The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
DACA: A Pragmatic Cowardice
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Oh sigh. Recently we heard much huffing and blowing over the Supreme Court’s decision not to illegalize the DACAns. These, you may remember, are Mexicans’ brought illegally into the country while children. Obama gave them a sort of amnesty and allowed them to work. Anti-immigration activists say these interlopers are criminals and should be deported instanter. This embodies the interesting notion that a two-year-old can commit a federal crime.

So what should we make of all of this?

Worth noting is that while the Court pretends to be an impartial judge of the law—“the law, ma’am, the law, and nothing but the law”—in viscerally fraught cases it acts more as a micro-legislature of last resort. Probably it shouldn’t. Certainly it does. In cases of vast emotional import, the justices rule with a moistened finger in the political wind. Thus Presidents try to pack the Court with people of their own party, exactly as in Congress, for the same reasons. It is a legislature.

For example, before 1900 it had occurred to no one, including the Court, that there existed a constitutional right to abortion, that pornography was protected by the First Amendment, that the same amendment forbade nativity scenes on the town square, or that separate but equal was verboten. Now all of that has changed. Same Constitution (almost). A lagging legislature, but a legislature nonetheless.

Activists opposing immigration argue that Obama had no legal grounds for enacting DACA and that Trump therefore has the right to end it. Now, there are those who do not believe that I am the country’s preeminent Constitutional lawyer. (What do they know?) However that may be, it seems to me that the Court’s arguments were contrived and unconvincing. If this be so, why did they vote as they did?

To dodge a bullet and to prevent a civil war. Call it practicality over principle

Consider. If the Court declared the DACAns illegal, all 850,000 of them would become deportable as illegal aliens. White Nationalists would scream for their immediate eviction. The law would be on their side. Trump, who has run hard on ejecting illegal aliens, would presumably sic immigration officials on the now-criminal DACAns. Unlike the usual illegals, DACAns are easily found.

How wise a time is ours for doing this? The country is explosive. Mobs of semi-anthropoid savages loot, burn, kill, topple statues, and so on. Much of the rest of the country, so far passive, wants to beat the rampaging two-year-olds until they can’t crawl.

At the same time, social discipline withers. Several states defy federal law on marijuana. Many jurisdictions—state, big cities, counties, towns, municipalities—avowedly refuse to help federal police deport illegal immigrants. Others de facto follow the same policy.

Now, what happens when the feds erupt into a popular restaurant and cart the head cook, Lalo, off in handcuffs? Or, at the local trucking company, Pepe, who is shift boss with seven years in the job and a valued employee? Or Lupita, in charge of food services at a high school in Los Angeles?

These questions do not matter to White Nationalists and their political appendages, who are a trombone of one lone note. “They aren’t white. Throw…them…out.” Some readers may think the throwing out a good idea. Others may not. From a purely practical point of view, the results would very, very likely be horrific.

All the recent protesters would erupt again, drawn by the exaltations of mob combat in a boring life. The universities would empty as one person into the fray, supported by the media and the professoriat. They would attack ICEi agents. Groups of roaring, bellowing, and shrilling young would form human barriers around workplaces.

Washington’s choice would be either (a) to accede again to the demands of the mob, abandoning any pretense to authority that it still has or (b) to assert itself by rifle butts or live fire. Shooting looters and arsonists once would have been regarded as reasonable and even advisable. The goofier of the politically correct might find this uncouth, but they do not own the store being burned. It might be one thing to shoot arsonists, but another to shoot shrieking co-eds. The only way to get defending white, middleclass students to give way would be to smack hell out of them Tear gas and such demonstrably do not work.

Hardcore conservatives and White Nationalists might say this was necessary to maintain the rule of law. They are probably right. But—here I speculate—the Court may well have thought it wiser to duck the question and punt. Squishy? Cowardly? Maybe. But safer in the short run.

And of course if the DACAns were made illegal, every night the media would show little Lupita and Juanito, third graders, weeping inconsolably because Daddy is being sent to Mexico, whose language he doesn’t know, and they will have nothing to eat and nowhere to go in Mexico, in Mexico, which won’t accept Mommy and the kids because they are not Mexican citizens. Etc., night after night after night. Most pols would squeak and gibber in support of the DACAns. So would very many decent people.

For White Nationalists and sympathizers, none of this would matter. The DACAns are brown. We know how to find them. Throw…them…out.

Lupita and Juanito are cute kids, speaking good third-grade English. The camera shows mommy crumpled on a couch, crying and crying and crying because those brutish ICE men are going to….

Trump wants to try this. Talk about a political tin ear.

Of course the justices, no fools, would see the absurdity of trying to throw 850,000 people across the Mexican border. Who would do the throwing? The military? The attempt would risk a mutiny by the many black and brown troops…and perhaps by their white barrack-mates. This would be a very smart thing not to find out. Would the troops kick in hundreds of thousands of doors to catch the new illegals? How would they find them?

Almost certainly, think I, Congress would react as if stung and do something to make them legal again. So why bother with the whole exercise?

The time to stop mass immigration is early on, when it is just beginning, not after sixty million have come and settled in. Remember that Presidential elections are decided by five or six percent of the vote, and Hispanics are eighteen percent of the population. Do you suppose that politicians have noticed? Add that blacks, another thirteen percent, wouldlikely vote with browns on matters racial. Given this, the likelihood of evicting the better part of a million people becomes imaginary.

Was the decision pusillanimous? Yes, I think. But arguably wise. Washington does not need another trial of strength with an omninational mob which would inevitably win, or else an armed response that would take Tian An Men Square look like a pajama party.

Write Fred at [email protected] Put the letters pdq anywhere in the subject line to avoid autodeletion.

Nekkid in Austin

Amazon review: “Essays on America, life, politics, and just about everything. The author chronicles among other adventures an aging stripper in Austin, dressed in a paper-mache horse, who had with her a cobra and a tarantula like a yak-hair pillow with legs and alternately charmed and terrified a room full of cowboys sucking down Bud and…. Fred was an apostle of the long-haul thumb during the Sixties and saw…many things. He tells of standing by the big roads across the desert, rockin in the wind blast of the heavy rigs roaring by and the whine of tires and dropping into an arroyo at night with a bottle of cheap red and watching the stars and perhaps smoking things not approved by the government. He tells of..well, that’s what the book is for. Join him.”

 
SubscribeUnsubscribe
• Category: Ideology • Tags: DACA, Donald Trump, Immigration, Supreme Court 
Hide 115 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Then the 2 year old’s father robs a bank, the kid doesn’t legally get to spend the money when he turns 18.

    If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would join you Fred, but I don’t so all your little brown friends need to go back. No matter what age they were smuggled across the border.

  2. Sadly, Fred’s analysis is correct. The United States will cease being an extension of Europe in North America and become some kind of North American Brazil.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Baxter
    , @Alfa158
  3. Uncle Al says: • Website

    Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius,” Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric.

    youtu.be/dDpQmCGjEPc
    youtu.be/sm5dwQkMXMo

  4. KenH says:

    The SCOTUS ruling on DACA was purely political and ideological. Of the five justices that voted to uphold DACA, three are Jews who hate America, one is a latina bigot who is at war with white America and the 5th is a squish whose heart bleeds for illegal aliens.

    Remember that Presidential elections are decided by five or six percent of the vote, and Hispanics are eighteen percent of the population.

    Is Fred admitting that latinos put race ahead of nationality and that race matters to them but isn’t supposed to matter to whites?

    For White Nationalists and sympathizers, none of this would matter. The DACAns are brown. We know how to find them. Throw…them…out.

    It’s simply in white racial interests to deport as many illegal brown people as possible. That and ending birthright citizenship.

  5. Al Lipton says:

    Thank you Fred for sharing your good thoughts.
    Thank you on behalf of Lalo, Pepe, and Lupita.

    BUILD THE WALL!

  6. While it is best to stop illegal immigration early, lawless people in both parties refused to do their duty. While we are sending the illegals back across the border, we should jail those who refused to do their duty and prevent the problem.

  7. This embodies the interesting notion that a two-year-old can commit a federal crime.

    Are you fucking retarded, Fred, or is this your wife’s writing again?

    Yeah, and you know those little toddlers whose Dads got put in the klink for grand larceny? They ought to get to keep the money. I mean, toddlers can’t commit grand larceny, right. You gonna take that money, like food out of their mouths?

    I wish these DACA “kids” could read your back columns. It seems like you make a great case that they’d be better off in Mexico. What’s the harm in sending them back? It should be a lot better there for ’em!*

    .

    * and I don’t at all rule that out, either.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  8. @Chris Mallory

    So, sorry, Chris, I wrote my comment before I read yours, and really, the rest of Reed’s post for that matter. When the guy starts out with a major episode of stupidity in the 1st paragraph, well, should I bother with the rest?

  9. Daddio7 says:

    As it is DACA is perpetual, every child of an illegal migrant will be given permanent resident status, not just those here now. This is a perversion of birthright citizenship. Now we have transplant citizenship. This is another inducement to illegal entry, all children get to stay. Then you can’t toss out Mama and Papa, the children need them and apparently so does the US economy.

  10. Baxter says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    I think that’s probably a fair prognosis in terms of the *best* case scenario.

  11. youse says:

    Trump tried to end DACA to get the Democrats to negotiate. Give a little get a little. Trump is willing to let them stay. The Democrats to give two craps about those people. They are just trying to score political points in the era of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    • Replies: @MikeCLT
  12. ruralguy says:

    Fred is right, but also wrong. The demographics are unstoppable. Our near-term future is bellwethered by Los Angeles County — only 27.8% of the population is non-Hispanic white. Fred likes to tout that Central American cities are largely livable, though poor and disorderly. But, we can’t assume that our economy will be similar to theirs in the distant future, because their economy exists because they are networked to our economy. Without our cars, technology, capital equipment, they would not exist. If our economy fails in the future, lives just might not matter.

