it's entirely his prerogative, of course).

    I will only here briefly note you are conflating prohibitions against impositions upon others with proactive requirements for positive action that violate one's deely held religious convictions.

    When the state prohibits citizens from bothering other people or making them do things they don't want to the result is the same: a person's fundamental right to be let alone is preserved. When the state permits some citizens to harm others or forces some citizens to act against their inclinations, the opposite occurs.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    You and president-eject Øb☭ma really ought to get together, smoke a few doobies, and talk constitutional law together. You seem to be at the same reading level, to where the founders of this country would have spit in your faces.

    You don't understand freedom of association, do you? Requiring equal treatment is a slap on the face to freedom, but I don't think you'd know freedom if it came up and bit you on the ass. Don't feel bad - 3/4 of the American people are the same.

    Your middle paragraph (prohibition of substance to be ingested being nowhere in the constitution notwithstanding) is about equality under the law. Equality under the law != laws requiring equality.

    Your last sentence is right on it's face, but does not reflect the situation of the baker being forced WTH to bake. Put down the joint, and bing "US Constitution" and "Federalist Papers"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @(((Owen)))
    Requiring equal treatment of the general public for businesses open to the public is not abridgment of freedom of religion.

    Otherwise people will just claim racial discrimination reflects deeply held beliefs about god and race. Marijuana smokers will demand an exception because their Rasta is so spiritual. Moslems will claim honor killing their daughters and *bacha bazi* little boys is a deep spiritual practice.

    The First Amendment protects us from special targeting against religion. It doesn't exempt you from ordinary secular laws just because you don't feel like following them.

    Cf. My much lengthier, earlier response to your initial question, if Steve decides to post it. He may not (it’s entirely his prerogative, of course).

    I will only here briefly note you are conflating prohibitions against impositions upon others with proactive requirements for positive action that violate one’s deely held religious convictions.

    When the state prohibits citizens from bothering other people or making them do things they don’t want to the result is the same: a person’s fundamental right to be let alone is preserved. When the state permits some citizens to harm others or forces some citizens to act against their inclinations, the opposite occurs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    There's no right to be left alone in the Constitution. And nobody is forcing anyone to participate in supporting a gay wedding.

    If bakers don't want to serve the public, they don't have to run bakeries. If they do want to run bakeries, they have to treat everyone reasonably decently. You don't have to like it; I don't like it much myself. But there's no First Amendment issue.

    They could do what anyone else that doesn't want to work serving the public does and get a government job instead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Jack Hanson
    This is very cute revisionism. Unfortunately, you're either ignorant of OR mendaciously handwaving away the primaries and the general, where every news story was viewed through the most defeatist lens possible here by the commentariat. There was a chorus around here that, up to the minute Trump was announced the winner, continued to insist how we doomed we are were.

    The Gimp Mask Crew around here has the memory of a goldfish (witness how many, including our host, bit HARD on "Trump's Amnesty: Episode MCMVII) and is looking for any excuse to show their belly and declare how much of a victim they are. Many of these overlap with the group of people who think they're the Secret Masters of the Trump Admin simultaneously. I'm not sure how they square that circle, but that's the way it seems where every victory is met with resounding backpatting about how influential "they" are and every leaked story with "anonymous sources" means that Trump is preparing to declare an amnesty and push through the Zeroth Amendment.

    Also, an anon commenter calling Trump "impressionable" in the face of his accomplishment is top kek. I'd say Trump hears about something, makes a decision based off what he knows, does some research, and then refines from there. But again, some people think Trump woulda been helpless without the help of a bunch of anonymous commenters on a niche blog. Go figure.

    You’re not getting my point, Jack. I didn’t see any defeatism on here – I mean on THIS post, just a lot of worry over whether Trump was going to reneg. If you know any history of politics in this country you would be aware of all the times that a decent man who seems to be or IS on the side of Americans, not just “America”, goes native once he has been in the FS for a little while. The real Americans have been let down so many times.

    That worry about whether this is a sign of a let-down – wall or no wall, an amnesty on all but “criminals”* is a total capitulation on the part of Trump. Worry is not the same as defeatism and I wrote last time “”Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy – the ball will keep rolling without him. ” The fight would continue even if Trump were to go native. It would probably have to take another form. The reason I think your reading comprehension sucks is that you mistake worry for “playing the victim” or “showing your belly”. That’s just stupid, as those are 2 entirely different emotions. If you realize you have chewed-up wire in the attic, is it “playing the victim” to lose some sleep about it worrying about a fire, and going to Lowes the next morning to get new Romex and wire nuts? TWO.DIFFERENT.THINGS.DUDE.