  13. The US Supreme Court just reached a new low. President Obama had issued a edit to grant millions of foreigners the right to work in the USA because Congress had refused. President Trump revoked the edict because a federal court ruled it unconstitutional, and because it encouraged more illegal mass immigration. The corrupt Supreme Court just sided with corporate America ruled that President Obama’s edicts cannot be rescinded by the current elected President. Here is some background from an old blog post.

    Sep 9, 2017 – DACA Caca

    [MORE]

    DACA is unconstitutional, something informed Americans agree upon. (Caca means shit in Mexican, hence the title.) President Obama created this amnesty program with no legislation, and he openly said because Congress refused to pass his proposed law. Whatever one thinks of the idea, Obama acted as a tyrant on behalf of corporate America that wants to flood our nation with ever more workers to drive down wages. A federal judge halted the program after a year for that reason. If DACA is a good idea, Congress can legislate this as required in a democracy. Executive orders are only for emergencies where Congress cannot act promptly, top secret affairs, or clarifications of vague laws, not for royal proclamations by a President when Congress disagrees.

    DACA illegal immigrants had to be younger than age 31 on June 15, 2012, must have come to the U.S. when they were younger than 16, and must have lived in the U.S. since 2007. In August 2012, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people might be eligible. But what about those who arrived after the current DACA limit, in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016? Must they be included because of the “moral imperative” Obama cited? What about those crossing now? There are no hard records about these foreign invaders, so DACA requirements can be met with no proof.

    And once these kids get resident cards (“kids” up to age 36) their parents and siblings can get immediate family visas. So we are talking about tens of millions now here illegally getting SSNs and applying to collect tens of billions of dollars in annual federal benefits, thus opening the door for millions more unskilled and disabled immigrants via immediate family visas. Legal foreigners age 65 and older automatically get SSI checks and Medicaid as “aged” without ever paying a cent in social security or income taxes, as well as younger disabled foreigners who never worked a day in the USA.

    Millions of Latinos will continue to pour across our border and millions more who now arrive from Africa after they cross over to South America and claim asylum, then take a bus north (waved thru by several Latin American nations). These “refugees” walk across our lightly defended border, yell asylum and bingo, their kids are here and its not their fault, so they DACA over to the welfare office. In addition, young adults may claim they are only 17 years old to get a visa and welfare benefits as an “unaccompanied minor”. Several million “refugees” arrived while Obama was in office since his DACA amnesty suggested open borders. Rewarding bad behavior only encourages more! Recent news reports are that illegal border crossings have dropped sharply since Trump took office, simply because he talked about enforcing immigration laws.

    This problem is the result of the two previous amnesties and lax immigration enforcement. Now corporate America demands another amnesty to solve this worldwide overpopulation problem? They spin DACA as a realistic solution, claiming we can’t deport people and can’t secure our borders, so let’s be realistic and give up. But the US government doesn’t really try.

    Our “Department of Defense” has 1,200,000 active duty personnel and a million civilians, yet only a few hundred are actually assigned to help defend the USA from this invasion. Placing just 10,000 soldiers back on the border would make a big difference, and eliminating the anchor baby loophole is a simple fix. Meanwhile, the insane “diversity visa” program continues to flood the USA with tens of thousands of low skilled Third Worlders each year who are immediately placed in government housing with benefits, and then apply for immediate family visas for an even larger number of relatives.

    These unwanted economic refugees are clogging our schools, hospitals, jails, and driving up rents. Meanwhile, corporate America warns that higher minimum wages for Americans are bad since it encourages automation and eliminates jobs, while also promoting DACA to legalize millions of foreigners who take jobs. Poor immigrants pay some taxes, but at a much lower rate than citizens and collect benefits at a much higher rate. Moreover, the USA does not need millions more people clogging our overcrowded cities!

    Mass immigration hurts the poorest Americans most, and remains the primary reason that wages remain flat and joblessness (accurately measured by the BLS Labor Participation Rate) remains high. Nearly all the corporate media supports open borders and DACA, with the notable exception of pro-worker and pro-American Tucker Carlson who exposed this plot. Unfortunately, millions of American citizens have been fooled by this anti-worker propaganda. Most don’t realize there are 300 million people in the USA and 7 billion people on Earth. Half will come to the USA or any modern nation if allowed, and millions are doing so right now, lured by DACA!

    Is rent too expensive? Are roads clogged? Are schools overcrowded? What would happen if millions of illegal visitors were sent home? This is not impossible, Ike did this in the 1950s. Start by deporting illegals jailed for whatever reason since most are set free in the USA. The majority of Americans support this idea and explains why Trump won, yet corporate media says only racists oppose open borders, and even twisted the positive word “nationalist” to mean evil workers crazy enough to resist globalization. Meanwhile corporate billionaires boast how they prefer to hire foreigners to work in the USA rather than citizens to show their support for open borders.

    If these millions of Mexicans are such a great economic benefit, Mexico should welcome mass deportations. And they can grant automatic citizenship to the thousands of Africans now crossing Mexico to the USA, instead of busing them to the American border for free. Mexico would boom with more GDP “activity”! America’s GDP may stagnate, yet wages will rise, unemployment and federal spending will fall, and cities will be safer and less crowded. DACA is a great corporate marketing scheme to fool Americans, but fundamentally, it’s a load of caca!

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  14. Anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

    TL;DR

    Fred is a turncoat. Please stay in the Third World, Fred. We don’t want you back. Thanks.

    • LOL: bluedog
  15. For example, before 1900 it had occurred to no one, including the Court, that there existed a constitutional right to abortion,

    Then the Supremes supported the Constitution in its protection of the privacy rights of individual citizens, and forbade the State from intruding on the privacy of the individual. This basic of the American Republic came to a head around abortion but it was not about abortion per se, no matter what ignorant fools like Fred say. Neither was it “legislating.”

    that pornography was protected by the First Amendment,

    Um, Fred? That’s because porn is protected by the 1st. The Founders didn’t state that the government shall not infringe on our God-given right to speech and expression UNLESS it’s someone having sex, so then it’s A-OK to infringe. The Supreme Court finally aligned itself WITH the Constitution for the first time in 200 years. Again, they were “legislating” nothing.

    that the same amendment forbade nativity scenes on the town square,

    If all religions are allowed freedom of expression but just one religion is promoted by the State (in the form of nativity scenes), how is that not infringing on freedom to practice one’s own religion? Put your bloody Nativity scene on your church’s front lawn, you old coot. Not in my face at the Courthouse. It’s the Constitution, ye crazy ya. Not “legislating.”

    or that separate but equal was verboten.

    That’s because separate was never equal. All it meant was segregation relegated one group of people to sub-standard (i.e., unequal) schooling. Thus, it was not equal, ya old racist ya! Why are you using the Deep South’s segregationist slogans from the 1950s to try and make your point that the Supreme Court was “legislating,” instead of what it was actually doing: enforcing the Constitution and its Amendments?

    Now all of that has changed. Same Constitution (almost). A lagging legislature, but a legislature nonetheless.

    The only thing that has changed from 1900 is that unConstitutional laws and strictures that had been around for decades were finally struck down, thus promoting the Constitution and freedom for all Americans.

    The Legislature is to legislate. And if they legislate laws that contravene the Constitution the Supreme Court is there to restore the Constitution by invalidating the laws that the Legislature has passed. It’s called protection against the tyranny of the majority, Fred.

    It’s the basic tenet of our Country. You reveal yourself as against America, gringo. Stay in Mexico where you belong.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  16. Biff says:

    As America delves deeper into the dregs of shitholeness, many of these DACAns may choose to reverse emigrate making the butt-hurt nationalists happy again. Thus, making a place a total shithole may actually set it free.

    • Replies: @VinnyVette
  17. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    Please now address the Court’s recent decisions concerning

    1. same-sex marriage

    2. the redefinition of “sex” under employment discrimination laws to encompass relationships and personal identity

    Did the Congress’s (and, with respect to #1, state legislatures’) longstanding decisions not to so enact such statutes “contravene the Constitution”?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  18. The political winds as you note have a direction and it was in the direction of easing any form of immigration.

    Nonsense, Most people even on the far right understand that the process of repatriating Mexicans would not be immediate. Nor is it clear that deportations would be the endgame — the endgame would be ending the program – period.

    There is ot reason that deportations need to be a matter of chaos.

  19. BuelahMan says:

    I don’t care if the feeble minded want to live in Mexico and get them a “brown” woman. I prefer that they stay there, then stfu when it comes to American policy about immigration INTO America.

  20. fenster says:

    This column is red meat to many readers on the site, who would be among those clamoring for deportation in the decision had gone the other way. But with all due respect to the Unz Review, which I read daily, the readership here is hardly representative of the country. The very forces that Fred points to that suggest to him that the Court decision was prudent would almost certainly stopped the Administration from the mass round-up that he predicts would have happened.

    The rule of law.

    That’s what it is about. Obama corrupted it. The Roberts court should have affirmed it. Then let the chips fall where they may. Let the political system come under stress and see how it handles things. Leaving matters to unelected robed personaages is a sign of defeat. There is no surer way of ending up like a disordered Central American nation than to surrender legitimate power.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  21. MarkinLA says:

    It isn’t just the 850,000 that would be subject to deportation. What about the millions who brought them here where there has never been any attempt to deport them? The whole family the DACA recipient and his parents should be deported together.

    This is the truly disgusting part of DACA that nobody ever mentions. Not only the DACAs get to stay but the parents who brought them.

  22. Fred loves to use the term “White Nationalist”. That means evil hate-filled white people, who don’t want to share America with the whole world. The correct term is Patriot. A Patriot recognizes that America is collapsing. The social and financial pressure from so many Africans and Hispanics is causing terrible economic problems, because foreigners have taken over construction, the hotel business, the convenient store business, the computer business, and other areas, as well. Also, our language and culture is collapsing under the weight of hispanic immigration. Already, many American neighborhoods have signs only in Spanish. Miami is now Cuba. Detroit is Iraq. Atlanta is the Congo. So we have a choice: Either we clean up America, and make it A safe place again; or we let Fred and his friends send a billion refugees to the U.S. and then we can hide behind locked doors forever. What would a Patriot do?