    Revisionism has been used wrt history, meaning changing around the story. It’s a slur, and I don’t like that you put my post in that category. It’s true that I watch ZERO TV, so it’s possible I made too much of what I read on here. I do remember some time ago, still during the campaign, that Trump got everyone worried about something on immigration only to get his press conference lots of coverage, and then he just spent the whole time praising some veterans and demonstrating their support for him. Damn, that was a waste of my time, as I was in a clubhouse that had a TV and wasted a half hour to see if Trump would basically say ANYTHING. Like I already wrote in the last post, I hope you are right that this development is no let down in any way.

    Also, an anon commenter calling Trump “impressionable” in the face of his accomplishment is top kek. I’d say Trump hears about something, makes a decision based off what he knows, does some research, and then refines from there. But again, some people think Trump woulda been helpless without the help of a bunch of anonymous commenters on a niche blog.

    I know the commenter kek, and so far don’t know what you mean with that. I agree with you here, Trump has not in the past known too much about the national political situation, but he does find out, usually from the right people, and he tends to go the right way with his decisions. His consultation/hiring of Jeff Sessions and his defense of the 2nd Amendment are good examples. He just needs to quit talking in circles. I think he is smart with the press, but I just wish he was a Reagan or Ron Paul type and straight-up with people, not such a flamboyant guy.

    Lastly as for bloggers, commenters and the like, did you forget how this whole thing started? Trump would not be in the position he is in now had he not stepped outside and talked about the harm from illegal immigration. Where’d his knowledge about this come from? This is a new age, with new media to replace the old LP.

    * An exception to this would be if Trump would pull of a technicality and later say “yeah all illegal immigrants are under a deportation order. You misunderstood our deal, I guess; the deal was we would only deport felons -I forgot to mention that anyone who crosses our border has committed a felony so, there ya go. Read the law next time” (I would love that)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Yeah, the ten thousand posts about how Trump was absolutely doomed after *media created scandal* each and every time by the likes of Chrisnonymous, Boethiussss, AndrewR, and so many others were not defeatism. Right, the favorite trick of the CultMarxists: redefine something so it doesn't mean what you're being accused of.

    Get over yourself. The fact that you're penning a long winded blog post in the manner of Corvinius in defense of Faire Maiden Steven and his commentariat tells me you're way too invested in this shit, and exhibit A of the tendency of the commenters here to overestimate their self importance in the grand scheme of things.
    , @Clyde
    It’s true that I watch ZERO TV, so it’s possible I made too much of what I read on here. \

    I have not watched TV for four months though I like to see clips of TV news shows on you tube. Lots quicker than watching (example) 60 minutes of the Fox News Hour. The All Star panel is usually the only enlightening feature. I am sure that if one does a youtube search he will find it for most nights.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @Desiderius
    Fast forward to the very end (last ten seconds), then watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os99_mnf1zs

    Sailer is Aragorn, the ship is full of your typical progtards. The Army of the Dead are those who have been disengaged from the battle for lack of a leader like Sailer (or Trump?). Who knows how many divisions there are? Enough to beat Hillary, at least.

    Got it now. I like it!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @(((Owen)))
    Requiring equal treatment of the general public for businesses open to the public is not abridgment of freedom of religion.

    Otherwise people will just claim racial discrimination reflects deeply held beliefs about god and race. Marijuana smokers will demand an exception because their Rasta is so spiritual. Moslems will claim honor killing their daughters and *bacha bazi* little boys is a deep spiritual practice.

    The First Amendment protects us from special targeting against religion. It doesn't exempt you from ordinary secular laws just because you don't feel like following them.

    You and president-eject Øb☭ma really ought to get together, smoke a few doobies, and talk constitutional law together. You seem to be at the same reading level, to where the founders of this country would have spit in your faces.

    You don’t understand freedom of association, do you? Requiring equal treatment is a slap on the face to freedom, but I don’t think you’d know freedom if it came up and bit you on the ass. Don’t feel bad – 3/4 of the American people are the same.

    Your middle paragraph (prohibition of substance to be ingested being nowhere in the constitution notwithstanding) is about equality under the law. Equality under the law != laws requiring equality.

    Your last sentence is right on it’s face, but does not reflect the situation of the baker being forced WTH to bake. Put down the joint, and bing “US Constitution” and “Federalist Papers”

    Read More
    • LOL: Clyde
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. CK says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    Dude, your post looked interesting and I might have read it if it had things like line breaks and paragraphs in it.

    Advice acknowledged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Me says:
    @me
    Of course.

    I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn't have 'Game' but is 100% moral.

    It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

    That was the red flag.

    We're looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don't hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

    I'm also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I've followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He's a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don't put that s--- on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

    You’ll all find out the hard way.

    There are rules–literally set in stone— to how this planet operates.

    Trump’s grandchildren are the red flag and the breaking of the rules.

    End. Of.

    [I do agree though, he's the best chance we have and I hope I'm wrong. But I'd rather keep pissing on Trump and keeping his feet to the fire and making him feel guilty about his grandkids so that he'll feel shame enough to risk himself to help us.]

    Remember something everyone….

    Respect No One. There’s not a gosh darn person on this entire planet I have respect for. Not One. Not Trump. No one.

    This is a good attitude to have because it makes people Do Stuff For You cuz they are constantly trying to Earn Your Respect but will Never Get It.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon

    Respect No One. There’s not a gosh darn person on this entire planet I have respect for. Not One. Not Trump. No one.

    This is a good attitude to have because it makes people Do Stuff For You cuz they are constantly trying to Earn Your Respect but will Never Get It.
     

    Gosh. This approach seems more a sure path to becoming a bitter, lonely, friendless, old man than someone others are constantly doing things for and trying to earn respect from.

    Doesn't it seem more reasonable and effective to offer everyone a baseline level of respect – what might be called civility – unless and until he proves worthy of true contempt or admiration?

    I take your point about not assuming people are great, but I think it's equally useful not to presume they are horrible (even if most are).

    Very Respectfully,
    Autochthon

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Autochthon
    Cf. My much lengthier, earlier response to your initial question, if Steve decides to post it. He may not (it's entirely his prerogative, of course).

    I will only here briefly note you are conflating prohibitions against impositions upon others with proactive requirements for positive action that violate one's deely held religious convictions.

    When the state prohibits citizens from bothering other people or making them do things they don't want to the result is the same: a person's fundamental right to be let alone is preserved. When the state permits some citizens to harm others or forces some citizens to act against their inclinations, the opposite occurs.

    There’s no right to be left alone in the Constitution. And nobody is forcing anyone to participate in supporting a gay wedding.

    If bakers don’t want to serve the public, they don’t have to run bakeries. If they do want to run bakeries, they have to treat everyone reasonably decently. You don’t have to like it; I don’t like it much myself. But there’s no First Amendment issue.

    They could do what anyone else that doesn’t want to work serving the public does and get a government job instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    If bakers don’t want to serve the public, they don’t have to run bakeries. If they do want to run bakeries, they have to treat everyone reasonably decently. You don’t have to like it; I don’t like it much myself.
     
    Dude, are you in kindergarten? I wouldn't expect a kindergartener to write so well, but it's just that you are writing out Kindergarten Rules here*. Nobody has to treat anybody decently! Am I treating you decently right now! Hell, no, right?

    Really, Owen, I hope you're not serious in your belief that what you wrote is what the US Constitution says.

    I like your last sentence though - that was pretty good.


    * What's your take on Sticks and Stones vs. Words, BTW? Look it up, its on the web under the Kindergarten Law Archives, case precedents a) Miss Griffiths vs. Little Bully Tommy seen by the 4th circuit court of Northern Va Apr. 1947, Judge S Jackson presiding, b) Snotnose Conner vs. DooDooHead Wilson, seen by the 1st court of the Potamac, Nov. 2007, Judge G. McClellan presiding.
    , @res
    Since you place such importance on the freedom of having cakes baked, how do you feel about the disparate treatment of Walmart in a similar situation?
    http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/walmart-blue-lives-matter-cake/

    FWIW my stance on cake baking and similar is that anyone has a right to buy an off the shelf cake (i.e. if homosexuals want to buy a standard cake off the rack from a Christian baker they should be able to, and the same in reverse), but no one (individuals/family business, companies are more complicated) should be forced to make a custom cake for a cause they disagree with. IMHO freedom of speech also includes freedom not to speak if one chooses.