  23. True, deporting all illegals is not doable. But stopping further illegal immigration is.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Colin Wright
  24. I’m for deporting all illegals who have committed any violent crimes or property crimes. And no welfare of any kind for illegals.

  25. Like a Band-Aid that’s been in place too long sometimes it’s best just to let ‘er rip & deal with the pain for a short time.

  26. America’s common heritage, ancestral inheritance, hard-earned infrastructure, our trust fund.

    Immigrants are looting the trust fund. They come here and ask, “Where’s mine? I thought you people believed in equality, so you have an obligation to make us equal.”

    We are willing to share with our fellow citizens because we know that they too contributed to our common pool of wealth. They did their share so they deserve a share.

    Immigrants connive. What we mean by equality is equal before the Law. What they mean is give us your stuff, your jobs, your schooling, healthcare and so on until we have as much as you. It’s looting. We’re being pillaged by marauders.

    Fred cites productive immigrants, but overall, his people are net takers. Why? For the same reason slavery in the South set economic development back decades.

    If it weren’t for cheap Indio labor, American businessmen and farmers would be forced to develop more effective machines for e.g. picking fruit and vegetables. The net effect of their being here is to retard progress and prolong inefficient labor practices.

    • Replies: @Juanisaac
  27. @anonymous

    I am in favor of neither of the 2, and have not been closely following either.

    From what I have studied about it, though, it would appear that Number 1, same sex marriage, is equivalent to equality under the law.

    The Constitution has always been remarkable in that it allows for American society to grow, change and evolve. And so, just as there were no Hustler magazines laying around Ben Franklin’s house in 1790, Hustler is still an element of society’s changing morés of expression, which must remain free.

    Thus, just because Mary and Edna didn’t get married in the society of 1810, does not mean that the society would or should remain stratified and static.

    It is the very ability of the Constitution to encase in its structure the allowance for human changes in human society in the course of time, it is that resilience, that is the very heart of the American Republic.

    Thus equality under the law would permit same sex marriage or rather forbid prohibiting it.

    And who cares anyway? You want to get married, who cares? The problem is in demanding things of private persons and businesses just because now the government cannot prohibit gays from marrying. And the Supreme Court has agreed, at least in one key case in Colorado.

    As for 2? This appears to be a ruling on a law passed by Congress and addresses legislative intent of Congress. Was Congressional intent to reduce discrimination and inequality of opportunity? No question that that was their intent.

    The Supremes rule in favor of equality under the law and if Joe Schoe says he is a woman, then Joe should not be fired for that. And again: who cares what Joe Schmoe does in his personal life? Ben Franklin said Mind Your Business. You can find that inscribed in City Hall Park in New York City.

    The problem comes when there is inequality under the law, and this includes gaming it by psychos or charlatans who claim some status in order to get benefits that are unequal to other Americans.

    The ruling in 2 appears to be very narrow. Time will tell if it is gamed in some way. In that case, the Supremes will rule again.

    Too much of these queries and conclusions are all about that it ain’t what it used to be like in the olden days when men were man, women were women, and the goats were scared (just joking about the last part). Well there was no television then, no internet, no cars, and etc., etc.

    Manners and morals change to reflect a vibrant society. It’s not a good idea to constrict it. That would be the real anti-American philosophy.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @anonymous
    , @KenH
  28. And of course if the DACAns were made illegal, every night the media would show little Lupita and Juanito, third graders, weeping inconsolably because Daddy is being sent to Mexico, whose language he doesn’t know…

    Seriously Fred? Illegal aliens from Latin America do not communicate with their children in English. Their households are awash in Spanish night and day, from the adults to the kids and the TV. The notion that they speak no Spanish is just another one of the talking points that the agitators for illegal aliens use to badger us into thinking we have to let them stay.

  29. MarkinLA says:
    @Gordon K. Shumway

    I remember that old Chinese saying that a deportation of a million illegals starts with the first deportation. It can be done if we want to just like we sent an army of millions of men to Europe when we wanted to.

  30. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    The issue is whether the change is the result of a supermajority of Americans amending the Constitution or some guy in a black robe deciding up is really down because he is standing on his head.

    It seems we used to actually do this for major issues – you know like making alcohol illegal and then legal. Somehow, the government decided it was easier to make laws that are clearly outside of what the Constitution says and let the courts make them law.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  31. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    Oh, OK “[t]he Legislature is to legislate,” but the Court penumbralates when the Legislature isn’t sufficiently vibrant.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  32. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:

    Fred lives in Meh-hee-coe with a beanerette wife. Hmmm. I wonder what his stance is per illegals?

    >”If the Court declared the DACAns illegal, all 850,000 of them would become deportable…Now, what happens when the feds…cart the head cook, Lalo…Or…Pepe, who is shift boss…Or Lupita” off to TJ buses?

    Sane people will cheer!

    >”These questions do not matter to White Nationalists”

    What matters to Brown Nationalists, Frederico? Do THEY let any and all humans enter Meh-hee-coe, paying all bills?

    > “They aren’t white. Throw…them…out.”

    Er no: “They aren’t legal. Deport them!”

    If a gringo rapes Fredo’s wife, and calls it “undocumented coitus,” will Mr. Reed applaud?

    Did the doctor blind Freddykin’s eye or merely “withdraw undocumented sight” from it?

    From a “purely practical” perspective: what kind of America would result if 60 million lawbreakers …with low-IQs from shlthole nations who hate the USA…got amnesty?

    Freddington talks about “safer in the short run.” Then what? Fred will be dead and gone. Along with America.

    One imagines him smiling as Wifey pegs him nightly.

  33. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @fenster

    >”The very forces that Fred points to…would almost certainly [have] stopped the Administration from the mass round-up”

    Don’t count on it. There are limits to everything.

    If sane people learned that 60,000,000 illegals (not the endlessly touted 11 million!) were to become citizens…entitled to endless freebies…they might put their feet down.

    Then again, maybe not. Their enstupidation seems boundless. They might have to experience a continental version of CHOP to wake up.

  34. why did they vote as they did?

    To dodge a bullet and to prevent a civil war.

    You say this as if it’s a good thing.

    Not lancing boils is not a good thing.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  35. Alfa158 says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Europe is on the way to being a European Brazil so I suppose that means the US is on its way to being a North American European Brazil?

  36. ‘…This [deportation] embodies the interesting notion that a two year old can commit a crime…’

    No it doesn’t ’embody’ any such thing. It embodies the interesting notion that if someone is in a country he doesn’t have right to be in, he should be returned to the country he does have a right to be in.

    Let’s suppose I enter your motel room at night by mistake. Is it necessary to demonstrate that I have committed a crime to demand that I leave your room and go to my room? Does this change if I am an innocent two-year old?

    It’s not necessary to prove criminal intent or any intent at all when it comes to people who are in the US illegally. All that’s necessary to demonstrate is the fact that they didn’t come here legally. They should be returned to where they came from.

    That’s not hard to figure out.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  37. This whole essay is the most wretched nonsense. Glancing down, I see a reference to the sum total of all the immigrants who are here — legal and illegal. Yes, there may well be sixty million immigrants here — but most of them are here legally. It’s not necessary to propose deporting them to deport those that are here illegally. Are you going to claim the police are threatening to seize your car because they seize the car of someone who has stolen theirs?

    Then you go right on to profess concern that ‘blacks will ally with browns.’ You’re aware both groups hate each other more than they hate whites, don’t you? In Los Angeles, Mexican gangs kill blacks that move into their neighborhoods. I’ve seen blacks manage to be perfectly civil to me — but be grossly rude to the Hispanic next to me.

    You might as well fret about the Evangelicals are going to get together with al Qaeda, and…

    Really. This is awful dreck.

    • Replies: @Ray Huffman
  38. @Gordon K. Shumway

    ‘True, deporting all illegals is not doable. But stopping further illegal immigration is.’

    You’ve got it backwards. The illegal immigration will only stop when getting in doesn’t mean you get to stay.

    It’s perfectly doable to deport all illegals. You just start deporting them.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  39. @Biff

    Everytime you make one of your asinine comments I think you can’t possibly out do yourself… You always manage to out do yourself.

    • Thanks: Biff
  40. Fred put the freaking tequila down!

  41. @MarkinLA

    None of what you said is true. Almost all of what you say is despicable disrespect of the highest court in the US.

    The Court stands for the individual against the tyranny of the majority, which was a real fear of the Founding Fathers and the reason that they formed a Republic.

    Just because you personally happen to have majority beliefs right now? Maybe one day you’ll not be in that majority.

    Of course, all bets are off if the Constitution is amended, bypassing all three branches of government. So if you really really don’t like same sex marriage (which is insane) or porn, or any other bugaboo of yours that has changed since you were a little kid in 1890?

    Then get an amendment, passed. Otherwise, the Court is going to strike down majority rule that discriminates against the individual or the minority.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @MarkinLA
  42. @anonymous

    penumbralates os mot a word in the English language and I can’t really tell what you are saying by the context of your sentence, but I find myself asking myself: why is this guy trying to cloud up my simple obvious reply with some academic bullshit?

    The Court is the bulwark against tyranny of the majority embodied in the Legislature. This was something Madison, Jefferson and other Founders wrote about warned about were fearful about. They saw democracies die due to this oppressive majority rule that would easily and quickly form.

    That the Court did not efficiently and strongly stand for the rights of the individual until the mid-20th century means nothing more than that.

    But when they did, you had majoritarian fools screaming non-stop that the judges were “legislating” or were “activist.” Nope.

    A right of privacy from government intrusion is something even screaming majoritarians should be for. Today they coming for your neighbor’s porn; but tomorrow they coming for you.

    This is the problem with democracies. This is why we are a republic.