    Also, do bakery customers have an obligation to treat the bakers decently? Is requiring someone to violate their religious beliefs decent? How do you feel about people being required to work on Saturdays? Does the first amendment apply there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @Achmed E. Newman
    You're not getting my point, Jack. I didn't see any defeatism on here - I mean on THIS post, just a lot of worry over whether Trump was going to reneg. If you know any history of politics in this country you would be aware of all the times that a decent man who seems to be or IS on the side of Americans, not just "America", goes native once he has been in the FS for a little while. The real Americans have been let down so many times.

    That worry about whether this is a sign of a let-down - wall or no wall, an amnesty on all but "criminals"* is a total capitulation on the part of Trump. Worry is not the same as defeatism and I wrote last time ""Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy – the ball will keep rolling without him. " The fight would continue even if Trump were to go native. It would probably have to take another form. The reason I think your reading comprehension sucks is that you mistake worry for "playing the victim" or "showing your belly". That's just stupid, as those are 2 entirely different emotions. If you realize you have chewed-up wire in the attic, is it "playing the victim" to lose some sleep about it worrying about a fire, and going to Lowes the next morning to get new Romex and wire nuts? TWO.DIFFERENT.THINGS.DUDE.

    Revisionism has been used wrt history, meaning changing around the story. It's a slur, and I don't like that you put my post in that category. It's true that I watch ZERO TV, so it's possible I made too much of what I read on here. I do remember some time ago, still during the campaign, that Trump got everyone worried about something on immigration only to get his press conference lots of coverage, and then he just spent the whole time praising some veterans and demonstrating their support for him. Damn, that was a waste of my time, as I was in a clubhouse that had a TV and wasted a half hour to see if Trump would basically say ANYTHING. Like I already wrote in the last post, I hope you are right that this development is no let down in any way.

    Also, an anon commenter calling Trump “impressionable” in the face of his accomplishment is top kek. I’d say Trump hears about something, makes a decision based off what he knows, does some research, and then refines from there. But again, some people think Trump woulda been helpless without the help of a bunch of anonymous commenters on a niche blog.
     
    I know the commenter kek, and so far don't know what you mean with that. I agree with you here, Trump has not in the past known too much about the national political situation, but he does find out, usually from the right people, and he tends to go the right way with his decisions. His consultation/hiring of Jeff Sessions and his defense of the 2nd Amendment are good examples. He just needs to quit talking in circles. I think he is smart with the press, but I just wish he was a Reagan or Ron Paul type and straight-up with people, not such a flamboyant guy.

    Lastly as for bloggers, commenters and the like, did you forget how this whole thing started? Trump would not be in the position he is in now had he not stepped outside and talked about the harm from illegal immigration. Where'd his knowledge about this come from? This is a new age, with new media to replace the old LP.

    * An exception to this would be if Trump would pull of a technicality and later say "yeah all illegal immigrants are under a deportation order. You misunderstood our deal, I guess; the deal was we would only deport felons -I forgot to mention that anyone who crosses our border has committed a felony so, there ya go. Read the law next time" (I would love that)

    Yeah, the ten thousand posts about how Trump was absolutely doomed after *media created scandal* each and every time by the likes of Chrisnonymous, Boethiussss, AndrewR, and so many others were not defeatism. Right, the favorite trick of the CultMarxists: redefine something so it doesn’t mean what you’re being accused of.

    Get over yourself. The fact that you’re penning a long winded blog post in the manner of Corvinius in defense of Faire Maiden Steven and his commentariat tells me you’re way too invested in this shit, and exhibit A of the tendency of the commenters here to overestimate their self importance in the grand scheme of things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, Jack, I'm a Cultural Marxist ..... like you're the PhD in arts and letters with the minor in READING.FREAKING.COMPREHENSION.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Dissident says:
    @Lot
    The DACA people are the hardest to deport anyway under current law. No serious criminal record, employed, better access to documents and lawyers, more likely to tug on the heart of the immigration judges.

    So yes DACA should have been repealed on day 1, but right now there are about 1 million illegals who are subject to immediate removal, and they have little to no way to slow the process down. In fact if they try to fight immediate removal, they can usually be prosecuted and imprisoned.

    If you want actual results and numbers of illegals cut, finding these skipped illegals first seems to be what ICE is doing now and makes a lot of sense. Seems like they are also detaining those who harbor fugitive illegals with deportation orders. Another good policy.