    Not really interested in hearing more from you or anyone on this. I’ve said what I have to say on it. If you are confused re-read what I’ve said. If you disagree, I don’t care at all if you do. It’s a free country. Go with God..

    • Replies: @anonymous
  43. The people making some of these comments are missing the central aspect of Fred’s piece. He is talking about the unfair and inhuman nature of forcefully sending these people to Mexico given the circumstances that put them and have them in the United States. Deport people who grew up in America inside the English language and American culture; went to school here, now work here and pay taxes, and have all their social connections and network here. Deport them, to do what–wander the streets in places where they are not wanted, the culture is foreign to them and where many of them don’t even speak the language, to beg for handouts.

    People who coldly advocate for that scenario are missing an essence in their makeup that is part of what defines the human species as having a moral worth as opposed to dogs or pigs or any other animal. Capacity for kindness, compassion, mercy might define that essence that is considered part of being human. Ability to be informed and influenced by an understanding of circumstances is another trait humans are thought to have.

    • Replies: @Usura
  44. @Ron Liebermann

    At some point America can no longer continue to accommodate millions of additional people from anywhere every year. Some would say that point was reached some time ago. The laws already exist to put an end to this invasion, and we elected Trump to enforce them. Yet the invasion continues. What, indeed, are patriots to do?

  45. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    Almost all of what you say is despicable disrespect of the highest court in the US.

    The court has earned that disrespect with its asinine politically based decisions – especially the recent ones where Roberts was the deciding vote. Only someone as stupid a a lawyer could think those decisions made any sense or had any relation to the law.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  46. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    Not really interested in hearing more from you or anyone on this. I’ve said what I have to say on it.

    In other words, you once again can’t sustain an argument.

    The other day, you claimed that a lengthy video would generate more comments than Michael Hudson’s essay. However, excluding our exchange, there are now over two dozen, while this website’s now defunct Video page was a comment desert.

    In this thread, your lengthy, contradictory comments prove only your ignorance and restless inability to learn from others the respective procedural roles of the states, the courts and the Congress under the Constitution from its substantive provisions.

    reach > grasp

    • Replies: @restless94110
  47. KenH says:
    @restless94110

    The Constitution has always been remarkable in that it allows for American society to grow, change and evolve.

    Um, no and you have things completely ass backwards. The Constitution is not a living document subject to the interpretation and whims of later generations and activist federal courts nor was it intended to be fashioned to protect contemporary political fads and orthodoxies like gay marriage, transgender rights, discrimination against whites via affirmative action and destruction of the white suburbs through “fair housing” initiatives.

    If you want to change the Constitution then you have to follow the amendment process but this is very hard and was designed to be so. The Jewish led left realized long ago that the easiest path to changing it was the installation of activist judges to broaden and limit the scope of the Constitution as necessary to further their nefarious and narrow agenda.

    In the case of separate but equal if the courts deemed that black schools and facilities were not on par with white facilities then the proper decision should have been more money for black facilities and schools. Not forced racial integration which nullifies freedom of association for white people. Like with so many of their rulings this was a political ruling and usurpation of Congressional powers.

    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
  48. Usura says:

    How wise a time is ours for doing this? The country is explosive. Mobs of semi-anthropoid savages loot, burn, kill, topple statues, and so on. Much of the rest of the country, so far passive, wants to beat the rampaging two-year-olds until they can’t crawl.

    You, absurdly, leave out that many dacans are participants in said looting, burning, killing, rioting, and toppling, or abet and encourage such activities. Their removal would perhaps cause unrest, but their persistence also does; the cost of the latter is greater than the former. Therefore, make them leave. Of course this is an empirical matter: how many who have rioted have been dacans? I expect such data would embarrass you if it were available.

    And of course if the DACAns were made illegal, every night the media would show little Lupita and Juanito, third graders, weeping inconsolably because Daddy is being sent to Mexico, whose language he doesn’t know, and they will have nothing to eat and nowhere to go in Mexico, in Mexico, which won’t accept Mommy and the kids because they are not Mexican citizens. Etc., night after night after night. Most pols would squeak and gibber in support of the DACAns. So would very many decent people.

    Of course our press is corrupt and would attempt to intervene to cause unrest, but this isn’t an argument not to deport dacans, if the cost of keeping them in the long run is greater.

    Your broader points about judges morphing into legislators, and the breakdown of federal authority, are well taken, and, I think, correct. As the real legislature degenerates, whether due to stupidity of the electorate or corruption, the other branches of government have rallied to compensate. This is an imbalance which has led to the activist kritarchy we now enjoy, which will eventually result in so much pressure placed on the executive and judicial branches that it may dissolve the republic. Have you read Scallia on this subject? His position seems close to your own.

    “The lesson is, in a truly democratic society — or at least the one in America — one way or another the people will have their say [emphasis added] on significant social policy.[…] If judges are routinely providing the society’s definitive answers to moral questions on which there is ample room for debate … then judges will be made politically accountable.”

    -https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1116/p01s03-usju.html

  49. Usura says:
    @old-geezer

    It may be cruel, but if the cost of compassion is the collapse of the American nation, our cruelty is justified. Your attempt to define and then appeal to our sense of humanity is irrelevant; even granting your sanctimonious and easily contestable personal definitions of “humanity”, why should I want to act like a human, especially if the cost is my death?

    In fact, your line of argument is common to various incarnations of political liberalism; the other line is the Nietzschean, which attempts no spurious legislation of the defining characteristics of humans as differentiated from animals, because humans are animals, which is obviously correct. Claims like yours to the contrary are metaphysical articles of faith, vestigial structures from the universalist christian parasite which has hamstrung Europeans for more than a thousand years.

    Plus, the cruelty can be mitigated; America is a rich nation, and most non-whites are a net tax burden anyway. We can pay them to leave, with probably no additional cost.

    • Replies: @old-geezer
  50. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    So if you really really don’t like same sex marriage (which is insane) or porn, or any other bugaboo of yours that has changed since you were a little kid in 1890?

    These are state issues and the only place the federal government and SCOTUS can intervene in is the interactions between states. If California wants same sex marriages and Alabama does not then people are free to move to California and get married. The only issue SCOTUS needs to worry about is what does Alabama recognize about a California same sex marriage should those people move to Alabama.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  51. @Usura

    I am neither a political liberal, a Christian, nor a Marxist. And yes, I am suggesting that the treatment you wish for these people is a gratuitous cruelty that serves no purpose except to assuage your anger and resentment. I understand those feelings and think they are justified, just misdirected to a group of people who are not the problem and didn’t have a hand in causing the problems. They are caught up in it through no doing of their own and if they now feel vulnerable and under siege and some of them are acting out in ways that offend you, it is also not material. Accommodating them would not in any way contribute to the collapse of America. In this case, acting like a human I don’t think would in any way contribute to your death. These people are not at the core of the problem but have unfortunately become a focus of your rage and even if you had your way with them it would not serve at all to alleviate in the slightest the real problems but would, as Fred says, stir-up a bunch more problems.

    I was making no attempt to appeal to your humanity but just making a simple statement which would correctly be seen as asserting a judgement. If that seems self-righteous to you and you consider it negating then so be it, but then no discussion is possible. In relations between humans, decency, even as it is commonly understood at an intuitive level, should count for something. Yes, we are animals too, as you proclaim, but if that is all we are then what is the point of anything and our discussions here, and nothing else either, matter. The fact that we are arguing over values and principles means that we both tacitly accept that being human is relevant. As such, to me the matter we are discussing cries out, if anything ever could, for human understanding.

  52. @KenH

    “In the case of separate but equal if the courts deemed that black schools and facilities were not on par with white facilities then the proper decision should have been more money for black facilities and schools.”

    That makes sense, in fact it was the law of the land since the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, but the Warren court was bent on social engineering. Nine politically appointed judges routinely overrule the laws passed by the representatives of millions of Americans, and we call it democracy!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  53. @Ron Liebermann

    Well said Ron.
    I just wish they would build that stinkin’ wall. You gotta stop the bleeding.

  54. @Colin Wright

    I didn’t want to use 3 agrees in one minute, but this will count for all 3 of your comments in a row, Mr. Wright: AGREE!

    I didn’t bother reading the rest of the column after that initial hard-core stupidity – just come back for the comments. Let me ask you, did Mr. Reed come up with that logistical nightmare of how many busses it would take to deport 30,000,000 illegals? See, he is under the impression that you have to do this all on ONE DAY. I don’t foresee a future in airlift command for this guy.

    BTW, speaking of airlift, I’ll just put a plug in again for Swift Airlines, which does charter operations with 30 or so 737s. They export the most criminal of the illegal aliens daily, from detentions centers in Alex., Louisiana and Miami, Florida. Their radio call sign used to be “Repatriate”.

  55. @MarkinLA

    I’m no lawyer, but even I can understand the recent rulings without hardly reading any of the case rulings. It’s obvious you have read nothing but a headline.

    The decisions were not asinine. You can disrespect who you want to. It’s still just as despicable and ignorant.

    There have been, in the past, points of law put forth by the Court that do seem politically expedient. They appear to be done at least partly in order to preserve the authority of the Court in the mind of the Majority Mob.

    But a point of law can be corrected eventually. And the balancing act goes on.

    To lose complete respect is stupid as when those on the radical left do it. It is the moves of an hysterical female a little girl who can’t reason or think logically. Cut it out.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  56. @MarkinLA

    So equality under the law is a Federal issue. It’s not up to each state to decree that this person has no equality but that person has equality.

    If Alabama wants to make you illegal you are cool with that? Wake up, dude. You ain’t ok with some cracker in Louisiana making laws that but you in jail when you are visiting New Orleans for the weekend.

    Your carefully constructed scenario falls completely apart when some of the states make who you are illegal.

    Equality is a Federal issue, not a State issue.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  57. @anonymous

    What are you going on about? You are investigating my posts? What a dick. I didn’t say that a video on Unz would generate more comments, you snoopy oaf. I was saying that having a link to a video of the interview put up on YouTube or a YouTube of the interview embedded in the article would drive more interest and comment, and that reply was geared solely to the person who claimed that everybody who read the article was happier than a pig in the pasture with the way it was. I was challenging that.

    That’s your context. Stop taking me out of it.

    As for sustaining an argument, you seem to want me to repeat over and over again what I said else I can’t “sustain” an argument. Ok, champ, here’s what you do: you repeat yourself over and over again, and then each tome you say the same thing over again, you just go back to my original replies!

    It’s something I just invented, do you like it? I call it the Self-Sustaining Argument for Arguing with Morons. And I created it just for you. Your welcome, Detective Gadget. But seriously, mind your own business. Those that can’t sustain an argument go on a snoop fest then take things out of context. It’s a sign of weakness that anyone can see.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  58. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    Your wrong. Take your time next tome.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  59. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    But a point of law can be corrected eventually. And the balancing act goes on

    I think you get dumber with each succeeding post. This whole line of reasoning takes the cake. What good is the law if the court can change it when it wants to, refuse to defend it when it wants to, and change it long after the people using the courts for redress have died. I hope you see how stupid this is.

    People bring a case to the courts only when they are pretty sure the existing law is on their side. To make it all the way to SCOTUS and have some idiot in a robe decide he really doesn't like the law and is the 5th justice is what bring disrespect to the court.

    Explain Roberts decision on Obamacare as anything but political. Explain the recent nonsense about needing to maintain stare decisis by Roberts. When did that ever matter to the court when it wanted to rule in favor of some political view.

    5-4 decisions are all the proof anybody needs that the court is a disaster, is nothing but politics and deserves NO respect. If the court truly was making their decisions based on the law there would unlikely ever be a decision that had more than 2 dissenters.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  60. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    Marriage is a state issue not an equality issue. Now polygamy needs to be made legal. “Equality” can mean anything you want it to and that is the problem.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  61. MEH 0910 says:

    https://www.amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-columnist/2018-01-28/coulter-gop-must-say-no-nightmares

    Coulter: GOP must say no to ‘Nightmares’

    By Ann Coulter
    Posted Jan 28, 2018

    ******
    It’s the same deal that voters repudiated for approximately the 87th time when they made Donald Trump president. Notwithstanding the media’s phony polls showing 98.6 percent of voters wildly enthusiastic about amnesty for “Dreamers” — or “Nightmares,” as radio host Howie Carr calls them — every time the public gets its hands on an actual ballot, it votes for: less immigration, punishing employers who hire illegals, no government services for illegals, no driver’s licenses for illegals, no amnesty ever, English-only and Donald Trump.

    ******
    It’s said so often that it’s become a cliche: Elections have consequences. Just this once, couldn’t an election have a consequence? A wall and deportations — YES! Amnesty for the Nightmares — NO!

    • Agree: Gordon K. Shumway
  62. @anonymous

    Your wrong. It is instead: You are wrong. Or for short: You’re wrong.

    Take your time next time.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  63. @MarkinLA

    So state laws that a black and white heterosexual couple could not marry are NOT about equality under the law (meaning the issue of prohibiting interracial marriages)? Do you ever listen to yourself or actually think before you write?

    Equality can’t mean just any old thing. So that’s not the problem. It appears that you are the problem because you can not reason probably because you think truth is subjective, meaning you must have been mis educated in the US university system of the past 35 years.

    Truth is not subjective. Equality is not subjective.

    I do feel empathy for you. I guess you are a polygamist who wants to come out of hiding in the mountains above Provo. I hope that one day you and your wives will be able to come out into the light. I agree with you equality under the law among consenting adults and all.

    Go watch some of the recent (last 10 years) Showtime series stuff on it. I mean, who cares? Do your thing, bud. But I’m curious,: how many wives have you got?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  64. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    Equality can’t mean just any old thing. So that’s not the problem.

    How stupid can you get? Affirmative action and quotas mean “equality” do they not under our present nonsense. A black scoring 200 points lee on the SAT math test is just as “equal” as the white and the Asian scoring 20 points higher than the white. The courts have made the law meaningless. This is why nobody should respect them.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  65. Corvinus says:

    “Worth noting is that while the Court pretends to be an impartial judge of the law—“the law, ma’am, the law, and nothing but the law”—in viscerally fraught cases it acts more as a micro-legislature of last resort.”

    Patently false. Hate fact –> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/roberts-rules-trump-out-order/613252/

    Roberts, as in previous cases, rejected out of hand the notion that the DACA repeal was motivated by animus, dismissing the president’s numerous derogatory statements about immigrants as “remote in time and made in unrelated contexts.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor retorted in a separate and individual concurrence, “I would not so readily dismiss the allegation that an executive decision disproportionately harms the same racial group that the President branded as less desirable mere months earlier.” Roberts’s decision does not voice opposition to prejudice, the harm the Trump administration’s decision would cause, or DACA’s repeal itself. Rather, he wrote that the Trump administration simply did not do the minimum amount of work required to implement its desired policy.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @MarkinLA
  66. Corvinus says:
    @Joseph Doaks

    “but the Warren court was bent on social engineering.”

    You mean it was bent on guaranteeing the rights of Americans. See, the Southrons blew it. All they had to do was provide “separate AND equal” facilities. But the discrepancies in public accommodations and funding for schools was overt, not covert. Fortunately, genteel southerners said “enough” and worked to guarantee that citizen rights would be protected.

    “Nine politically appointed judges routinely overrule the laws passed by the representatives of millions of Americans.”

    You mean passed by only white men in the South. Black men could not vote, serve on juries, or run for political office. Why? Here is one main reason. No need to thank me for educating you!

    https://www.crmvet.org/info/littest.htm

  67. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    We all know you’re the Tom Parsons (1984) true believer troll. But you have not even rebutted the quoted statement.

    The results de facto, not the dissembling word salads de jure, are what matters when assessing whether the Court is usurping the legislative role of the Congress or, in this instance, overturning exercise of the Presidency. These concurring in part, dissenting in part opinions that require a spreadsheet to decode are smoke and mirrors, helpful in keeping the voting public gulled about the supposed brilliance of our Exceptional! rulers.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  68. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    This website needs an OBTUSE button. I was poking fun at your errors in #57.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  69. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus

    Rather, he wrote that the Trump administration simply did not do the minimum amount of work required to implement its desired policy.

    Any more than Obama did to put it in place. See the difference? Obama puts it in place with just a pen stroke and Trump has to have all sorts of procedural actions to get rid of it. If it was illegal at the start (and it was) then it shouldn’t take anything more than the recognition of its illegality to end it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  70. @MarkinLA

    I can’t ever get any stupider than you, that’s sure.

    No, Affirmative action and quotas most certainly do NOT mean equality.

    That’s because equality under the law means equality of opportunity NOT equality of outcomes.

    So all your “examples” are the latter and are not the equality under the law we are speaking about.

    And true to all I have been saying, the Supreme Court is slowly but surely dismantling the false equality doctrine that is so damaging to America as well as doubly destructive to the groups that that kind of false equality was supposed to help.

    In other words, the courts have done the opposite of what you say they have. If you want to disrespect something, disrespect the spineless whores in Congress. They bend whichever way the wind blows.

    You are really misguided, little locust. Get a grip.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @MarkinLA
  71. @anonymous

    The website needs an YOU’RE STUPID button.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  72. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA

    “Obama puts it in place with just a pen stroke and Trump has to have all sorts of procedural actions to get rid of it.”

    You need a primer on executive orders. Both presidents issue them with a “pen stroke”. In this case, Obama issued it (DACA) and Trump revoked it. Lawsuits were filed to keep DACA intact. As a result, the president, in this case Trump, underwent procedural actions. That’s how it works.

    “then it shouldn’t take anything more than the recognition of its illegality to end it.”

    Assuming it was illegal. That is for the courts to decide and/or for Congress to intervene. Did you miss checks and balances in your Civics class?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  73. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus

    Lawsuits were filed to keep DACA intact.

    And lawsuits were filed to end it but they didn’t seem to get the same respect by the court.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  74. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    No, Affirmative action and quotas most certainly do NOT mean equality.

    Not according to our courts. What don’t you get about that?

    And true to all I have been saying, the Supreme Court is slowly but surely dismantling the false equality doctrine that is so damaging to America as well as doubly destructive to the groups that that kind of false equality was supposed to help.

    Since when? There have been more than a few attempts to end Affirmative Action in the Courts and they have all failed when they get to SCOTUS. Remember that moron Sandra Day O’Conner and her 25 year plan who left the court and backtracked on when it could end.

    You are either a deluded moron or psychotic to not see it.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  75. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    And true to all I have been saying, the Supreme Court is slowly but surely dismantling the false equality doctrine that is so damaging to America as well as doubly destructive to the groups that that kind of false equality was supposed to help.

    Yeah, they are creating word salad decisions about legal nonsense like “strict scrutiny” that universities and local governments ignore and somebody else has to sue which takes about 5 years for the court to make another one of their word salad decisions. Rinse and repeat. If that’s what you call dismantling.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  76. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA

    “And lawsuits were filed to end it but they didn’t seem to get the same respect by the court.”

    It’s not about respect, it’s about legal arguments and the decision rendered by the court based on them. Did you even take Civics?

  77. Mower says:

    Fred,

    You joined the Marine Corps during war time and got a bad ride. Your opinion of America was formed by that and you hate the America you experienced. You want to see it punished.

    But there are many people in the country who are much like those that you knew prior to your Vietnam episode. They want their country back and have little patience with expats who encourage its destruction from their distant abodes.

    Enjoy your new country, Fred. I hope you can continue to consider it a quaint retreat.

    But you’re gone now. You’re not a part of America any longer.

    Stop chortling over its demise. You embarrass yourself.

  78. Dinosaur says:

    Fred – The SCOTUS decision on Dreamers was right. You can’t deport children of illegals, of no consent, who were dragged across the border all these years after our federal government did not enforce it’s laws to begin with.