    Seems like they are also detaining those who harbor fugitive illegals with deportation orders.

    Wouldn’t it be great to see all the preening mayors and governors boasting of their flagrant defiance of the Law be held to account?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. res says:
    @(((Owen)))

    The girl’s father hinself then responds that the child chose the ACLU because of its commitment to “freedom of speech,” clearly unaware that the ACLU works tirelessly to suppress precisely that, with its crusades against “hate speech” and the like.
     
    Lies. The ACLU backs the First Amendment.

    Provide one example otherwise.

    It seems the ACLU’s backing of the first amendment is selective. Here is an example, would you like me to look for more? Perhaps you should reconsider your “Lies” statement?

    http://www.uexpress.com/sweet-land-of-liberty/2015/12/9/aclu-silence-enables-campus-anti-free-speech

    They sure do talk the talk though: https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

    More on free speech and the ACLU. It looks like treatment of campaign financing is an area of intra-ACLU disagreement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-rift-in-the-aclu-over_b_5787810.html

    P.S. I get cranky about this topic because I was a fan of the theory of the ACLU, but they seem to have gone full SJW.

    P.P.S. I was bored, so here is another example: https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/aclu-free-speech-opinions-contributors-blasphemy.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    The ACLU has been consistently against campaign finance censorship. Check out the amici in Citizens United and the plaintiffs in McConnell v FEC.

    And there simply isn't enough budget to fight every possible lawsuit. Lack of resources isn't the same as opposing the First Amendment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @(((Owen)))
    There's no right to be left alone in the Constitution. And nobody is forcing anyone to participate in supporting a gay wedding.

    If bakers don't want to serve the public, they don't have to run bakeries. If they do want to run bakeries, they have to treat everyone reasonably decently. You don't have to like it; I don't like it much myself. But there's no First Amendment issue.

    They could do what anyone else that doesn't want to work serving the public does and get a government job instead.

    If bakers don’t want to serve the public, they don’t have to run bakeries. If they do want to run bakeries, they have to treat everyone reasonably decently. You don’t have to like it; I don’t like it much myself.

    Dude, are you in kindergarten? I wouldn’t expect a kindergartener to write so well, but it’s just that you are writing out Kindergarten Rules here*. Nobody has to treat anybody decently! Am I treating you decently right now! Hell, no, right?

    Really, Owen, I hope you’re not serious in your belief that what you wrote is what the US Constitution says.

    I like your last sentence though – that was pretty good.

    * What’s your take on Sticks and Stones vs. Words, BTW? Look it up, its on the web under the Kindergarten Law Archives, case precedents a) Miss Griffiths vs. Little Bully Tommy seen by the 4th circuit court of Northern Va Apr. 1947, Judge S Jackson presiding, b) Snotnose Conner vs. DooDooHead Wilson, seen by the 1st court of the Potamac, Nov. 2007, Judge G. McClellan presiding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. res says:
    @(((Owen)))
    There's no right to be left alone in the Constitution. And nobody is forcing anyone to participate in supporting a gay wedding.

    If bakers don't want to serve the public, they don't have to run bakeries. If they do want to run bakeries, they have to treat everyone reasonably decently. You don't have to like it; I don't like it much myself. But there's no First Amendment issue.

    They could do what anyone else that doesn't want to work serving the public does and get a government job instead.

    Since you place such importance on the freedom of having cakes baked, how do you feel about the disparate treatment of Walmart in a similar situation?

    http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/walmart-blue-lives-matter-cake/

    FWIW my stance on cake baking and similar is that anyone has a right to buy an off the shelf cake (i.e. if homosexuals want to buy a standard cake off the rack from a Christian baker they should be able to, and the same in reverse), but no one (individuals/family business, companies are more complicated) should be forced to make a custom cake for a cause they disagree with. IMHO freedom of speech also includes freedom not to speak if one chooses.

    Also, do bakery customers have an obligation to treat the bakers decently? Is requiring someone to violate their religious beliefs decent? How do you feel about people being required to work on Saturdays? Does the first amendment apply there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    The way civil rights law works is that there are specific categories that are protected from abusive treatment. One of those in many jurisdictions is gay people.

    I don't know of cops being included in many places.

    You could refuse to make a cake for a gay couple if one of them is a cop. Or if they're dressed shabbily. Only motives that impugn one of the specific named categories are illegal.