    The hypocrisy of SCOTUS lies in their abortion rulings. An unborn child has a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks. Therefore, that baby is a protected citizen under the United States Constitution. It has no cognitive reasoning from that point until well after birth, but is still a living human being. One cannot ask a day old, 5 year old, or 60 year old special needs person for permission to kill them and proceed with silence or even the nod of a head. They’re protected under the constitution. Why not during the term of a pregnancy?

    Why is it that illegal immigrant children are afforded rights that our very own unborn citizens are not allowed? Pragmatism. Political correctness. Hypocrisy. Bullshit!

    • Agree: Gordon K. Shumway
  79. @MarkinLA

    Guess you aren’t paying attention to the Supreme Court cases. There have been rulings against affirmative action recently. What don’t you get about that?

    Who cares about Sandra Night O’Connor? She gone, buddy. Try living in the present? I know you seem to be some bitter old man living in 1975 in the back of a garage, but yank yourself into 2020.

    Then go and disrespect Congress into dismantling Affirmative Action, k?

  80. @MarkinLA

    If you don’t like a full court docket? Well fine. Change it.

    Here’s a few suggestions. One, legalize all drugs then vacate all drug convictions (leave intact any other convictions for violence though). That’ll clear the docket pretty good. It will also free police up to solve real crime and end no knock warrants forever.

    Billions will be saved in local and national law enforcement, prison beds and construction, the parole/probation layer.

    2nd, ban the US practice of civil death where anyone convicted will never get a good job ever again due to invasive employment practices. Restore the time when people do their time and then start again. This will cut violent and petty crime even further since people will be able to get normal work.\

    There you go. A cleared docket so that suits against affirmative action can be heard in less than 5 years. You also might want to join or lead a movement to get Congress to dismantle the phony quotas and affirmative action programs. No company should be allowed to hire just women or just black people or just white people. Fix it, buddy. Stop sitting in the back room weeping bitterly.

    I’m rootin’ for ya. You can do it.

  81. Anonymous[504] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course a 2-year-old can commit a crime. The question of whether he, she, shim or xher is fit to stand trial is a separate matter (having to be aged at least 7 per Anglo-Saxon common-law or Catholic Church standard). You seem confused over points of law conventionally understood by daytime reality-TV addicts and child psychiatrist/mommy bloggers.

    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

    Anyway the deported alien isn’t supposed to be deported for “committing a crime,” it’s for being an alien. In a global travel era laws of “nationality” implicitly confer racial restrictions. Brazil is coming

    • Replies: @Ray Huffman
  82. Anonymous[504] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    You are an ignoramus, by the way. Do some reading on disparate impact.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  83. @Anonymous

    Brazil is coming

    Oh. it’s worse than that. Brazil and Argentina are coming:

    https://www.amren.com/features/2017/04/argentina-a-mirror-of-your-future-buenos-aires-latin-america/

    It will suck even worse actually .

  84. @Colin Wright

    Then you go right on to profess concern that ‘blacks will ally with browns.’ You’re aware both groups hate each other more than they hate whites, don’t you? In Los Angeles, Mexican gangs kill blacks that move into their neighborhoods. I’ve seen blacks manage to be perfectly civil to me — but be grossly rude to the Hispanic next to me.

    Here in the west, Mexican and Central American mestizos know that they have some things in common with whites but nothing in common with blacks, and they act it. In my experience they will usually side with white rather than blacks.

    Back east, Puerto Ricans are disgustingly obsequious to blacks but their number in the nation as a whole is dwarfed by that of Mexican and Central American browns, let alone by the population of the country as a whole.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Truth
  85. @Anonymous

    Do some reading on being able to communicate, cause all you project is arrogance.

  86. Truth says:
    @Ray Huffman

    Here in the west, Mexican and Central American mestizos know that they have some things in common with whites but nothing in common with blacks, and they act it. In my experience they will usually side with white rather than blacks.

    Not sure about that one, Old Sport…

  87. Technomad says:

    Fred is no historian, I fear. There are a lot of ex-Anatolian Greeks, ex-Greek Turks, ex-East Prussian and Silesian Germans, and others who’ll testify that population transfer can and does work.

  88. Rurik says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    What’s the harm in sending them back?

    but didn’t’ you read Fredo.. he says Mexico won’t take them back.

    Daddy is being sent to Mexico, whose language he doesn’t know, and they will have nothing to eat and nowhere to go in Mexico, in Mexico, which won’t accept Mommy and the kids because they are not Mexican citizens.

    So it seems there’s nothing at all wrong with being a Mexican nationalist, it’s just those evil white nationalists that are the problem.

    Fredo is a cuck. A sad, pathetic, Mexican cock sucking cuck.

    There’s a Latino word for it. It’s called a cabron. It’s slang, but it means a cuck (and an asshole and a scumbag), and it’s exactly what Fredo is. Whenever he hears that word in Mexico, (and he’ll hear it often enough) I hope he thinks of all us ‘white nationalists’ who consider Fredo the premiere cabron of his times.

    White Nationalists would scream for their immediate eviction

    when’s the last time you ever saw a ‘white nationalist’ scream, eh cuck boy?

    Any shithead who’s sons would suffer from Affirmative Action, but who’d still be sanguine about allowing (ANY) immigrants into this nation that would put his own son at a structural disadvantage, would be such a POS, that it buggers imagination. But that is what cuck boy Fredo acts like we should be in favor of. By supporting millions of immigrants who will come in and be granted favored, first-class treatment over our own fucked over white sons.

    Hey cuck boy. It was our government that created the special status of white men, when they authorized Affirmative Action. We didn’t set ourselves apart, they did, for us and our sons to be treated as less than human, and less than citizens, because they’re white.

    OK cuck boy? Just to set the record straight.

    So as you gurgle on Mexican cum, and use ‘white nationalist’ as some kind of pejorative, for simply not wanting to be singled out and fucked over based on our race and skin color, just remember the Unz commentariat as you swallow your load.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
  89. Worth noting is that while the Court pretends to be an impartial judge of the law—“the law, ma’am, the law, and nothing but the law”—in viscerally fraught cases it acts more as a micro-legislature of last resort. Probably it shouldn’t. Certainly it does. In cases of vast emotional import, the justices rule with a moistened finger in the political wind. Thus Presidents try to pack the Court with people of their own party, exactly as in Congress, for the same reasons. It is a legislature.

    Worth noting as well is that for centuries, the supreme judicial authority in Britain was held by the upper house of its legislature, the House of Lords of the Westminster Parliament. As time passed the Lords delegated their authority to a committee of their House made up of judicial professionals, the Law Lords. Just recently, the authority of the Lords as the ultimate court of appeal was hived off by act of Parliament to become a separate Supreme Court.

    So, even as the British Parliament has by steps divested itself of judicial authority, our Supreme Court has effectively become a House of Lords over this country. In this, if not much else, I agree with Fred. Isn’t it odd how much, since their Revolution, the United States have empowered the least democratic branch of their government?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  90. @Carlton Meyer

    Carlton, greetings! Yea, aside from all the peripheral damage was the electoral side of things. The whole thing was a cynical ploy to mine new democrat votes by the tens of millions. That’s all any of this was about. The concern, the crocodile tears, all of it was horseshit, it was merely to build the Democratic base. In the end that’s all it was.

    Cheers!

  91. MarkinLA says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    That empowerment is through cowardice. The Legislature has the power to corral the courts to some extent. The problem is that the Congress wants to let the courts do it.

  92. @Rurik

    Actually, “cabrón” is a Spanish word. Its original meaning was “cuckold” in English, as in having great big horns. In the Spain of the Franco era and a bit later, it was a fighting word, a major insult. I live in Argentina, where the word is not used that often. On the other hand, a Spanish slang word often heard in Spain is “coño”, which translates as (pardon my English) “cunt”. It bothers no one in Spain, but best not use it in Argentina; the slang word for the female organ is “concha” and that too is a word better avoided.

    It pains me that you see yourself and fellow Whites as helpless victims of “government”. Perhaps something should be done about that. Start with anger management and stop writing obscenity-laden comments that make you appear like someone no one wishes to defend.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  93. Rurik says:
    @Montefrío

    In the Spain of the Franco era and a bit later, it was a fighting word, a major insult.

    My experience with the word is from association with Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Cubans, (and others), mostly from my time in the Miami area, working along side many Latinos, I picked up a lot of Spanish.

    And to those groups, it means a cuck, and is more or less a fighting word.

    It pains me that you see yourself and fellow Whites as helpless victims of “government”.

    It pains me if that’s how I come across. I certainly don’t consider myself a ‘helpless victim’ of government, or anything or one else. Hardly.

    But I have bristled at the overtly anti-white policies of my government, whose serial treasons are now legendary, as millions of people’s lives the world over, are ended or destroyed or sent reeling into some kind of dystopian hell on earth, all to mollify the infinite hatred of our ruling class.

    Whether it’s Palestinians, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Russians, Venezuelans, or dead white Americans sent over to kill and subjugate those peoples, I bristle at it all.

    I even bristle at the ((American vulture capitalists)) feasting on the misery of nations like Argentina.

    But what really gets me, is when a man who knows better, sides with our elites against the put-upon people, for his own venal and disingenuous reasons.

    American whites are being colonized, discriminated against, demonized and their heritage dismantled as we speak, with their cities in ruins, and calls for all the monuments to their ancestor’s heroic struggles to create an aspirational nation of free people, torn down, because they’re of white people, and therefor ‘racist’.

    I get that J-supremacists and blacks and others resent (hate ; ) white people, and want them persecuted, if not destroyed outright.

    But when one of our own, joins in the fray with the PTB, in order to pile on, so he can get some pats on the head, for being a ‘good whitey’, then it’s just a bit much.

    If you were a Palestinian, being colonized and treated like a second class citizen in your own lands, and hated and demonized the world over as a ‘terrorist’, then sure, you roll with it, and take your hits. Life has never been fair. But if a Palestinian writer, were to take on the cause of Zion, and snark and sneer his venom at the Pals, for not doing more to accommodate their colonizers, then I would hope that people could forgive that Palestinian a certain amount of intemperance, as a consequence.

    All we hear from every orifice of ‘wokeness’, is that ‘white nationalists’ are Nazis and Hitlers and KKK losers who want to re-enslave the blacks and so forth and so on.

    Idiocy, IOW. But it’s tough to hear it from a guy who comes from the same creeks and meadows of a bygone time, as you did.

    In any case, I do regret my choice of words for the random reader who happens by, but not my general tone.

    I still hope Fredo winces every time he hears the word ‘cabron’ down there in Mexico.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
  94. MikeCLT says:
    @youse

    That is it exactly. He wasn’t going to throw them out.

    • Agree: Rurik
  95. @Rurik

    Thank you. You, sir, are a gentleman and an articulate one at that. This well thought out reply proves that.

    I have a step-brother (more like a brother since we were raised together from age seven for me, five for him) who has gone over fully to the dark side, but he did that long ago. High-up Fed officer (now retired) who has turned into an old lady scold. Whites who “bend the knee” and such are beneath contempt.

    I live in a small village (pop.2500, maybe) a bit west of the middle of nowhere with no blacks within a hundred miles. The “brown” population is a bit more than half, I’d guess, but there’s no friction whatsoever between them and us. This place is Mayburrito R.F.D., except we don’t have mail delivery. I’ve been here for 16 years, having moved here from Spain, where I lived much of my adult life. I’ve assimilated (I’m bilingual) and have my son (also assimilated), his Argentine wife and my three grandchildren living on the same property as I. Class differences stand out more than race, but among the locals, no resentment is shown toward the “gentry”. I’m here for the duration.

    The vulture capitalists are an evil crew, but successive Argentine governments make it easy for them by being utterly irresponsible and corrupt.

    I too bristle at what’s going on in the land of my birth (the USA). I worked in finance, so the handwriting was on the wall in stroboscopic neon when I decided to call it quits in ’97 and returned to Spain after a more-than-sufficient year in Mexico, where I had clients.

    Cry the beloved country! But the events of the last few months have been effective in terms of drying my eyes, so to speak, and I realize that nothing I could say or do will ever bring back the USA of my ’50s childhood. I share your sympathies about Meso-American invaders, persons different in many ways from South Americans, especially those from the Southern Cone, many of whom are of 100% European descent.

    Best of luck!

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @J. Gutierrez
  96. MEH 0910 says:

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  97. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

  98. Rurik says:
    @Montefrío

    Thank you,

    who has gone over fully to the dark side, but he did that long ago. High-up Fed officer (now retired) who has turned into an old lady scold. Whites who “bend the knee” and such are beneath contempt.

    I couldn’t agree more!

    Only your brother sounds like a true believer, where as others have morphed into an Oprah-ish scold for reasons of expedience.

    but there’s no friction whatsoever between them and us.

    I’ve been to several Latin American countries, and Spanish speaking Caribbean countries, and that has been my experience. Cubans see themselves as Cubans, without the racial rancor. Any why not? There’s no need for race-hate, and we wouldn’t have it in the ZUS, except that its shoveled in our faces 27/7 by the (((media))).

    It’s normal for people to prefer their own kind, and gravitate towards others like them, but the race-hate in the ZUS is stoked by professionals and clever experts who know what they’re doing. Look how easy it was for them to create enough hatred towards Germans that German Americans were willing to firebomb German cities full of German women and children. ((They)) know what they’re doing!

    I’m here for the duration.

    God bless

    I’ve sometimes wondered about Chile or Argentina as the ultimate destination. I’ve even thought of Portugal, but alas, the language might be a hurtle. I’ve got enough Spanish under my belt, but Portuguese means that Brazil as a destination, for instance, might be a bridge too far.

    In any case, getting the &#@ out of the ZUS, is an imperative, IMHO.

    I share your sympathies about Meso-American invaders,

    I should point out that I have absolutely nothing against Mexicans, per se. Not at all. I like them, the ones I’ve known, and I’ve known and know plenty. They’re mosly an amiable lot, and most the ones I know have an excellent work ethic. (better than many whiteys, sad to say).

    It isn’t Mexicans or blacks or what-have-you, that is the problem. It’s the unlimited throngs of them *all*, coming from everywhere, and then once getting here, being hectored that ‘whitey is the cause of all their problems, (‘white nationalists” = white supremacists/Nazis/KKK/Southern, 4×4-driving Bubbas with guns), who stole California and everything else from Mexicans just like you!’

    And then they see the state of white America, allowing all their monuments to their white ancestors being defiled and pulled down, and they begin to think that whitey has no cajones left, and so they get a bit more militant themselves, as it’s a hate-whitey’ fest all around. With people like Fredo piling on, and writing that ‘white nationalists’ are the problem.

    I’ve never met a white person in my life that wants to see some Hispanic child harmed, because his criminal parents broke the laws- in bad faith with this nation- who allowed them to come in, on the honor deal that they would leave when their visa expired. These hateful “white nationalists” that hate everybody who doesn’t have white skin, and wants to see brown children harmed, don’t exist, except in the fevered imaginations of race-baiting scoundrels. No one I know wants to see DACA children punished, rather it’s all about the wider agenda. And that agenda is for more and more and more immigrants to descend on places like North America and Europe, where they do take jobs and run down wages and sometimes do commit terrible crimes. It isn’t a mythical hatred of people with brown skin, rather it’s the collective effects of all the immigration from everywhere, that white people rightly notice is not going to end well. At least for their white progeny, who’re being blamed for everything amiss in the world today.

    If you’re a Brit who doesn’t want more Muslim immigrants coming to England, it does not mean you hate all Muslims, or all people with brown skin. That is just a tiresome lie, used by charlatans to agitate for their agenda = more immigration into England.

    And sure, we would expect that kind of agenda-driven hokum from Muslims and Mexicans and others, but to see a British man using the same smears to agitate for more non-British immigration into England, would be vile, to say the least. Like calling British nationalists, who’re simply sane and wanting to preserve some semblance of their childhood England for their own children to enjoy- ‘Nazis’, as they call the British National party members. It’s the same thing to malign an American white man, (who doesn’t want his white son suffer even more discrimination- in favor of ALL non-white immigrants), = as a ‘white nationalist’ ‘who hates everybody who’s not white, and wants to see their children in cages’, blah, blah, blah.

    Our nation is coming apart at the seams, due to hate-whitey race hatred on acid. Being a ‘white nationalist, is simply noticing that when whites become a minority, then it’s not going to be the kind of kumbaya harmony that we’re all lied to that it will finally become. Not at all. Rather, when whitey is completely marginalized, and defenestrated from all power, then it’s going to be a hell on earth for white people. Like Rhodesia, and now S. Africa, and soon to be America. And Fredo knows it. He’s not stupid, and he understands racial politics and racial animosities, and what all of that is going to eventually mean for white Americans. And by the time whitey’s ultimate humiliation becomes widespread in North America, which will effect expatriate whiteys in Mexico, Fredo figures he’ll be long gone, before it actually effects himself.

    Thanks again for your kind and thoughtful reply, and Salute’ to you down there. God bless.

  99. Hubbub says:
    @Chris Mallory

    According to Fred, Americans should pay for the sins of the DACAs fathers and mothers for bringing them in illegally. Oh, sure. Why not? Sneak in, free room and board for your kids. Great deal – just ask Fred.

    • Replies: @Juanisaac
  100. Anonymous[320] • Disclaimer says:

    SO essentially you are saying that SCOTUS must decide cases to avoid civil wars, controversies…thats cowardice…SCOTUS must decide according to USA CONSTITUTION,,,DACA is illegal, illegitimate program Unconstitutional…BUT ofcourse its about politics…TRUMP offered dems to legalize DACAs, TPS, plus a legalizing TRACK for close to 4omillons illegals in the USA, as part of a comprehensive MERITbased immigration Reform,,,and the DEMs Schumer-Pelosi shot thah down…why???

  101. Richard B says:

    White Nationalists

    White Nationalists?

  102. Haole says:

    Who has recently won a race war? Not any whites? Well, just 80 or so years ago Stalin won a race war with the nazis. His order 227 before the battle of Stalingrad explains our situation exactly. We have given away half of America little bit at a time and now we are not the country we were. More retreating wont work. Stalin explained to the russians, but, it could be too late for the USA,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

    [MORE]

    Some stupid people at the front calm themselves with talk that we can retreat further to the east, as we have a lot of territory, a lot of ground, a lot of population and that there will always be much bread for us. They want to justify the infamous behaviour at the front. But such talk is a falsehood, helpful only to our enemies.

    Each commander, Red Army soldier and political commissar should understand that our means are not limitless. The territory of the Soviet state is not a desert, but people – workers, peasants, intelligentsia, our fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, children. The territory of the USSR which the enemy has captured and aims to capture is bread and other products for the army, metal and fuel for industry, factories, plants supplying the army with arms and ammunition, railways. After the loss of Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic republics, Donetzk, and other areas we have much less territory, much less people, bread, metal, plants and factories. We have lost more than 70 million people, more than 800 million pounds of bread annually and more than 10 million tons of metal annually. Now we do not have predominance over the Germans in human reserves, in reserves of bread. To retreat further – means to waste ourselves and to waste at the same time our Motherland.

    Therefore it is necessary to eliminate talk that we have the capability endlessly to retreat, that we have a lot of territory, that our country is great and rich, that there is a large population, and that bread always will be abundant. Such talk is false and parasitic, it weakens us and benefits the enemy, if we do not stop retreating we will be without bread, without fuel, without metal, without raw material, without factories and plants, without railways.

    This leads to the conclusion, it is time to finish retreating. Not one step back! Such should now be our main slogan.