    Of course it is unfortunate that cops are perceived as hostile to equality and decency in so many places. But that is one of the costs of having drug prohibition and isn't going to go away. Unless cops can get legal protections for themselves, there's no legal problem with refusing them service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Treating people decently and reserving the right to refuse service to anyone are hardly mutually exclusive concepts.

    In any event, your reasoning would fail any 1L course in constitutional law. You can read this piece and report on it for extra credit, though.

    Such a nice, Jewish boy, too….

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    The late Justice Scalia, writing for the United States of America:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Me
    You'll all find out the hard way.

    There are rules--literally set in stone--- to how this planet operates.

    Trump's grandchildren are the red flag and the breaking of the rules.

    End. Of.

    [I do agree though, he's the best chance we have and I hope I'm wrong. But I'd rather keep pissing on Trump and keeping his feet to the fire and making him feel guilty about his grandkids so that he'll feel shame enough to risk himself to help us.]

    Remember something everyone....

    Respect No One. There's not a gosh darn person on this entire planet I have respect for. Not One. Not Trump. No one.

    This is a good attitude to have because it makes people Do Stuff For You cuz they are constantly trying to Earn Your Respect but will Never Get It.

    Respect No One. There’s not a gosh darn person on this entire planet I have respect for. Not One. Not Trump. No one.

    This is a good attitude to have because it makes people Do Stuff For You cuz they are constantly trying to Earn Your Respect but will Never Get It.

    Gosh. This approach seems more a sure path to becoming a bitter, lonely, friendless, old man than someone others are constantly doing things for and trying to earn respect from.

    Doesn’t it seem more reasonable and effective to offer everyone a baseline level of respect – what might be called civility – unless and until he proves worthy of true contempt or admiration?

    I take your point about not assuming people are great, but I think it’s equally useful not to presume they are horrible (even if most are).

    Very Respectfully,
    Autochthon

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @Jim Don Bob
    The Agree button does work in that you cannot use it again too soon, but your Agree does not show up on the post.

    I knew this about the buttons, but for me they truly did stop working altogether for a few days, though they recently behan working normally again. May be some glitch occurred, or Mr. Unz made updates to accommodate some browsers’ own changes….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Bill says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    The Agree button does work in that you cannot use it again too soon, but your Agree does not show up on the post.

    Weird. My agree is there now, but it wasn’t there for many minutes after I hit agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Bill says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    Absolutely. ICE shows up at 6am at some meat packing plant and checks documents; no hot dogs that day. Coupla raids on home renovations in Greenwich, SanFran, etc. Ask the diverse nannies in Central Park, Chevy Chase, etc. for their papers.

    Then arrest the employers and keep them in jail overnight until they make bail.

    Make it hurt.

    Nah. Using RICO to push some businesses into bankruptcy and imprisoning their owners for a couple of decades for conspiracy is more what I had in mind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @Jack Hanson
    Yeah, the ten thousand posts about how Trump was absolutely doomed after *media created scandal* each and every time by the likes of Chrisnonymous, Boethiussss, AndrewR, and so many others were not defeatism. Right, the favorite trick of the CultMarxists: redefine something so it doesn't mean what you're being accused of.

    Get over yourself. The fact that you're penning a long winded blog post in the manner of Corvinius in defense of Faire Maiden Steven and his commentariat tells me you're way too invested in this shit, and exhibit A of the tendency of the commenters here to overestimate their self importance in the grand scheme of things.

    Yeah, Jack, I’m a Cultural Marxist ….. like you’re the PhD in arts and letters with the minor in READING.FREAKING.COMPREHENSION.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @res
    Since you place such importance on the freedom of having cakes baked, how do you feel about the disparate treatment of Walmart in a similar situation?
    http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/walmart-blue-lives-matter-cake/

    FWIW my stance on cake baking and similar is that anyone has a right to buy an off the shelf cake (i.e. if homosexuals want to buy a standard cake off the rack from a Christian baker they should be able to, and the same in reverse), but no one (individuals/family business, companies are more complicated) should be forced to make a custom cake for a cause they disagree with. IMHO freedom of speech also includes freedom not to speak if one chooses.

    Also, do bakery customers have an obligation to treat the bakers decently? Is requiring someone to violate their religious beliefs decent? How do you feel about people being required to work on Saturdays? Does the first amendment apply there?

    The way civil rights law works is that there are specific categories that are protected from abusive treatment. One of those in many jurisdictions is gay people.

    I don’t know of cops being included in many places.

    You could refuse to make a cake for a gay couple if one of them is a cop. Or if they’re dressed shabbily. Only motives that impugn one of the specific named categories are illegal.

    Of course it is unfortunate that cops are perceived as hostile to equality and decency in so many places. But that is one of the costs of having drug prohibition and isn’t going to go away. Unless cops can get legal protections for themselves, there’s no legal problem with refusing them service.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The way civil rights law works is that there are specific categories that are protected from abusive treatment. One of those in many jurisdictions is gay people.
     
    Ah, so certain classes of people receive special treatment under civil rights law. Is that what the cool kids call "privilege"? Do other people have any rights under civil rights law? Am I right to interpret all of this as you thinking it is OK to treat those non-protected classes abusively?

    Any response to my points about the "decency" of askingrequiring people to violate their religious principles?

    P.S. I am horrified at the abusive treatment of having someone refuse to bake them a cake. Make the world safe for cake eaters! Or should we just say, let them eat cake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. @Autochthon
    Treating people decently and reserving the right to refuse service to anyone are hardly mutually exclusive concepts.

    In any event, your reasoning would fail any 1L course in constitutional law. You can read this piece and report on it for extra credit, though.

    Such a nice, Jewish boy, too....

    The late Justice Scalia, writing for the United States of America:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @res
    It seems the ACLU's backing of the first amendment is selective. Here is an example, would you like me to look for more? Perhaps you should reconsider your "Lies" statement?

    http://www.uexpress.com/sweet-land-of-liberty/2015/12/9/aclu-silence-enables-campus-anti-free-speech

    They sure do talk the talk though: https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

    More on free speech and the ACLU. It looks like treatment of campaign financing is an area of intra-ACLU disagreement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-rift-in-the-aclu-over_b_5787810.html

    P.S. I get cranky about this topic because I was a fan of the theory of the ACLU, but they seem to have gone full SJW.

    P.P.S. I was bored, so here is another example: https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/aclu-free-speech-opinions-contributors-blasphemy.html

    The ACLU has been consistently against campaign finance censorship. Check out the amici in Citizens United and the plaintiffs in McConnell v FEC.

    And there simply isn’t enough budget to fight every possible lawsuit. Lack of resources isn’t the same as opposing the First Amendment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Except when they aren't: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/17/a-brief-history-of-the-aclu-and-campaign-finance

    There was division in the ranks and it had become public. “In a statement that will be formally released in the next few days,” the article continued, “the nine leaders — among them, former ACLU president Norman Dorsen, former executive director Aryeh Neier, former legal director Burt Neuborne and former legislative director Morton Halperin — dispute the ACLU’s view that placing ‘reasonable limits on campaign spending’ violates the First Amendment.”

    A tradition had ended. While the ACLU continued to file briefs defending First Amendment claims in campaign finance cases, after 1998 former ACLU officials filed briefs opposing many such First Amendment challenges to campaign finance laws. That conflict continues to this day.

    Perhaps that division in the ACLU explains why it did not file an amicus brief in McCutcheon. For some, that fact was shocking. For others, it was a welcome relief.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. res says:
    @(((Owen)))
    The way civil rights law works is that there are specific categories that are protected from abusive treatment. One of those in many jurisdictions is gay people.

    I don't know of cops being included in many places.

    You could refuse to make a cake for a gay couple if one of them is a cop. Or if they're dressed shabbily. Only motives that impugn one of the specific named categories are illegal.

    Of course it is unfortunate that cops are perceived as hostile to equality and decency in so many places. But that is one of the costs of having drug prohibition and isn't going to go away. Unless cops can get legal protections for themselves, there's no legal problem with refusing them service.

    The way civil rights law works is that there are specific categories that are protected from abusive treatment. One of those in many jurisdictions is gay people.

    Ah, so certain classes of people receive special treatment under civil rights law. Is that what the cool kids call “privilege”? Do other people have any rights under civil rights law? Am I right to interpret all of this as you thinking it is OK to treat those non-protected classes abusively?

    Any response to my points about the “decency” of askingrequiring people to violate their religious principles?

    P.S. I am horrified at the abusive treatment of having someone refuse to bake them a cake. Make the world safe for cake eaters! Or should we just say, let them eat cake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. res says:
    @(((Owen)))
    The ACLU has been consistently against campaign finance censorship. Check out the amici in Citizens United and the plaintiffs in McConnell v FEC.

    And there simply isn't enough budget to fight every possible lawsuit. Lack of resources isn't the same as opposing the First Amendment.

    Except when they aren’t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/17/a-brief-history-of-the-aclu-and-campaign-finance

    There was division in the ranks and it had become public. “In a statement that will be formally released in the next few days,” the article continued, “the nine leaders — among them, former ACLU president Norman Dorsen, former executive director Aryeh Neier, former legal director Burt Neuborne and former legislative director Morton Halperin — dispute the ACLU’s view that placing ‘reasonable limits on campaign spending’ violates the First Amendment.”

    A tradition had ended. While the ACLU continued to file briefs defending First Amendment claims in campaign finance cases, after 1998 former ACLU officials filed briefs opposing many such First Amendment challenges to campaign finance laws. That conflict continues to this day.

    Perhaps that division in the ACLU explains why it did not file an amicus brief in McCutcheon. For some, that fact was shocking. For others, it was a welcome relief.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Clyde says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    You're not getting my point, Jack. I didn't see any defeatism on here - I mean on THIS post, just a lot of worry over whether Trump was going to reneg. If you know any history of politics in this country you would be aware of all the times that a decent man who seems to be or IS on the side of Americans, not just "America", goes native once he has been in the FS for a little while. The real Americans have been let down so many times.

    That worry about whether this is a sign of a let-down - wall or no wall, an amnesty on all but "criminals"* is a total capitulation on the part of Trump. Worry is not the same as defeatism and I wrote last time ""Quit hoping? No, this is just one guy – the ball will keep rolling without him. " The fight would continue even if Trump were to go native. It would probably have to take another form. The reason I think your reading comprehension sucks is that you mistake worry for "playing the victim" or "showing your belly". That's just stupid, as those are 2 entirely different emotions. If you realize you have chewed-up wire in the attic, is it "playing the victim" to lose some sleep about it worrying about a fire, and going to Lowes the next morning to get new Romex and wire nuts? TWO.DIFFERENT.THINGS.DUDE.

    Revisionism has been used wrt history, meaning changing around the story. It's a slur, and I don't like that you put my post in that category. It's true that I watch ZERO TV, so it's possible I made too much of what I read on here. I do remember some time ago, still during the campaign, that Trump got everyone worried about something on immigration only to get his press conference lots of coverage, and then he just spent the whole time praising some veterans and demonstrating their support for him. Damn, that was a waste of my time, as I was in a clubhouse that had a TV and wasted a half hour to see if Trump would basically say ANYTHING. Like I already wrote in the last post, I hope you are right that this development is no let down in any way.

    Also, an anon commenter calling Trump “impressionable” in the face of his accomplishment is top kek. I’d say Trump hears about something, makes a decision based off what he knows, does some research, and then refines from there. But again, some people think Trump woulda been helpless without the help of a bunch of anonymous commenters on a niche blog.
     
    I know the commenter kek, and so far don't know what you mean with that. I agree with you here, Trump has not in the past known too much about the national political situation, but he does find out, usually from the right people, and he tends to go the right way with his decisions. His consultation/hiring of Jeff Sessions and his defense of the 2nd Amendment are good examples. He just needs to quit talking in circles. I think he is smart with the press, but I just wish he was a Reagan or Ron Paul type and straight-up with people, not such a flamboyant guy.

    Lastly as for bloggers, commenters and the like, did you forget how this whole thing started? Trump would not be in the position he is in now had he not stepped outside and talked about the harm from illegal immigration. Where'd his knowledge about this come from? This is a new age, with new media to replace the old LP.

    * An exception to this would be if Trump would pull of a technicality and later say "yeah all illegal immigrants are under a deportation order. You misunderstood our deal, I guess; the deal was we would only deport felons -I forgot to mention that anyone who crosses our border has committed a felony so, there ya go. Read the law next time" (I would love that)

    It’s true that I watch ZERO TV, so it’s possible I made too much of what I read on here. \

    I have not watched TV for four months though I like to see clips of TV news shows on you tube. Lots quicker than watching (example) 60 minutes of the Fox News Hour. The All Star panel is usually the only enlightening feature. I am sure that if one does a youtube search he will find it for most nights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?