  103. @Montefrío

    Montefrio,

    I want to inform you that Rurik is not a white man that looks down on the Meso-American people. The South Americans in the Southern Cone are mainly of 100% White European decent. like you. Don’t try and make it sound like you understand his position because you are White, too…I guarantee you that he doesn’t care what you are, he is interested more in where you stand on what effects him and if you are a loyal motherfucker!

    Como estas Rurik, your compadre from Mexico….I am back in Houston, TX taking care of some business and will head back as soon as I am done. Keep up your passionate writing my brother,…

    J.G.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
    , @Rurik
  104. @J. Gutierrez

    Thanks for reassuring me that Rurik is indeed like me and not just in terms of color. I take ’em as they come, one on one. My dtr-in-law is a native Argentine and has some Guaraní blood, as do my grandchildren, obviously, but they all look very European as it turned out. My dtr-in-law looks Mediterranean, like an Andaluza or maybe an Arab. Argentina is not as European as most believe, but more so than the northern parts of South America, starting at our northern border with Bolivia and Paraguay.

    Hay que ayudar a Rurik aprender el idioma en el caso que quiera expatriarse a esta zona, que aún tiene potencial para ellos que domina el castellano.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @J. Gutierrez
  105. Rurik says:
    @J. Gutierrez

    Hey J.G!

    Que paso Hermano?

    he doesn’t care what you are, he is interested more in where you stand

    Thank you!

    I couldn’t agree more. And I’m very heartened to see you understand that I’m simply advocating for a principled position. Rather than the rank and disingenuous ‘double-standard’ bullshit we see spewed around.

    Imagine Mexico or Mexicans advocating for Chinese (or Africans or Arabs or El Salvadorians) to immigrate in transformational numbers by the millions into Mexico, and then given favored, first-class citizenship, Affirmative Actions priority over the native-born Mexicans, while demonizing any Mexican who’s own children will be directed disadvantaged and harmed by the policies, as some kind of Nazi-like ‘Mexican nationalist’.

    I don’t think the Mexicans are that cucked, that in a million years they’d tolerate that. And good on them for it! Who, but whitey allows themselves to be so brow-beaten and scourged that it’s come to the point that if they advocate for their own children’s welfare, then that means they’re some kind of Adolf Hitler, ‘white nationalist’ (supremacist, blah, blah) for doing what any sane and healthy man or women would do.

    It’s the exact same smear they’d use on Brits or Swedes who don’t want to see their children marginalized in a society that’s increasingly hostile to them.

    They’re talking about bringing back Affirmative Action in California with a referendum, because they think the demographics are favorable, now that whitey is a distinct minority.

    Isn’t that quaint, the way a minority with vanishing political clout, whose jobs in Silicon Valley are handed over to Indians and other Asians, also needs be further fucked over by state sanctioned discrimination for all his “privilege”, because even in his unemployment and universal excoriation as evil and ‘racist’, he still (especially the working class ones) are holding everybody else down.

    This country is in the throes of a racial tectonic rift, where ‘wokeness’ demands we all get down on our knees, and beg forgiveness for our collective sins for what we’ve done to all the George Floyds the world over, for ‘four hundred years!’ And now is the time of the great reckoning, when whitey will prostrate himself to those who hate him, and beg their forgiveness for his eternal sins against them all!

    And then there’s Fredo ~ like Wormtongue, whispering to whitey..

    ‘you don’t really want to be a ‘white nationalist’, now do you?! Only a bad, racist man would go down that rout. Your daughters will revile you, and your name will be besmirched. It’s easier to just go along with the flow.. and people will like you, and say nice things about you..

    If Fredo were a moron, then there’d be an excuse. If he had no knowledge of the insidious nature of Affirmative Action, and the long-term consequences of demographic upheavals, and how it will all be used by our cultural ((elites)) to cause as much hatred and strife as their ill-gotten lucre can manifest, then that’d be one thing. But he knows, and calculates the percentages to his own bottom line accordingly.

    People use their gifts according to their wonts. And some, like Ezra Pound, used his to oppose suffering, misery, tyranny and death in the world. Others, like George Will, use theirs (such as they are ; ) for venal self-aggrandizement. Pound will go down as a hero and a saint, whereas Will will be mocked at best for the whore he always was.

    Does not our legacy mean anything? Especially at the twilight years?

    Anyways, thanks again J.G. for your support, because I did lose my temper a bit on Mr. Unz generously provided public square, and I should try harder to respect the decorum here.

    Salute!

    (and same to you on your powerful writing and thinking and sticking it in the devil’s eye! ; )

    • Replies: @J. Gutierrez
  106. Rurik says:
    @Montefrío

    I was talking a while back with a young man from Argentina. The striking thing was how much (amazingly more) educated and astute the youngster was than the typical (utterly ignorant) American of his age.

    A German guy I know told me that Argentina was more Italian, and that Chile was more Anglo in their respective influences, charactor, heritage. I don’t know if that rings true in any sense, but the guy was pretty worldly. (said Chile had some of the best wine, because of the water, and Argentina some of the best beef. He was a bon vivant)

    en el caso que quiera expatriarse a esta zona,

    Sería honrado, Montefrío.

    Muchas gracias, amigo.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
    , @Montefrío
  107. My understanding is that the SCOTUS ruling was that the Administration’s EO cannot be implemented because it did not contain a reason. An unconstitutional EO issued by Obama’s administration cannot be undone by another EO issued by another administration because … reasons.

    Fred is wrong in thinking that the SCOTUS’ decision is the lesser of two evils. Corrupting and corroding clear and correct Constitutional legal reasoning is far worse with longer repercussions.

    And how we go about deporting is also important. We just need to start deportation of the easy cases, the most recent illegals get a higher priority and starting deportations may move Congress to really come to a legislated solution.

  108. @Rurik

    Rurik,

    My lack of participation on the site is due to a loss of freedom, if you catch my drift…Lol All my documents were taken at the border and I was placed in the Web County jail for 14 days without a phone call, shower or mattress. I was in there with Sicarios from the Zetas, but you know me, brother…I’m a hard motherfucker and had everyone ready to riot demanding a shower and our phone call. LOL

    My story doesn’t end there brother, because ICE put a hold on me and was escorted to Harris County. After 12 days there I was bonded out at which point ICE picked me up and I was escorted again to the Federal Facility in Conroe, Texas where I was promptly released after 30 minutes. The ICE agent in Conroe couldn’t believe I have lived in the US for over 55 years and have never filed for US citizenship.

    Like you fight for your rights my brother, I’m fighting for mine in a Texas Court this week! We’ll see what happens, keep your fingers crossed my brother! I have 2 friends that are supporting me in my struggle, Wesley Eismann and Jason Reeves two white boys that love and respect this crazy Mexican! Like I love and respect your struggle against these evil motherfuckers that use people as pawns in their game of world domination. Look for my email address on my previous comments to Jacgue Sheet and hit me up I have a lot to share with u as to what I seen in the US prison system..

    From beautiful Houston, TX with Love J.G.

  109. @Montefrío

    I’m glad to hear that like Rurik… you and I look beyond color and social status when we view people. I myself come from European stock (Spanish, German) who’s ancestors were given Spanish Land Grants in Northern Mexico and Texas (Corpus Christi). I see myself as Mexican first, North American second and White third! My loyalty is to North America and the people that live there (not the governments). I’m a fucking rebel that is waiting in Mexico for the Revolution to catch up to me! The counter insurgency against the corrupt and traitors causing all this bullshit against our white brothers in the US will come from Mexico,,,mark my words, Brother!

    Saludos de Houston, Texas via Monterrey Mexico…J.G.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
  110. @Rurik

    Howdy! All week without internet. Sigh.

    I believe your German friend is right, but the Spanish influence lingers. Argentine wines have greatly improved and ain’t no arguing with the beef judgment. Variety meats (offal) are really good here too. The failure is in the sea food dept.

    Meanwhile, as expected, we’re in the early stages of a local land boom. Everyone wants to flee the big cities. Prices are out of this world, but they’re buying.

    My major caveat has always been that to live in an area like mine, you truly have to be bilingual or very fluent in Spanish. At this juncture, Uruguay is the better bet.

    Ha sido un placer comunicar con vd. Si qiera seguir comunicando estoy a su dispsicón. ¡Un gusto!

  111. @J. Gutierrez

    All week with no internet, sorry for delay.

    We agree that looking beyond color, etc., is the best way to go. I’m Norman Irish (and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland) with some English and German, but I find Latin culture compatible with my personality. Lived much of my adult life in Spain (Andalucía), Colombia and a year in México (Mazatlán). Also lived with a friend for four months in Perú. My second wife is Spanish. My dtr-in-law is Argentine, as is my present lady friend, although she’s half English.

    Your point about who’ll end up leading the counter-insurgency up there is very well taken. ALL the governments up there are fairly dreadful and the white folks seem to have lost their, pues, ya sabes.

    Un abrazo desde la Argentina y te agradezco mucho tus comunicaciones!

  112. @Rurik

    Your first paragraph referring to the Argentine young man who seemed far more educated and astute in comparison with a US peer has had me thinking. When my first grandchild was born (’14), I was absolutely convinced he would eventually go to a US boarding school for secondary and then a US or Spanish university. When my third grandchild was born in Nov. ’18, I’d long since disabused my self of that notion. Never mind that national universities are free; the top ones are as good or better than US counterparts as nearly as I can tell and STEM studies are top-flight and competitive and best of all still largely free of p.c. nonsense and content. I believe well see a re-emergence of locally-based economy and what will be necessary during the transition to it.

    Incidentally, the University of Buenos Aires is far from the only possibility in Argentina. I came here believing it was the final frontier for the future of Western Civilization and I still believe it may prove to be. Hope springs eternal…

  113. Juanisaac says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Sure the kids would not be thrown in jail but they would not be run out of town either. I am sure those DACA people can earn their own money.

  114. Juanisaac says:
    @ThreeCranes

    That trustfund was already squandered in the Middle East.

  115. Juanisaac says:
    @Hubbub

    That is exactly what the Native Americans said.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave