The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Obama Administration Penalizes Nebraska Slaughterhouse for Trying to Avoid Hiring Illegal Aliens
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A Justice Department press release:

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, August 24, 2015

Justice Department Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against Nebraska-Based Meat Packing Company

The Justice Department announced today that it reached a settlement with Nebraska Beef Ltd., a meat packing company headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. The settlement resolves an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) into whether the company was engaging in employment discrimination in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In particular, OSC investigated whether the company was requiring non-U.S. citizen employees, because of their citizenship status, to present proof of their immigration status for the employment eligibility verification process.

The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work. …

Under the settlement agreement, Nebraska Beef Ltd. will pay a $200,000 civil penalty to the United States and will establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because of the company’s practices. The settlement also requires the company to undergo compliance monitoring for two years, train its employees on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, and to review and revise its office policies. For more information on the back pay fund or to make a claim for lost wages, please call 202-616-2603 or email [email protected]

OSC is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Among other things, the statute prohibits citizenship status and national origin discrimination in hiring, firing or recruitment or referral for a fee; unfair documentary practices; retaliation; and intimidation. Trial Attorneys Katherine E. Lamm and Silvia Dominguez-Reese of the Civil Rights Division investigated this matter.

The basic question in politics is: Whose side are you on?

#BlackJobsMatter, but not to the Obama Administration.

 
Hide 136 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Who wants to be on the side that is like a mouse being played with by a cat?

  2. This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    That explains why Trump is doing so well in the polls. He is tapping into a great vein of resentment out there. It will be very interesting to see if the vein is rich enough to say to The Donald: "You're hired."
    , @Chris Mallory
    This kind of thing has been voted for since the 1960s. It didn't start with Obama and getting rid of him won't end it.
    , @bomag
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice.

    Not really. No candidate comes out and says, "I'm going to cram this country so full of immigrants that it turns into a shithole." Few would vote for such a candidate, but that is the de facto result.

    Candidates are famous for changing their tune. Obama famously was against gay marriage, but now he's got the martial forces of the country hunting down all apostates from that belief.

    A lot of rules and procedures are promulgated by the gov't that would not survive a popular vote.

    , @Hunsdon
    When did the American people vote for this twice? Obama? Can you show me any indication that if the American people had voted a different way this wouldn't have happened? Can you show me where we checked the "yes, unlimited immigration, please" box on the ballot?
    , @Anonymous
    Agreed. Why would anyone start a business nowadays? Except a financial or tech consulting company, which has little overhead and doesn't produce tangible products which could hurt people and enrich tort lawyers. My new goal in life is to die like Donald Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn. Not from AIDS but totally broke owing millions to the IRS. This was Cohn's goal and it's a good one.
    , @anon

    It is the American people who fail
     
    The hostile media are the primary cause.
    , @Trumpenprole
    We never got a proper accounting of the voter fraud that went on, because why would they investigated their own side? The Cuckpublicans didn't care because their Donor Patrons didn't tell them to care. We will never know the truth about the degree to which this cuckoo president was elected or not.
  3. The facts are clear… Obama is not on the side of America. A job opening at Nebraska Beef will be known in Tegucigalpa before it is known in South Sioux City which is why almost all the job ‘creation’ Obama brags about have gone to immigrants and not American citizens since he took office. Companies no longer have to advertise for open positions as they are filled as they become available through immigrant employee word of mouth networks. This type of discrimination is the REAL problem not the faux discrimination the Administration looks to prevent. An unemployed 2o something black American has no chance of applying for a job if he never learns that their is a job available to apply for.

    Then there is the H-1b visa scandal. Microsoft or IBM can announce on Monday they will be letting five or ten thousand employees go and on Tuesday say they can’t find anyone in the US with the skills they need to fill positions at their company yet the ‘right person’ somehow exists in Mumbai even though that person has zero work experience.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    We haven't had a president in decades who has been on the side of America
  4. The basic question in politics is: Whose side are you on.

    And the old laborites/folkies had it right.

    . Just needs an update to Donald Trumpism/Nationalism/anti-illegal aliens/anti free trade/ xenophobia is just allright with me

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    "Just needs an update to Donald Trumpism/Nationalism/anti-illegal aliens/anti free trade/ xenophobia is just allright with me>"

    Xenophobia? Putting your own country first is not xenophobia. Lefties who equate immigration moderation with racism are bigots. They should be called on it every time. Bigot, bigot bigot!
  5. required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status

    Does this sentence make sense? US citizens don’t have an immigration status.

    • Agree: Seminumerical
    • Replies: @maynard
    I'm assuming it means they asked for papers of the mestizos and not of the whites or blacks. The government says it's discrimation.

    This sounds like the same principle that animates giving the random grandmas an occasional anal probe at the TSA line, while letting Merkel Boy skate by
  6. I sincerely hope Trump picks up on this story and publicizes it.

  7. Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.

    …. the black and Hispanic percentages in the Clinton-Trump pairings are worthy of notice, if they prove (and we’ll see more in subsequent polls) to be anywhere nearly accurate. Trump is said to be hated by most Hispanics, yet he runs about as well as the last two recent Republican nominees among them, while Clinton runs about 20 points lower than Obama. The numbers for blacks are more astounding. They have voted more than 85 percent Democratic in every presidential from 1964 to 2012. Here they are voting only 59 percent for the woman who is married to the man who used to be called America’s first black president and who served as four years as secretary of state for the man who is actually America’s first black president.

    Could this possibly be right? Maybe so, opine bloggers Mickey Kaus and Steve Sailer, who from very different points on the ideological spectrum favor significant cutbacks in immigration and who have had favorable things to say about Trump for that reason. Their hypothesis — and I think they don’t advance it as more than that — is that blacks may see Hispanic immigrants as competitors for jobs and as driving down wages for unskilled work. Some analysts who lump “non-whites” together as a single bloc seem to believe that they see themselves as having a united interest in combatting white racism. But it seems implausible to me that most Hispanics and Asians — or that most blacks, for that matter — fear that whites want to impose pre-1960s Southern-style segregation on them or to disfavor them in more up-to-date ways. Certainly the “people of color” explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis.

    Black Americans voted (where and when they were allowed to vote) overwhelmingly for Republicans in elections between 1868 and 1932 (backing Hoover over Roosevelt) and have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in elections between 1964 and 2012. But in elections between 1936 and 1960 their votes were more evenly split, with the majority going to Democrats and a significant minority to Republicans (over 40 percent for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, over 30 percent for Richard Nixon in 1960). It has seemed likely that blacks will never again vote as heavily Democratic for president as they did for Barack Obama, but most analysts (including me) have expected their Democratic percentages to fall only marginally. The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks’ voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545#.Ve4eEIIJNB0.twitter

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    Eventually -- baby steps -- Barone will change the order from "the Kaus-Sailer thesis" to "the Sailer-Kaus thesis".
    , @Luke Lea
    Could the Kaus/Sailer hypothesis possibly be right? California would be the ultimate proof if Trump could win the state. How is he polling there so far among legal immigrants and African Americans?
    , @Ivy
    Demographer William Frey noted the crowding out effect of Hispanic immigrant gains at the expense of Blacks. One result was that Blacks, and to some extent lower income Whites, "self-deported" away from Los Angeles to the hinterlands and surrounding states. Similar results may be seen across the country. Europe will get its chance now, too.
    Demographics remains destiny.
    , @Mike Sylwester

    Certainly the “people of color” explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis

    ....

    The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks’ voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.
     

    Between the second and third paragraphs -- baby steps -- the proposition matured from a hypothesis to a thesis.
    , @jon

    Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.
     
    I always think maybe we are just a bunch of crazies hanging out in some dark corner of the web, then someone mainstream cites to Steve. Too bad we live in a world where everyone reads Sailer, but most feel like they can't will admit to it.
  8. @anonymous
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    That explains why Trump is doing so well in the polls. He is tapping into a great vein of resentment out there. It will be very interesting to see if the vein is rich enough to say to The Donald: “You’re hired.”

    • Replies: @anonymous
    And if Trump is hired, do you think he's going to change any of this? A guy in the hospitality business, one of the industries most involved in employing illegal labor? I doubt it. But I suppose he couldn't be worse than what we have now, so there's nothing to lose in voting for him.

    So ends the great American experiment in self-government.
  9. The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.

    This can’t be right. US citizens don’t have any immigration status.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    It is a bizarre, Alice-in-Wonderland paragraph.....Franz Kafka could not be reached for comment..
  10. The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work.

    They didn’t require obvious US citizens to fill out I-9’s.

    Shame on them.

    Because when you’re sitting in an HR office in Nebraska, there really is no way to tell if the applicant you’re talking to is a citizen or not.

  11. So, just to recap:

    1) It’s a crime to hire an illegal alien.
    2) It’s also a crime to verify that a potential hire is not an illegal alien.

    I tip my hat to whoever thought this one up.

    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    But, being optimistic, it's not a crime to run every applicant through E-Verify if the employer really does want to hire only legal residents. Of course it shouldn't be voluntary it should be mandatory.
  12. @anonymous
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    This kind of thing has been voted for since the 1960s. It didn’t start with Obama and getting rid of him won’t end it.

    • Agree: NOTA
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "This kind of thing has been voted for since the 1960s."

    We haven't been voting for it, but it's what our politicians have been giving us.
  13. @unit472
    The facts are clear... Obama is not on the side of America. A job opening at Nebraska Beef will be known in Tegucigalpa before it is known in South Sioux City which is why almost all the job 'creation' Obama brags about have gone to immigrants and not American citizens since he took office. Companies no longer have to advertise for open positions as they are filled as they become available through immigrant employee word of mouth networks. This type of discrimination is the REAL problem not the faux discrimination the Administration looks to prevent. An unemployed 2o something black American has no chance of applying for a job if he never learns that their is a job available to apply for.

    Then there is the H-1b visa scandal. Microsoft or IBM can announce on Monday they will be letting five or ten thousand employees go and on Tuesday say they can't find anyone in the US with the skills they need to fill positions at their company yet the 'right person' somehow exists in Mumbai even though that person has zero work experience.

    We haven’t had a president in decades who has been on the side of America

  14. @Mike Sylwester
    Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.

    .... the black and Hispanic percentages in the Clinton-Trump pairings are worthy of notice, if they prove (and we'll see more in subsequent polls) to be anywhere nearly accurate. Trump is said to be hated by most Hispanics, yet he runs about as well as the last two recent Republican nominees among them, while Clinton runs about 20 points lower than Obama. The numbers for blacks are more astounding. They have voted more than 85 percent Democratic in every presidential from 1964 to 2012. Here they are voting only 59 percent for the woman who is married to the man who used to be called America's first black president and who served as four years as secretary of state for the man who is actually America's first black president.

    Could this possibly be right? Maybe so, opine bloggers Mickey Kaus and Steve Sailer, who from very different points on the ideological spectrum favor significant cutbacks in immigration and who have had favorable things to say about Trump for that reason. Their hypothesis — and I think they don't advance it as more than that — is that blacks may see Hispanic immigrants as competitors for jobs and as driving down wages for unskilled work. Some analysts who lump "non-whites" together as a single bloc seem to believe that they see themselves as having a united interest in combatting white racism. But it seems implausible to me that most Hispanics and Asians — or that most blacks, for that matter — fear that whites want to impose pre-1960s Southern-style segregation on them or to disfavor them in more up-to-date ways. Certainly the "people of color" explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis.

    Black Americans voted (where and when they were allowed to vote) overwhelmingly for Republicans in elections between 1868 and 1932 (backing Hoover over Roosevelt) and have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in elections between 1964 and 2012. But in elections between 1936 and 1960 their votes were more evenly split, with the majority going to Democrats and a significant minority to Republicans (over 40 percent for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, over 30 percent for Richard Nixon in 1960). It has seemed likely that blacks will never again vote as heavily Democratic for president as they did for Barack Obama, but most analysts (including me) have expected their Democratic percentages to fall only marginally. The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks' voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.
     

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545#.Ve4eEIIJNB0.twitter

    Eventually — baby steps — Barone will change the order from “the Kaus-Sailer thesis” to “the Sailer-Kaus thesis”.

    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    ???? I didn't "Disagree" this. I must have touched the button by accident while I was scrolling on my iPhone. It's not the first time I've accidentally hit a button while scrolling.
  15. @Mike Sylwester
    Eventually -- baby steps -- Barone will change the order from "the Kaus-Sailer thesis" to "the Sailer-Kaus thesis".

    I’m not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    It is silly to think that Obama was born in Kenya. However it is not silly to think that he may not actually be a citizen or at least a natural born citizen. There are plenty of oddities in his paper-trail - his SSN, his Selective Service registration - to allow one to entertain the idea that there is something in his background that is not on the up-and-up.
    , @Clyde

    If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.
     
    And this will have as much impact on Trump as it did on Obama. Trump is the Teflon-Don and lets hope it stays this way for a few years.
    , @Luke Lea
    If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    I doubt it will hurt him much. I've long suspected, not that Obama was born in Kenya, but that his Muslim Kenyan father insisted that Muslim be entered as his religion on his original birth certificate and that his non-religious mother acquiesced.

    That embarrassing fact, if true, would fully account for Obama's reluctance to reveal the long-form version of his birth certificate. (It would also raise the interesting question of whether he could be considered an apostate from Islam; Westerners wouldn't think so, but radical Muslims might disagree.)

    , @Perplexed
    Why characterize birtherism as silly? There are so many different stories of who he is and how he came to be that no one knows anything for sure, except that important identity documents are fraudulent and important records have gone missing.

    What is alleged often can't be true--for example, that Obama's father left the family when Barry was two, when actually they never lived together.

    I don't know that O. was born in Kenya, but O. claimed he was for years, and he ought to know. How do we know he is even a citizen?

    We would have less heat if there were more light.
    , @ben tillman

    I’m not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.
     
    And Trump can say, "Obama wrote a book, and the 'about the author' blurb said Obama was born in Kenya." And then he can hold up the book and read the passage in question.
    , @WowJustWow
    But didn't birtherism first take off among Hillary's supporters in 2008? Assuming she's the Dem nominee, that kind of smear won't have great optics.

    Anyway, my young SWPL friends on Facebook are already acting like Obama has never existed. Don't you know it's Bernie Sanders who represents hope and change? Anything having to do with old Barry Dunham will probably fade into the background once we get a little further into election season.
    , @Prof. Woland
    It is not too late for Obama to unseal his records. It will be interesting to see if he opens them up after he leaves office or if he takes his secret with him to the grave. Also a President Trump, who would be sitting on top of the government including the security apparatus might find out the truth before we do.
    , @TWS
    Not so silly when Obama claimed to be born in Kenya. I don't care if he did it for college tuition or for anti-American swpl cred. He claimed it. He says it was an 'error'. An error he let stand for twenty years until he was called on it.

    Trump will either say, "Obama's grandmother says he was born there and so did Obama until he was called on it." Or he'll say, "he's never released his real birth certificate. Since I am a gentleman, I'll just take it on Obama's word. He's never been known to lie in public."

    Either one defangs it.
    , @AnotherDad
    The birther things was indeed silly, because it didn't matter where Obama was born, as long as we agree he's Ann Dunham's child. And, it was a distraction from focusing on his un-American upbrining, his alienation from American whites, his radical circle, his loony left appointments and most importantly his ideology and policies.

    I assumed that the birth certificate non-appearance was simply that it was embarrassing perhaps saying something like "unmarried" or "father unknown".

    What i think Obama didn't want was too much focus on his *actual* creation--which was black man, knocks up naive 17 year white girl and her and his child.

    This story, his story is absolutely bog-standard issue for "black-white relationships" and undermines Obama's whole ludicrous narrative of "unlikely love", and thought about more deeply, the entire "racial healing" justification for his candidacy. Thought about critically, unsentimentally, it's a pretty great narrative for conservatives, race realists, HBDers, those of us who want to save our nation. So no surprise that Obama and the water-carrying establishment media didn't want it discussed.
    , @International Jew
    The birther theories never added up for me either, but at the same time I found it off-putting that the Obama campaign's response was a contemptuous brush-off. Why couldn't they just show us the damned birth certificate?

    What they were showing us, for quite a while, was this laser-printed thing issued by Hawaii, attesting to their having the real birth certificate in some vault -- "but we can't release it without Obama's consent", or some such nonsense. I think it was finally October 2008 when we finally got to see an image of the real birth certificate.

    My recollection of Trump's position was not that he thought Obama was a Kenyan, but just "show us the damned certificate, if you have it".

    The other thing that was off-putting was the clear message that even if Obama was somehow ineligible under the Constitution, they didn't care. Of course today it's a lot less shocking to learn that Obama fans place him above the Constitution.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    The strongest evidence that Obama was born in this country is that if he weren't, he'd show a lot more appreciation for it.
    , @a Newsreader
    The only mystery now is why Obama released a birth certificate in response to Trump's campaign in 2011.

    Before that moment, the birther controversy worked entirely in Obama's favor, by painting the Republicans as racist mouth-breathers. I don't know why Obama acquiesced to Trump's demands. Was he in danger of losing support from the lumpenproles of the Democrat base?
  16. Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

    Diversity comes to the Heartland.

    I’m sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn’t be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

    I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. There’s something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide – indeed, promotes it.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I’m not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I’m fighting our entire society so I’m a bit outgunned.

    • Replies: @bomag
    A large chunk of our people welcome this

    This. Which adds even more depression. By some herculean effort, if we put in place people and rule enforcement to reverse the trend, the other side is still out there planning their next assault.

    Too many people have been bred to be nice and give stuff away.

    , @ben tillman

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically.
     
    That doesn't follow. Do you make a similar assumption every time you get sick?
    , @Massimo Heitor

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically.
     
    Things look grim, but that is where our brains and creativity are supposed to kick in and save the world.

    - Even if you are past breeding age, you can be involved in social change to influence birth rates and patterns. FYI, women are typically far more influential than men on social and family issues.
    - Build social infrastructure for your favored group. We need more than blogs.
    - Get involved in human genetics and understand which genes we want to preserve + extend.
    - Communicate your ideas with intelligence and humor.
    , @anon
    It's the media - obviously.

    We're in a gulag - the media are the secret police and camp guards.

    , @anon

    There’s something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites.
     
    You have a point about racial differences - whites less tribal etc - but that in itself wouldn't stop people acting in their self interest if the media told the truth.

    The primary driving force behind white flight is the gang rape of 14 year old girls in and around the schools and the primary cause of that is gender imbalance from for example

    1) mass immigration being disproportionately young males

    or

    2) an even population but where the Muslim component keep their young girls at home while the Muslim males compete for girlfriends from other groups

    Neither of those situations require any kind of racial animosity - just a simple recognition of supply and demand.

    White liberals in theory could incorporate those factors into a sane immigration policy without contradicting liberal ideals but they don't

    because the media lies.

  17. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work. …

    This is insane.

    • Agree: EriK
  18. “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.”

    What kind of sense does that make?

  19. “#BlackJobsMatter, but not to the Obama Administration.”

    Nor, as far as I can tell, to black Americans, aside from the few Uncle Toms that FOX News interviews from time-to-time. Blacks still seem to see Obama as Malcolm X, Jesus, and Santa all rolled into one. Well, at least Obama is partly on their side, so they’ve got better sense than the whites who still support him.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I am not sure that white nationalists who "care" about African-American employment are really going to convince anybody otherwise.
  20. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

    Diversity comes to the Heartland.

    I'm sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn't be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

    I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There's something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide - indeed, promotes it.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we're on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I'm not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I'm fighting our entire society so I'm a bit outgunned.

    A large chunk of our people welcome this

    This. Which adds even more depression. By some herculean effort, if we put in place people and rule enforcement to reverse the trend, the other side is still out there planning their next assault.

    Too many people have been bred to be nice and give stuff away.

  21. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    It is silly to think that Obama was born in Kenya. However it is not silly to think that he may not actually be a citizen or at least a natural born citizen. There are plenty of oddities in his paper-trail – his SSN, his Selective Service registration – to allow one to entertain the idea that there is something in his background that is not on the up-and-up.

    • Agree: unit472
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A lot of the discrepancies in his documentation make no sense, [i]unless[/i] you believe the Steve Sailer/Mencius Moldbug theory that his mother's family are CIA connected. If that is the case, then the discrepancies could have been hushed up for Deep State reasons.
    , @njguy73
    Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely.
    , @Gato de la Biblioteca
    After his old publisher's bio came out (it stated that he HAD been born in Kenya, IIRC), it seemed to me (and others) that part of the muddling of his paper trail had been done by Obama himself in order to gain advantages along the way. I suspect that the reason his college transcripts haven't been released is that he claimed at some part along the way that he had been morn in Kenya, both to look more interesting and to possibly get extra consideration for a spot in college.

    Personally I think he was almost certainly born in Hawaii, and that even if he wasn't it doesn't really matter - his mother was a citizen, and I'm not as concerned about overseas birth as was warranted at the start of the Union.

    But I think he's lied conveniently along the way to get ahead. I wish I had done it (not sure how I could have, but I wish I had gotten ahead!), and I'm trying to convince my wife to start claiming she's Hispanic so that our daughter can do the same. My wife WAS born in Puerto Rico, after all, so I don't think her obvious Nordic heritage should matter in this regard. We all know that where you're born and how you identify are the things that matter, and she could do both. Viva la Dolezal!
    , @Former Darfur
    Short of an actual certified DNA test, I think the evidence is substantial that B-Ho deliberately allowed Birther to go on and on, and that mainstream media may have provoked and prodded it, as a diversion from the real issue, which is that his real father is not B-Ho Sr.

    But that would have nothing to do with SSA or Selective Service issues. Maybe there is a second issue here. Would not astonish me. Clearly, a community organizer with a personality wholly unsuited to organizing anyone to do anything with a 100 IQ and a Harvard Law degree bears the most intense scrutiny. He's received none whatsoever.
  22. Hard to say what is going on. Since there is a settlement agreement, it could be that the packing house wanted to get rid of pricy white workers and needed government approval.

    What better way than triggering/inviting a lawsuit by Obamagirl-lawyers and then being “forced” to “agree” to never check immigration papers (or something with the same effect).

    Should real Americans bring suit for anti-American practices, the packing company can wave the settlement agree,enter around and say, “We had no choice!”

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Sorry. Auto correct. "Settlement agreement".
  23. @George
    required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status

    Does this sentence make sense? US citizens don't have an immigration status.

    I’m assuming it means they asked for papers of the mestizos and not of the whites or blacks. The government says it’s discrimation.

    This sounds like the same principle that animates giving the random grandmas an occasional anal probe at the TSA line, while letting Merkel Boy skate by

  24. @Big Bill
    Hard to say what is going on. Since there is a settlement agreement, it could be that the packing house wanted to get rid of pricy white workers and needed government approval.

    What better way than triggering/inviting a lawsuit by Obamagirl-lawyers and then being "forced" to "agree" to never check immigration papers (or something with the same effect).

    Should real Americans bring suit for anti-American practices, the packing company can wave the settlement agree,enter around and say, "We had no choice!"

    Sorry. Auto correct. “Settlement agreement”.

  25. damned if they do, damned if they don’t. so now we assume everyone is an illegal alien till proven otherwise.

    the gov’t interferes with business & makes employers root out illegal aliens.

    the gov’t should do their job & keep illegal aliens the hell out of our country! & not make it incumbent upon businesses to do the gov’t’s job for them! businesses are already busy doing another job – it’s called business!

    either the gov’t or the people need to wake up. preferably both.

  26. Hiring illegal aliens and voter fraud / voting rights, the two of the raison d’etre for motivating black and Hispanic voters, both revolve around the inability to accurately identify someone’s identity. As a technical problem this is very easy to fix by mandating our government only using and issuing tamper proof, machine readable, bio-metric ID. The technology keeps getting better and better but we are still having this silly argument with the same people who keep dragging their feet.

    • Replies: @TWS
    Fuck voter fraud. It's a given and when entire districts in Pennsylvania go to Obama without a single missed vote or single mistake, we can be sure there is fraud on a huge national scale.

    The republicans have castrated themselves with that consent agreement all those years ago so maybe we do need a third party run just to get dem fraud back in court if for no other reason.
  27. Banning businesses from using documents to verify citizenship (or at least not requiring it) on the grounds it is discriminatory is exactly how they undermined the enforcement measures which were part of the 1986 amnesty.

  28. @Mr. Anon
    It is silly to think that Obama was born in Kenya. However it is not silly to think that he may not actually be a citizen or at least a natural born citizen. There are plenty of oddities in his paper-trail - his SSN, his Selective Service registration - to allow one to entertain the idea that there is something in his background that is not on the up-and-up.

    A lot of the discrepancies in his documentation make no sense, [i]unless[/i] you believe the Steve Sailer/Mencius Moldbug theory that his mother’s family are CIA connected. If that is the case, then the discrepancies could have been hushed up for Deep State reasons.

    • Replies: @Perplexed
    Indeed. I can't understand why Steve dismisses those trying to put the puzzle pieces together. Silly? Really?
  29. This is the kind of crap that was inserted into the 1986 amnesty act to intentionally nullify the parts of the law that make knowingly hiring an illegal alien a crime. They make it a crime but provide a road map on how to skirt the law and even make it impossible to refuse to hire an illegal as long as he has the required but obviously phony documentation.

    Once the illegal showed up with the minimal paperwork required by law, these guys couldn’t legally refuse to hire him. Sure Obama gets some blame for enforcing such a crappy law, but blame the people who wrote it and signed it into law more.

    • Replies: @PaulExChandler
    If one looks at an I-9 form, it is pretty clear that you are not supposed to validate any documentation supplied by someone you have hired. The I-9 isn't for "prospective employees", but for people that have been hired. It is clear from a cursory reading of the rules for this that if someone shows up with a crayon-drawn "Divers License" (sic) as one of their documents that the employer is NOT supposed to attempt to verify this in any manner but take it as one of the required documents.

    This means the I-9 is a joke and there is no real attempt to prevent employers from hiring illegals. Why are people streaming across the southern border? Because a job here is available and pays at least 20x what a job - if you could get one - pays in rural Mexico. So anyone poor in Mexico is assisted onto a train by the Mexican government (who is glad to be rid of them) with probably a 5-10% risk of robbery, rape or accidental death. If they make it to the US, they then have to get to where there are jobs, often having to cross a desert without food, water or even a hat. Still, they come because of that 20x wage differential. Then they can send money home and their family will live like royalty.

    This is the face of illegal immigrant employment.
  30. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @tbraton
    That explains why Trump is doing so well in the polls. He is tapping into a great vein of resentment out there. It will be very interesting to see if the vein is rich enough to say to The Donald: "You're hired."

    And if Trump is hired, do you think he’s going to change any of this? A guy in the hospitality business, one of the industries most involved in employing illegal labor? I doubt it. But I suppose he couldn’t be worse than what we have now, so there’s nothing to lose in voting for him.

    So ends the great American experiment in self-government.

  31. OK, what exactly is wrong with this? The company can avoid this whole problem by simply requiring all employees to show proof of eligibility.

    Steve, you’ve relentlessly mocked liberals for their “who-whom” approach to deciding what’s an outrage — “cop shoots unarmed black man, details irrelevant!!” Why are you encouraging the same approach? “Justice Department penalizes company for requiring documentation, doesn’t matter why”. Are you really saying that companies should just be allowed to make arbitrary determination about who’s required to show documentation? Why?

    • Disagree: TWS
    • Replies: @bomag
    Dear Vinay,

    Don't kid yourself. Steve knows what is going on here. I know what is going on here. You know what is going on here.
    , @ben tillman

    OK, what exactly is wrong with this? The company can avoid this whole problem by simply requiring all employees to show proof of eligibility.

    Steve, you’ve relentlessly mocked liberals for their “who-whom” approach to deciding what’s an outrage — “cop shoots unarmed black man, details irrelevant!!” Why are you encouraging the same approach? “Justice Department penalizes company for requiring documentation, doesn’t matter why”. Are you really saying that companies should just be allowed to make arbitrary determination about who’s required to show documentation? Why?
     

    No, he's not. He's pointing out that the USG uses some of its trillions of dollars of resources to enforce anti-discrimination laws to help immigrants in cases like these but refuses to use any of those resources to enforce immigration laws to help Americans.

    In other words, this is an example of the USG's standard policy of discriminating against Americans and in favor of foreigners.

    And it's outrageous.

    , @Muse
    The Feds are fairly specific about what they require to complete an I9 form.

    http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documentshttp://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents

    Potential employees that are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. regularly falsify these documents. The harassment of employers by the U.S. Government seeks to prevent a patriotic employer from doing due diligence when they know the applicant is providing fake social security documents. If employers can ask questions, the house of cards collapses.

    This procedure is the single most important component of immigration reform. A thousand times more important than any fence. You need it to cut the blood supply to the tumor, and e-verify is the knife.

    That is why the Feds are giving this employer trouble. They are ramping up for the fight over this administrative procedure. This is where the war in the trenches will be won or lost. People without jobs self-deport and the whole narrative collapses.
  32. @Chris Mallory
    This kind of thing has been voted for since the 1960s. It didn't start with Obama and getting rid of him won't end it.

    “This kind of thing has been voted for since the 1960s.”

    We haven’t been voting for it, but it’s what our politicians have been giving us.

  33. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    And this will have as much impact on Trump as it did on Obama. Trump is the Teflon-Don and lets hope it stays this way for a few years.

  34. OT: Mexican remittances from US surpass Mexico’s income from exporting oil

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/mexican-remittances-surpass-mexican-oil-exports

  35. @anonymous
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    This is what the American citizens voted for twice.

    Not really. No candidate comes out and says, “I’m going to cram this country so full of immigrants that it turns into a shithole.” Few would vote for such a candidate, but that is the de facto result.

    Candidates are famous for changing their tune. Obama famously was against gay marriage, but now he’s got the martial forces of the country hunting down all apostates from that belief.

    A lot of rules and procedures are promulgated by the gov’t that would not survive a popular vote.

    • Replies: @rod1963
    Oh this you could see stuff like this coming a mile away. In Obama's upbringing, his books, his choices for advisers during his first campaign all pointed to a very anti-white, anti-American administration once he got into power and boy did he give us one.

    He didn't hide anything.
    , @anonymous
    As other commenters here have noted, whatever may be said of earlier years, by 2008, it was perfectly clear to any attentive member of the public that any Democratic president, and BHO in particular, given his ideological and urban machine background, would move toward amnesty, one way or another, through the constitutional legislative process or otherwise. Enough voters chose to focus on the exhilaration of electing a black president rather than on the interests of their own children to put Obama in office.

    To be fair, one could have anticipated a McCain administration doing something like this, though some things Obama has done (e.g. airlifting "refugees" from Central America to the US on the pretext of high crime rates) probably would have been too extreme even for McCain.

    American voters exercise the franchise capriciously and emotionally, without any reasoned concept of how their votes will advance their own interests.
  36. @Mr. Anon
    It is silly to think that Obama was born in Kenya. However it is not silly to think that he may not actually be a citizen or at least a natural born citizen. There are plenty of oddities in his paper-trail - his SSN, his Selective Service registration - to allow one to entertain the idea that there is something in his background that is not on the up-and-up.

    Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely.

    • Replies: @TWS
    Because that's never happened in reverse. He was fucking around on his first wife and got a sixteen year old or was she fifteen when he was banging her? pregnant. His impulse control and decision making seem top notch to me.

    How did he die again?
    , @njguy73
    Here's Sailer's original article:

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/was-obama-born-in-hawaii-of-course-he-was
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely."

    I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is indeed ludicrous to think his mother would have dragged him to the depths of Africa to be born. And for what?

    However, who decided that he was a natural born citizen? He was the child of a foreign (non-citizen) father and an underaged mother. I would think that being a natural born citizen would require more than that. Who decided he was?

    It is also possible that his mother renounced his US citizenship when they moved to Indonesia, and that he never reapplied for it. His SSN was from a block of numbers issued to people in Connecticut at a time when he lived in Hawaii, and I believe there was something likewise hinky about his selective-service number. His pedigree is certainly a lot more obscure than any one else who ever ran for President.
  37. @Vinay
    OK, what exactly is wrong with this? The company can avoid this whole problem by simply requiring all employees to show proof of eligibility.

    Steve, you've relentlessly mocked liberals for their "who-whom" approach to deciding what's an outrage -- "cop shoots unarmed black man, details irrelevant!!" Why are you encouraging the same approach? "Justice Department penalizes company for requiring documentation, doesn't matter why". Are you really saying that companies should just be allowed to make arbitrary determination about who's required to show documentation? Why?

    Dear Vinay,

    Don’t kid yourself. Steve knows what is going on here. I know what is going on here. You know what is going on here.

    • Replies: @Vinay
    "I know what's going on here"

    That's no different from liberals saying "white cop shoots unarmed black guy for supposedly attacking him, eh? We know what's going on here!" My response is the same in both cases "Pay attention to the facts of this specific case, you lazy bastards!!"
  38. @Inkraven
    So, just to recap:

    1) It's a crime to hire an illegal alien.
    2) It's also a crime to verify that a potential hire is not an illegal alien.

    I tip my hat to whoever thought this one up.

    But, being optimistic, it’s not a crime to run every applicant through E-Verify if the employer really does want to hire only legal residents. Of course it shouldn’t be voluntary it should be mandatory.

  39. Reminds me of when NWA’s Eazy E took advantage of accidentally being invited to a Republican black-tie fundraiser. The rapper’s agent suggested it would be good publicity and/or the ultimate practical joke if the gangsta rapper were to actually attend. The result was endless shots of the sleaziest, most gangsta-ish rapper alongside old, confused Republican men.

  40. @bomag
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice.

    Not really. No candidate comes out and says, "I'm going to cram this country so full of immigrants that it turns into a shithole." Few would vote for such a candidate, but that is the de facto result.

    Candidates are famous for changing their tune. Obama famously was against gay marriage, but now he's got the martial forces of the country hunting down all apostates from that belief.

    A lot of rules and procedures are promulgated by the gov't that would not survive a popular vote.

    Oh this you could see stuff like this coming a mile away. In Obama’s upbringing, his books, his choices for advisers during his first campaign all pointed to a very anti-white, anti-American administration once he got into power and boy did he give us one.

    He didn’t hide anything.

    • Replies: @anon
    The media hid it.
  41. Watching the other side in this debate you can see that their number one priority is to let them in. Whether it’s in the USA or Europe, they want them in. The more the better. And to facilitate this they will make disingenuous arguments, or just outright change their positions midstream.

    Case in point, in the 1990s the open border crowd denounced the evil employers who were profiting off the backs of illegals. The illegals, it was said, would not come to the USA if there were no jobs waiting for them. Withdraw the welcome mat and they won’t come.

    Fair enough. So E-Verify comes along. And you know what, it worked. So now the same people who wanted us to stop attacking the illegals (punching down) and go after the employers (punching up) are doing everything they can to sabotage it. They realized that cracking down on employers works. And we can’t have that otherwise it might interfere with the primary goal, to let them in.

    Now when they denounce the evil employers it is not because they are profiting off illegal labor. It is because they are not doing their part by offering jobs to the new arrivals. After all if you won’t hire them, they might not come. And we can’t have that. The more the better. The sooner the better. Employers must do their part and roll out the welcome mat.

    • Replies: @PaulExChandler
    Here, here! Absolutely, I am of the opinion that what is needed is both some fine-tuning of E-Verify and nationwide, mandatory implementation. No more I-9 BS with being required to accept crayon forgeries of documents - fax it in and let the government say what is valid or what is not. I do think there needs to be substantial penalties like jail time for employers that bypass, evade or defraud E-Verify.
  42. #BlackJobsMatter — Trump should trademark that hashtag in a nonce, or at least make it his own.

  43. @Clyde

    The basic question in politics is: Whose side are you on.
     
    And the old laborites/folkies had it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XEnTxlBuGo . Just needs an update to Donald Trumpism/Nationalism/anti-illegal aliens/anti free trade/ xenophobia is just allright with me

    “Just needs an update to Donald Trumpism/Nationalism/anti-illegal aliens/anti free trade/ xenophobia is just allright with me>”

    Xenophobia? Putting your own country first is not xenophobia. Lefties who equate immigration moderation with racism are bigots. They should be called on it every time. Bigot, bigot bigot!

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Start using the term "xenophilia". Kind of sounds like "zoophilia".
  44. @Mike Sylwester
    Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.

    .... the black and Hispanic percentages in the Clinton-Trump pairings are worthy of notice, if they prove (and we'll see more in subsequent polls) to be anywhere nearly accurate. Trump is said to be hated by most Hispanics, yet he runs about as well as the last two recent Republican nominees among them, while Clinton runs about 20 points lower than Obama. The numbers for blacks are more astounding. They have voted more than 85 percent Democratic in every presidential from 1964 to 2012. Here they are voting only 59 percent for the woman who is married to the man who used to be called America's first black president and who served as four years as secretary of state for the man who is actually America's first black president.

    Could this possibly be right? Maybe so, opine bloggers Mickey Kaus and Steve Sailer, who from very different points on the ideological spectrum favor significant cutbacks in immigration and who have had favorable things to say about Trump for that reason. Their hypothesis — and I think they don't advance it as more than that — is that blacks may see Hispanic immigrants as competitors for jobs and as driving down wages for unskilled work. Some analysts who lump "non-whites" together as a single bloc seem to believe that they see themselves as having a united interest in combatting white racism. But it seems implausible to me that most Hispanics and Asians — or that most blacks, for that matter — fear that whites want to impose pre-1960s Southern-style segregation on them or to disfavor them in more up-to-date ways. Certainly the "people of color" explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis.

    Black Americans voted (where and when they were allowed to vote) overwhelmingly for Republicans in elections between 1868 and 1932 (backing Hoover over Roosevelt) and have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in elections between 1964 and 2012. But in elections between 1936 and 1960 their votes were more evenly split, with the majority going to Democrats and a significant minority to Republicans (over 40 percent for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, over 30 percent for Richard Nixon in 1960). It has seemed likely that blacks will never again vote as heavily Democratic for president as they did for Barack Obama, but most analysts (including me) have expected their Democratic percentages to fall only marginally. The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks' voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.
     

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545#.Ve4eEIIJNB0.twitter

    Could the Kaus/Sailer hypothesis possibly be right? California would be the ultimate proof if Trump could win the state. How is he polling there so far among legal immigrants and African Americans?

    • Replies: @Clyde
    California is beyond Trump but he could easily take very liberal NY State. He could take liberal Maryland. Perhaps Massachusetts which now has a Republican governor although the two legislatures have been Democrat for a few decades. Winning the electoral votes of three out of four very liberal states will be quite something!
    Trump can take Oregon and Washington state. Both states have two Democrat US Senators and Democrat governors too. With the bonus of Oregon's bloodless governess Kate Brown. wikipedia>>>"She identifies as bisexual and is the country's first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor.[10][21][22][23]"
    , @TWS
    Washington state dems followed the 'Soros' strategy to get the Secretary of State's spot for hard core dems. Now they just recount until the Dems win and drop investigations of criminal wrong doing.
  45. @bomag
    Dear Vinay,

    Don't kid yourself. Steve knows what is going on here. I know what is going on here. You know what is going on here.

    “I know what’s going on here”

    That’s no different from liberals saying “white cop shoots unarmed black guy for supposedly attacking him, eh? We know what’s going on here!” My response is the same in both cases “Pay attention to the facts of this specific case, you lazy bastards!!”

    • Replies: @bomag
    That’s no different from liberals saying...

    The facts and statistics don't fit the narrative; your narrative, evidently. Yet you adopt a kind of obtuseness when approaching these things. Then, nothing gets better when more of your policies get implemented, and you wonder why. There is no hope in a society that contains such as you.

  46. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    I doubt it will hurt him much. I’ve long suspected, not that Obama was born in Kenya, but that his Muslim Kenyan father insisted that Muslim be entered as his religion on his original birth certificate and that his non-religious mother acquiesced.

    That embarrassing fact, if true, would fully account for Obama’s reluctance to reveal the long-form version of his birth certificate. (It would also raise the interesting question of whether he could be considered an apostate from Islam; Westerners wouldn’t think so, but radical Muslims might disagree.)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    It would also raise the interesting question of whether he could be considered an apostate from Islam; Westerners wouldn’t think so, but radical Muslims might disagree.
     
    They've had more than enough time to enforce the punishment this crime calls for. Have you noticed any attempts? I haven't.

    Christians in Africa were disgusted by the rainbow lights on the White House, but Mo's army were silent. The "radical Muslims" probably think, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
    , @IBC
    When President Obama was conceived, his mother would have been 17 and his father 24. These days, there are several states where that would be considered statutory rape, and even where legal, it's a situation that a lot of women and also men with daughters, might find distasteful. At the time of the controversy, I don't know how many dates were widely available to enable unflattering inferences. But if just enough but not all the information was out there, immediately revealing the birth certificate could have cost Obama support from people who might have actually voted for him --without winning any from "birthers" already devoted to his defeat. By waiting to reveal the certificate, Team Obama was also able to represent their candidate as having been treated unfairly (because he was black and had a foreign-sounding name), --a theme that remains popular with the President's most loyal supporters when discussing his subsequent relationship with Congress and overall job performance).

    Primarily though, I think Obama probably felt insulted to be questioned about his birth in Hawaii, especially given that his opponent at the time had been born in Panama Canal Zone.

  47. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    Why characterize birtherism as silly? There are so many different stories of who he is and how he came to be that no one knows anything for sure, except that important identity documents are fraudulent and important records have gone missing.

    What is alleged often can’t be true–for example, that Obama’s father left the family when Barry was two, when actually they never lived together.

    I don’t know that O. was born in Kenya, but O. claimed he was for years, and he ought to know. How do we know he is even a citizen?

    We would have less heat if there were more light.

  48. @Mike Sylwester
    Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.

    .... the black and Hispanic percentages in the Clinton-Trump pairings are worthy of notice, if they prove (and we'll see more in subsequent polls) to be anywhere nearly accurate. Trump is said to be hated by most Hispanics, yet he runs about as well as the last two recent Republican nominees among them, while Clinton runs about 20 points lower than Obama. The numbers for blacks are more astounding. They have voted more than 85 percent Democratic in every presidential from 1964 to 2012. Here they are voting only 59 percent for the woman who is married to the man who used to be called America's first black president and who served as four years as secretary of state for the man who is actually America's first black president.

    Could this possibly be right? Maybe so, opine bloggers Mickey Kaus and Steve Sailer, who from very different points on the ideological spectrum favor significant cutbacks in immigration and who have had favorable things to say about Trump for that reason. Their hypothesis — and I think they don't advance it as more than that — is that blacks may see Hispanic immigrants as competitors for jobs and as driving down wages for unskilled work. Some analysts who lump "non-whites" together as a single bloc seem to believe that they see themselves as having a united interest in combatting white racism. But it seems implausible to me that most Hispanics and Asians — or that most blacks, for that matter — fear that whites want to impose pre-1960s Southern-style segregation on them or to disfavor them in more up-to-date ways. Certainly the "people of color" explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis.

    Black Americans voted (where and when they were allowed to vote) overwhelmingly for Republicans in elections between 1868 and 1932 (backing Hoover over Roosevelt) and have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in elections between 1964 and 2012. But in elections between 1936 and 1960 their votes were more evenly split, with the majority going to Democrats and a significant minority to Republicans (over 40 percent for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, over 30 percent for Richard Nixon in 1960). It has seemed likely that blacks will never again vote as heavily Democratic for president as they did for Barack Obama, but most analysts (including me) have expected their Democratic percentages to fall only marginally. The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks' voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.
     

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545#.Ve4eEIIJNB0.twitter

    Demographer William Frey noted the crowding out effect of Hispanic immigrant gains at the expense of Blacks. One result was that Blacks, and to some extent lower income Whites, “self-deported” away from Los Angeles to the hinterlands and surrounding states. Similar results may be seen across the country. Europe will get its chance now, too.
    Demographics remains destiny.

  49. @Anonymous
    A lot of the discrepancies in his documentation make no sense, [i]unless[/i] you believe the Steve Sailer/Mencius Moldbug theory that his mother's family are CIA connected. If that is the case, then the discrepancies could have been hushed up for Deep State reasons.

    Indeed. I can’t understand why Steve dismisses those trying to put the puzzle pieces together. Silly? Really?

  50. @Luke Lea
    "Just needs an update to Donald Trumpism/Nationalism/anti-illegal aliens/anti free trade/ xenophobia is just allright with me>"

    Xenophobia? Putting your own country first is not xenophobia. Lefties who equate immigration moderation with racism are bigots. They should be called on it every time. Bigot, bigot bigot!

    Start using the term “xenophilia”. Kind of sounds like “zoophilia”.

  51. @Luke Lea
    Could the Kaus/Sailer hypothesis possibly be right? California would be the ultimate proof if Trump could win the state. How is he polling there so far among legal immigrants and African Americans?

    California is beyond Trump but he could easily take very liberal NY State. He could take liberal Maryland. Perhaps Massachusetts which now has a Republican governor although the two legislatures have been Democrat for a few decades. Winning the electoral votes of three out of four very liberal states will be quite something!
    Trump can take Oregon and Washington state. Both states have two Democrat US Senators and Democrat governors too. With the bonus of Oregon’s bloodless governess Kate Brown. wikipedia>>>”She identifies as bisexual and is the country’s first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor.[10][21][22][23]”

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "California is beyond Trump but he could easily take very liberal NY State. He could take liberal Maryland. Perhaps Massachusetts which now has a Republican governor although the two legislatures have been Democrat for a few decades. Winning the electoral votes of three out of four very liberal states will be quite something!
    Trump can take Oregon and Washington state. Both states have two Democrat US Senators and Democrat governors too. With the bonus of Oregon’s bloodless governess Kate Brown. wikipedia>>>”She identifies as bisexual and is the country’s first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor.[10][21][22][23]“"

    Donald Trump can easily win The 2016 presidential election if he wins the states that George W. Bush won in 2004, but John McCain and Mitt Romney lost.
    , @Brutusale
    The People's Commonwealth has a Republican governor only in the broadest definition of the name. Nice guy, though.
  52. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @bomag
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice.

    Not really. No candidate comes out and says, "I'm going to cram this country so full of immigrants that it turns into a shithole." Few would vote for such a candidate, but that is the de facto result.

    Candidates are famous for changing their tune. Obama famously was against gay marriage, but now he's got the martial forces of the country hunting down all apostates from that belief.

    A lot of rules and procedures are promulgated by the gov't that would not survive a popular vote.

    As other commenters here have noted, whatever may be said of earlier years, by 2008, it was perfectly clear to any attentive member of the public that any Democratic president, and BHO in particular, given his ideological and urban machine background, would move toward amnesty, one way or another, through the constitutional legislative process or otherwise. Enough voters chose to focus on the exhilaration of electing a black president rather than on the interests of their own children to put Obama in office.

    To be fair, one could have anticipated a McCain administration doing something like this, though some things Obama has done (e.g. airlifting “refugees” from Central America to the US on the pretext of high crime rates) probably would have been too extreme even for McCain.

    American voters exercise the franchise capriciously and emotionally, without any reasoned concept of how their votes will advance their own interests.

    • Replies: @Lot

    To be fair, one could have anticipated a McCain administration doing something like this, though some things Obama has done (e.g. airlifting “refugees” from Central America to the US on the pretext of high crime rates) probably would have been too extreme even for McCain.
     
    Even if Obama is slightly to the left of McCain on amnesty, McCain was a much greater danger. For one thing, amnesty was one of his two signature issues. Obama waited until after his reelection to even try.

    Worse still, McCain would have been able, as leader of the GOP, to get a "tough, conservative" amnesty bill with "fines, back taxes, learn English" BS past the House. It almost passed the House anyway, even with the anti-Obama taint on it.

    Also most of Obama's executive amnesty was blocked by the Texas federal judge, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refusing to unblock it. Kaus gets credit for predicting this before the suit was even filed. I thought a legal challenge would be hopeless after seeing how hostile the courts were to the Arizona laws.

    So the McCain result would have been a '86 style disaster, Obama is just gave us an easily reversed partial amnesty that may never take effect.
  53. @Mr. Anon
    It is silly to think that Obama was born in Kenya. However it is not silly to think that he may not actually be a citizen or at least a natural born citizen. There are plenty of oddities in his paper-trail - his SSN, his Selective Service registration - to allow one to entertain the idea that there is something in his background that is not on the up-and-up.

    After his old publisher’s bio came out (it stated that he HAD been born in Kenya, IIRC), it seemed to me (and others) that part of the muddling of his paper trail had been done by Obama himself in order to gain advantages along the way. I suspect that the reason his college transcripts haven’t been released is that he claimed at some part along the way that he had been morn in Kenya, both to look more interesting and to possibly get extra consideration for a spot in college.

    Personally I think he was almost certainly born in Hawaii, and that even if he wasn’t it doesn’t really matter – his mother was a citizen, and I’m not as concerned about overseas birth as was warranted at the start of the Union.

    But I think he’s lied conveniently along the way to get ahead. I wish I had done it (not sure how I could have, but I wish I had gotten ahead!), and I’m trying to convince my wife to start claiming she’s Hispanic so that our daughter can do the same. My wife WAS born in Puerto Rico, after all, so I don’t think her obvious Nordic heritage should matter in this regard. We all know that where you’re born and how you identify are the things that matter, and she could do both. Viva la Dolezal!

    • Replies: @GW
    Exactly. If anything a young multinational Barry lied and claimed to be born in Kenya because it sounded more exotic (although Hawaii doesn't sound like a terribly boring place to hail from either).

    The birther controversy is silly because like all conspiracies, it assumes the guilt of the party beforehand and any contrary evidence is used only as counter-evidence proving how deep the cover up is. We're led to believe that a birth certificate--I mean certificate of live birth--and a newspaper birth announcement were planted or faked to defend the constitutionality of someone hand-picked by the elites for their own nefarious purposes. Of course if the elites really were this sinister, manipulative cabal able to rig elections for their own ends wouldn't they be able to find a legitimate citizen to do their bidding? Or if Obama had to be their man wouldn't they be able to forge a legitimate birth certificate?
  54. Viewing the Obama birth certificate brouhaha through the constitutional lens of Presidential eligibility requirements is likely misplaced. Obama’s world view seemed to have been shaped far more by his views of race and what he saw as an inherently racist majority white population. Viewing the question through the race lens would lead one to conclude that Obama’s primary motivation in obscuring the details of his early life was driven by his concern to gloss over the fact that his mother was an underage white female, impregnated by an older, polygamous black African. Obama was likely more concerned with the electoral effect of this element of his early biography, especially when considering the apparent low consideration he has for white Americans’ ability to check their seething racial hatred. It was not his place of birth that he wished to avoid drawing attention to, but rather his mother’s date of birth and marital status.

  55. @Mike Sylwester
    Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.

    .... the black and Hispanic percentages in the Clinton-Trump pairings are worthy of notice, if they prove (and we'll see more in subsequent polls) to be anywhere nearly accurate. Trump is said to be hated by most Hispanics, yet he runs about as well as the last two recent Republican nominees among them, while Clinton runs about 20 points lower than Obama. The numbers for blacks are more astounding. They have voted more than 85 percent Democratic in every presidential from 1964 to 2012. Here they are voting only 59 percent for the woman who is married to the man who used to be called America's first black president and who served as four years as secretary of state for the man who is actually America's first black president.

    Could this possibly be right? Maybe so, opine bloggers Mickey Kaus and Steve Sailer, who from very different points on the ideological spectrum favor significant cutbacks in immigration and who have had favorable things to say about Trump for that reason. Their hypothesis — and I think they don't advance it as more than that — is that blacks may see Hispanic immigrants as competitors for jobs and as driving down wages for unskilled work. Some analysts who lump "non-whites" together as a single bloc seem to believe that they see themselves as having a united interest in combatting white racism. But it seems implausible to me that most Hispanics and Asians — or that most blacks, for that matter — fear that whites want to impose pre-1960s Southern-style segregation on them or to disfavor them in more up-to-date ways. Certainly the "people of color" explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis.

    Black Americans voted (where and when they were allowed to vote) overwhelmingly for Republicans in elections between 1868 and 1932 (backing Hoover over Roosevelt) and have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in elections between 1964 and 2012. But in elections between 1936 and 1960 their votes were more evenly split, with the majority going to Democrats and a significant minority to Republicans (over 40 percent for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, over 30 percent for Richard Nixon in 1960). It has seemed likely that blacks will never again vote as heavily Democratic for president as they did for Barack Obama, but most analysts (including me) have expected their Democratic percentages to fall only marginally. The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks' voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.
     

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545#.Ve4eEIIJNB0.twitter

    Certainly the “people of color” explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis

    ….

    The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks’ voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.

    Between the second and third paragraphs — baby steps — the proposition matured from a hypothesis to a thesis.

  56. I hope Trump uses this.

  57. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

    Diversity comes to the Heartland.

    I'm sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn't be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

    I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There's something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide - indeed, promotes it.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we're on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I'm not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I'm fighting our entire society so I'm a bit outgunned.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically.

    That doesn’t follow. Do you make a similar assumption every time you get sick?

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Of course not, it's more like sickle cell. It impacts some populations and not others.

    Look, my point is that due to banning of cousin marriage and a host of other cultural/demographic pressures, the vast majority of whites (or, at least, NW Europeans) may have lost their ability to feel tribal on an ethnic basis. Sure, we'll be tribal over our sports teams or even our country, but those are bonds of a shared organization, not shared blood. It leaves us open to anyone who want to change the definition of who's a member of an organization.

    We simply have a hard time saying, "I am English or American white or German. I am for these people because they are my people, my blood, my family. You are not my kind, stay out. No exceptions."

    That loss of tribal bonds may have worked quite well from ~1500 to ~1965. It allowed NE Europeans to form large states, complex military units, corporations and democratic republics. It certainly contributed to the industrial revolution.

    But as communication and mobility increased in the 3rd world, we faced a different environment, one where people simply start moving to your country, asking to come in. Since we're not tribal, our only defense is questioning whether this immigration is good or bad for the economy, not whether it is good or bad for my tribe.

    We've replaced our tribal leaders with economists - many of whom are, in fact, tribal but not of our tribe. Not a good trade.

    In the world that we live in, not being able to identify tribally likely dooms you genetically sooner or later. The Israelis understand this, so do the Japanese and most of the world.
  58. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    I’m not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    And Trump can say, “Obama wrote a book, and the ‘about the author’ blurb said Obama was born in Kenya.” And then he can hold up the book and read the passage in question.

    • Replies: @Bill
    Exactly. He will just brazen it out and attack his critics, and in so doing will bring to light that very strange blurb episode. What will the media do then? Will they go wall-to-wall with the explanation that Obama never actually read the author blurb written about him by his publisher? Will they say Obama lied about being born in Kenya? The latter is the more likely explanation in my view, but neither one looks good. No way is this a winning issue for Democrats/media to bring up when they know Trump will fight back and not according to their rules.
  59. @anonymous
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    When did the American people vote for this twice? Obama? Can you show me any indication that if the American people had voted a different way this wouldn’t have happened? Can you show me where we checked the “yes, unlimited immigration, please” box on the ballot?

  60. @Vinay
    OK, what exactly is wrong with this? The company can avoid this whole problem by simply requiring all employees to show proof of eligibility.

    Steve, you've relentlessly mocked liberals for their "who-whom" approach to deciding what's an outrage -- "cop shoots unarmed black man, details irrelevant!!" Why are you encouraging the same approach? "Justice Department penalizes company for requiring documentation, doesn't matter why". Are you really saying that companies should just be allowed to make arbitrary determination about who's required to show documentation? Why?

    OK, what exactly is wrong with this? The company can avoid this whole problem by simply requiring all employees to show proof of eligibility.

    Steve, you’ve relentlessly mocked liberals for their “who-whom” approach to deciding what’s an outrage — “cop shoots unarmed black man, details irrelevant!!” Why are you encouraging the same approach? “Justice Department penalizes company for requiring documentation, doesn’t matter why”. Are you really saying that companies should just be allowed to make arbitrary determination about who’s required to show documentation? Why?

    No, he’s not. He’s pointing out that the USG uses some of its trillions of dollars of resources to enforce anti-discrimination laws to help immigrants in cases like these but refuses to use any of those resources to enforce immigration laws to help Americans.

    In other words, this is an example of the USG’s standard policy of discriminating against Americans and in favor of foreigners.

    And it’s outrageous.

  61. @Vinay
    OK, what exactly is wrong with this? The company can avoid this whole problem by simply requiring all employees to show proof of eligibility.

    Steve, you've relentlessly mocked liberals for their "who-whom" approach to deciding what's an outrage -- "cop shoots unarmed black man, details irrelevant!!" Why are you encouraging the same approach? "Justice Department penalizes company for requiring documentation, doesn't matter why". Are you really saying that companies should just be allowed to make arbitrary determination about who's required to show documentation? Why?

    The Feds are fairly specific about what they require to complete an I9 form.

    http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documentshttp://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents

    Potential employees that are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. regularly falsify these documents. The harassment of employers by the U.S. Government seeks to prevent a patriotic employer from doing due diligence when they know the applicant is providing fake social security documents. If employers can ask questions, the house of cards collapses.

    This procedure is the single most important component of immigration reform. A thousand times more important than any fence. You need it to cut the blood supply to the tumor, and e-verify is the knife.

    That is why the Feds are giving this employer trouble. They are ramping up for the fight over this administrative procedure. This is where the war in the trenches will be won or lost. People without jobs self-deport and the whole narrative collapses.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    It is often done with a wink and a nod. Without secure bio-metric ID each side can blame the other. Once the identity can be fully established up front then the employer is on the hook too which means they are subject to fines and penalties; and they are the ones with the deep pockets. If an illegal gets caught they just magically disappear and then reappear with their other cousin's name and social security number. Modernizing our ID will also make a fence 100 X more effective because once someone gets caught illegally entering they will fingered and automatically be prevented from working on a payroll which is why they come here in the first place. Ironically, this is what will make a true guest worker program work.
    , @PaulExChandler
    The key with the I-9 is that the employer is specifically not allowed to validate any documents. This means someone can show up with a crayon forgery and it must, by law, be accepted.

    Someone has to verify the employment status, which is what E-Verify does. If this were required nationwide and there were teeth to require employers to use it, "illegal immigration" as we know it would be over.
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    Agreed. Why would anyone start a business nowadays? Except a financial or tech consulting company, which has little overhead and doesn’t produce tangible products which could hurt people and enrich tort lawyers. My new goal in life is to die like Donald Trump’s mentor, Roy Cohn. Not from AIDS but totally broke owing millions to the IRS. This was Cohn’s goal and it’s a good one.

  63. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    But didn’t birtherism first take off among Hillary’s supporters in 2008? Assuming she’s the Dem nominee, that kind of smear won’t have great optics.

    Anyway, my young SWPL friends on Facebook are already acting like Obama has never existed. Don’t you know it’s Bernie Sanders who represents hope and change? Anything having to do with old Barry Dunham will probably fade into the background once we get a little further into election season.

  64. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    It is not too late for Obama to unseal his records. It will be interesting to see if he opens them up after he leaves office or if he takes his secret with him to the grave. Also a President Trump, who would be sitting on top of the government including the security apparatus might find out the truth before we do.

  65. @Muse
    The Feds are fairly specific about what they require to complete an I9 form.

    http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documentshttp://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents

    Potential employees that are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. regularly falsify these documents. The harassment of employers by the U.S. Government seeks to prevent a patriotic employer from doing due diligence when they know the applicant is providing fake social security documents. If employers can ask questions, the house of cards collapses.

    This procedure is the single most important component of immigration reform. A thousand times more important than any fence. You need it to cut the blood supply to the tumor, and e-verify is the knife.

    That is why the Feds are giving this employer trouble. They are ramping up for the fight over this administrative procedure. This is where the war in the trenches will be won or lost. People without jobs self-deport and the whole narrative collapses.

    It is often done with a wink and a nod. Without secure bio-metric ID each side can blame the other. Once the identity can be fully established up front then the employer is on the hook too which means they are subject to fines and penalties; and they are the ones with the deep pockets. If an illegal gets caught they just magically disappear and then reappear with their other cousin’s name and social security number. Modernizing our ID will also make a fence 100 X more effective because once someone gets caught illegally entering they will fingered and automatically be prevented from working on a payroll which is why they come here in the first place. Ironically, this is what will make a true guest worker program work.

    • Replies: @PaulExChandler
    The only thing that is needed to "solve" the immigration crisis is to enforce labor laws against employers. Hire and illegal, go to jail. How do you tell? Fax the documents to the Bureau of Labor, ICE or Border Protection. Let them be on the hook for a bad call. But skip that step and you go to jail.

    Right there, that eliminates 100% of the reason people keep coming to the US: Jobs. Without the ability to make lots more than they could at home, they won't bother. When employers are faced with re-validating their current employees, tens of millions of illegals will pick up and head back home.

    All this takes is government enforcement. Without it, we will have the entire poor population of Mexico coming to the US to get a job that they cannot get at home. A fence is unnecessary, mass deportations are unnecessary.
  66. @ben tillman

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically.
     
    That doesn't follow. Do you make a similar assumption every time you get sick?

    Of course not, it’s more like sickle cell. It impacts some populations and not others.

    Look, my point is that due to banning of cousin marriage and a host of other cultural/demographic pressures, the vast majority of whites (or, at least, NW Europeans) may have lost their ability to feel tribal on an ethnic basis. Sure, we’ll be tribal over our sports teams or even our country, but those are bonds of a shared organization, not shared blood. It leaves us open to anyone who want to change the definition of who’s a member of an organization.

    We simply have a hard time saying, “I am English or American white or German. I am for these people because they are my people, my blood, my family. You are not my kind, stay out. No exceptions.”

    That loss of tribal bonds may have worked quite well from ~1500 to ~1965. It allowed NE Europeans to form large states, complex military units, corporations and democratic republics. It certainly contributed to the industrial revolution.

    But as communication and mobility increased in the 3rd world, we faced a different environment, one where people simply start moving to your country, asking to come in. Since we’re not tribal, our only defense is questioning whether this immigration is good or bad for the economy, not whether it is good or bad for my tribe.

    We’ve replaced our tribal leaders with economists – many of whom are, in fact, tribal but not of our tribe. Not a good trade.

    In the world that we live in, not being able to identify tribally likely dooms you genetically sooner or later. The Israelis understand this, so do the Japanese and most of the world.

    • Replies: @Blair
    cousin marriage is still legal in many states in the USA
    , @reiner Tor
    I'm not 100% sure. I have an Asian wife and although my wife's people are way more tribal and clannish, they also are lemmings the same way whites are. A very large percentage of their women would marry a white guy if given the chance, they worship white soccer stars and tennis players, etc. I'm under the impression that if somehow cultural Marxism (an anti-Asian variety, that is) became dominant in their culture, they'd fall victim to it just as much as whites do. Possibly even more, because they have a weaker tendency to revolt against societal norms (although a stronger tendency to bend the rules when no one is looking, so who knows).

    You also shouldn't forget how ethnocentric the Germans and some other Europeans were just a few generations before #refugeeswelcome.

    , @Robert Hume
    In principle we could restrict immigration to our dominant ethnicity by citing Professor Robert Putnam's research showing that diversity causes a loss of community.
    , @Ttjy
    People are even criticized for cheering for their own children in sports, while it is perfectly ok to cheer for a foreigner of a different race and religion, who might not even speak English.
  67. @Vinay
    "I know what's going on here"

    That's no different from liberals saying "white cop shoots unarmed black guy for supposedly attacking him, eh? We know what's going on here!" My response is the same in both cases "Pay attention to the facts of this specific case, you lazy bastards!!"

    That’s no different from liberals saying…

    The facts and statistics don’t fit the narrative; your narrative, evidently. Yet you adopt a kind of obtuseness when approaching these things. Then, nothing gets better when more of your policies get implemented, and you wonder why. There is no hope in a society that contains such as you.

  68. Holy hell, as an American taxpayer just the fact that there is an Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices is infuriating.

  69. @Gato de la Biblioteca
    After his old publisher's bio came out (it stated that he HAD been born in Kenya, IIRC), it seemed to me (and others) that part of the muddling of his paper trail had been done by Obama himself in order to gain advantages along the way. I suspect that the reason his college transcripts haven't been released is that he claimed at some part along the way that he had been morn in Kenya, both to look more interesting and to possibly get extra consideration for a spot in college.

    Personally I think he was almost certainly born in Hawaii, and that even if he wasn't it doesn't really matter - his mother was a citizen, and I'm not as concerned about overseas birth as was warranted at the start of the Union.

    But I think he's lied conveniently along the way to get ahead. I wish I had done it (not sure how I could have, but I wish I had gotten ahead!), and I'm trying to convince my wife to start claiming she's Hispanic so that our daughter can do the same. My wife WAS born in Puerto Rico, after all, so I don't think her obvious Nordic heritage should matter in this regard. We all know that where you're born and how you identify are the things that matter, and she could do both. Viva la Dolezal!

    Exactly. If anything a young multinational Barry lied and claimed to be born in Kenya because it sounded more exotic (although Hawaii doesn’t sound like a terribly boring place to hail from either).

    The birther controversy is silly because like all conspiracies, it assumes the guilt of the party beforehand and any contrary evidence is used only as counter-evidence proving how deep the cover up is. We’re led to believe that a birth certificate–I mean certificate of live birth–and a newspaper birth announcement were planted or faked to defend the constitutionality of someone hand-picked by the elites for their own nefarious purposes. Of course if the elites really were this sinister, manipulative cabal able to rig elections for their own ends wouldn’t they be able to find a legitimate citizen to do their bidding? Or if Obama had to be their man wouldn’t they be able to forge a legitimate birth certificate?

  70. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    Not so silly when Obama claimed to be born in Kenya. I don’t care if he did it for college tuition or for anti-American swpl cred. He claimed it. He says it was an ‘error’. An error he let stand for twenty years until he was called on it.

    Trump will either say, “Obama’s grandmother says he was born there and so did Obama until he was called on it.” Or he’ll say, “he’s never released his real birth certificate. Since I am a gentleman, I’ll just take it on Obama’s word. He’s never been known to lie in public.”

    Either one defangs it.

  71. @njguy73
    Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely.

    Because that’s never happened in reverse. He was fucking around on his first wife and got a sixteen year old or was she fifteen when he was banging her? pregnant. His impulse control and decision making seem top notch to me.

    How did he die again?

  72. @Prof. Woland
    Hiring illegal aliens and voter fraud / voting rights, the two of the raison d'etre for motivating black and Hispanic voters, both revolve around the inability to accurately identify someone's identity. As a technical problem this is very easy to fix by mandating our government only using and issuing tamper proof, machine readable, bio-metric ID. The technology keeps getting better and better but we are still having this silly argument with the same people who keep dragging their feet.

    Fuck voter fraud. It’s a given and when entire districts in Pennsylvania go to Obama without a single missed vote or single mistake, we can be sure there is fraud on a huge national scale.

    The republicans have castrated themselves with that consent agreement all those years ago so maybe we do need a third party run just to get dem fraud back in court if for no other reason.

  73. @Luke Lea
    Could the Kaus/Sailer hypothesis possibly be right? California would be the ultimate proof if Trump could win the state. How is he polling there so far among legal immigrants and African Americans?

    Washington state dems followed the ‘Soros’ strategy to get the Secretary of State’s spot for hard core dems. Now they just recount until the Dems win and drop investigations of criminal wrong doing.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    It isn't just the Soros strategy. It is a Soros funded campaign. He has been backing groups around the country that have concentrated on winning Secretary of State slots. Because, as Stalin pointed out, who votes is often less important than who counts the votes.
  74. The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.

    Trump should read this out loud at the podium and riff on it. Let the tone-deaf media and competitors attack him for being in biased of citizens.

  75. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Of course not, it's more like sickle cell. It impacts some populations and not others.

    Look, my point is that due to banning of cousin marriage and a host of other cultural/demographic pressures, the vast majority of whites (or, at least, NW Europeans) may have lost their ability to feel tribal on an ethnic basis. Sure, we'll be tribal over our sports teams or even our country, but those are bonds of a shared organization, not shared blood. It leaves us open to anyone who want to change the definition of who's a member of an organization.

    We simply have a hard time saying, "I am English or American white or German. I am for these people because they are my people, my blood, my family. You are not my kind, stay out. No exceptions."

    That loss of tribal bonds may have worked quite well from ~1500 to ~1965. It allowed NE Europeans to form large states, complex military units, corporations and democratic republics. It certainly contributed to the industrial revolution.

    But as communication and mobility increased in the 3rd world, we faced a different environment, one where people simply start moving to your country, asking to come in. Since we're not tribal, our only defense is questioning whether this immigration is good or bad for the economy, not whether it is good or bad for my tribe.

    We've replaced our tribal leaders with economists - many of whom are, in fact, tribal but not of our tribe. Not a good trade.

    In the world that we live in, not being able to identify tribally likely dooms you genetically sooner or later. The Israelis understand this, so do the Japanese and most of the world.

    cousin marriage is still legal in many states in the USA

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    cousin marriage is still legal in many states in the USA

     

    It's restricted by law in about half the states and, according to Wikipedia's map, nowhere else in the world. It is still rare in the West, but you can thank the Church for that, not the state.
  76. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Of course not, it's more like sickle cell. It impacts some populations and not others.

    Look, my point is that due to banning of cousin marriage and a host of other cultural/demographic pressures, the vast majority of whites (or, at least, NW Europeans) may have lost their ability to feel tribal on an ethnic basis. Sure, we'll be tribal over our sports teams or even our country, but those are bonds of a shared organization, not shared blood. It leaves us open to anyone who want to change the definition of who's a member of an organization.

    We simply have a hard time saying, "I am English or American white or German. I am for these people because they are my people, my blood, my family. You are not my kind, stay out. No exceptions."

    That loss of tribal bonds may have worked quite well from ~1500 to ~1965. It allowed NE Europeans to form large states, complex military units, corporations and democratic republics. It certainly contributed to the industrial revolution.

    But as communication and mobility increased in the 3rd world, we faced a different environment, one where people simply start moving to your country, asking to come in. Since we're not tribal, our only defense is questioning whether this immigration is good or bad for the economy, not whether it is good or bad for my tribe.

    We've replaced our tribal leaders with economists - many of whom are, in fact, tribal but not of our tribe. Not a good trade.

    In the world that we live in, not being able to identify tribally likely dooms you genetically sooner or later. The Israelis understand this, so do the Japanese and most of the world.

    I’m not 100% sure. I have an Asian wife and although my wife’s people are way more tribal and clannish, they also are lemmings the same way whites are. A very large percentage of their women would marry a white guy if given the chance, they worship white soccer stars and tennis players, etc. I’m under the impression that if somehow cultural Marxism (an anti-Asian variety, that is) became dominant in their culture, they’d fall victim to it just as much as whites do. Possibly even more, because they have a weaker tendency to revolt against societal norms (although a stronger tendency to bend the rules when no one is looking, so who knows).

    You also shouldn’t forget how ethnocentric the Germans and some other Europeans were just a few generations before #refugeeswelcome.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    You definitely make a good point, one that I've wondered about myself. Then again, who's most like NW Europeans, NE Asians, so maybe we followed a similar path. I'm not saying that I'm the expert here. It just seems that NW Europeans seem particularly susceptible to the "we are world" crowd. You don't see Japan or China falling for this nonsense, even though they certainly have fallen for other types of nonsense.

    Regarding the ethnocentrism of Germans and a few others, it's true. However, to a degree, it's a bit of an outlier. I mean, the rest of Europe at the time certainly thought it a bit weird. Also, whether it be the Germans or the English in the 18th century, it remained a top-down affair. I certainly believe that as independent as we are in some ways, NW Europeans retain a naivete that leaves us open to be led by the nose by our leaders. If our leaders are ethnocentric, the population is; if it's not, we're not.

    Again, that comes back to the lack of tribalism. We don't look to local tribal leaders; we look to our elite regardless if they're a part of our tribe.

    I used to consider tribal an insult. I'm not so sure anymore. I believe that you need to have a bit of tribal feeling in you. At some point, you have to define us and them. And that definition can't be malleable or the clever bastards will manipulate it.

    I really believe that in the 21st Century, the big debate will be over tribalism vs globalism. In my happy world, you participate in globalism but retain your tribalism. I honestly think that the Japanese and Jews have it right.

    They'll still be around in a hundred years in the same form as today. I'm not so sure about whites and their countries.
  77. @njguy73
    Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely.
  78. @Mike Sylwester
    Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.

    .... the black and Hispanic percentages in the Clinton-Trump pairings are worthy of notice, if they prove (and we'll see more in subsequent polls) to be anywhere nearly accurate. Trump is said to be hated by most Hispanics, yet he runs about as well as the last two recent Republican nominees among them, while Clinton runs about 20 points lower than Obama. The numbers for blacks are more astounding. They have voted more than 85 percent Democratic in every presidential from 1964 to 2012. Here they are voting only 59 percent for the woman who is married to the man who used to be called America's first black president and who served as four years as secretary of state for the man who is actually America's first black president.

    Could this possibly be right? Maybe so, opine bloggers Mickey Kaus and Steve Sailer, who from very different points on the ideological spectrum favor significant cutbacks in immigration and who have had favorable things to say about Trump for that reason. Their hypothesis — and I think they don't advance it as more than that — is that blacks may see Hispanic immigrants as competitors for jobs and as driving down wages for unskilled work. Some analysts who lump "non-whites" together as a single bloc seem to believe that they see themselves as having a united interest in combatting white racism. But it seems implausible to me that most Hispanics and Asians — or that most blacks, for that matter — fear that whites want to impose pre-1960s Southern-style segregation on them or to disfavor them in more up-to-date ways. Certainly the "people of color" explanation is far less plausible than the Kaus-Sailer hypothesis.

    Black Americans voted (where and when they were allowed to vote) overwhelmingly for Republicans in elections between 1868 and 1932 (backing Hoover over Roosevelt) and have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in elections between 1964 and 2012. But in elections between 1936 and 1960 their votes were more evenly split, with the majority going to Democrats and a significant minority to Republicans (over 40 percent for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, over 30 percent for Richard Nixon in 1960). It has seemed likely that blacks will never again vote as heavily Democratic for president as they did for Barack Obama, but most analysts (including me) have expected their Democratic percentages to fall only marginally. The SurveyUSA result and the Kaus-Sailer thesis both raise the possibility that blacks' voting behavior is about to switch to something more like the 1936-64 period.
     

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545#.Ve4eEIIJNB0.twitter

    Michael Barone belatedly recognizes Steve Sailer.

    I always think maybe we are just a bunch of crazies hanging out in some dark corner of the web, then someone mainstream cites to Steve. Too bad we live in a world where everyone reads Sailer, but most feel like they can’t will admit to it.

  79. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    The birther things was indeed silly, because it didn’t matter where Obama was born, as long as we agree he’s Ann Dunham’s child. And, it was a distraction from focusing on his un-American upbrining, his alienation from American whites, his radical circle, his loony left appointments and most importantly his ideology and policies.

    I assumed that the birth certificate non-appearance was simply that it was embarrassing perhaps saying something like “unmarried” or “father unknown”.

    What i think Obama didn’t want was too much focus on his *actual* creation–which was black man, knocks up naive 17 year white girl and her and his child.

    This story, his story is absolutely bog-standard issue for “black-white relationships” and undermines Obama’s whole ludicrous narrative of “unlikely love”, and thought about more deeply, the entire “racial healing” justification for his candidacy. Thought about critically, unsentimentally, it’s a pretty great narrative for conservatives, race realists, HBDers, those of us who want to save our nation. So no surprise that Obama and the water-carrying establishment media didn’t want it discussed.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Complete editing failure on the key sentence. Make that:

    black man knocks up naive 17 year white girl and then abandons her and his child.

  80. @reiner Tor
    I'm not 100% sure. I have an Asian wife and although my wife's people are way more tribal and clannish, they also are lemmings the same way whites are. A very large percentage of their women would marry a white guy if given the chance, they worship white soccer stars and tennis players, etc. I'm under the impression that if somehow cultural Marxism (an anti-Asian variety, that is) became dominant in their culture, they'd fall victim to it just as much as whites do. Possibly even more, because they have a weaker tendency to revolt against societal norms (although a stronger tendency to bend the rules when no one is looking, so who knows).

    You also shouldn't forget how ethnocentric the Germans and some other Europeans were just a few generations before #refugeeswelcome.

    You definitely make a good point, one that I’ve wondered about myself. Then again, who’s most like NW Europeans, NE Asians, so maybe we followed a similar path. I’m not saying that I’m the expert here. It just seems that NW Europeans seem particularly susceptible to the “we are world” crowd. You don’t see Japan or China falling for this nonsense, even though they certainly have fallen for other types of nonsense.

    Regarding the ethnocentrism of Germans and a few others, it’s true. However, to a degree, it’s a bit of an outlier. I mean, the rest of Europe at the time certainly thought it a bit weird. Also, whether it be the Germans or the English in the 18th century, it remained a top-down affair. I certainly believe that as independent as we are in some ways, NW Europeans retain a naivete that leaves us open to be led by the nose by our leaders. If our leaders are ethnocentric, the population is; if it’s not, we’re not.

    Again, that comes back to the lack of tribalism. We don’t look to local tribal leaders; we look to our elite regardless if they’re a part of our tribe.

    I used to consider tribal an insult. I’m not so sure anymore. I believe that you need to have a bit of tribal feeling in you. At some point, you have to define us and them. And that definition can’t be malleable or the clever bastards will manipulate it.

    I really believe that in the 21st Century, the big debate will be over tribalism vs globalism. In my happy world, you participate in globalism but retain your tribalism. I honestly think that the Japanese and Jews have it right.

    They’ll still be around in a hundred years in the same form as today. I’m not so sure about whites and their countries.

  81. @MarkinLA
    This is the kind of crap that was inserted into the 1986 amnesty act to intentionally nullify the parts of the law that make knowingly hiring an illegal alien a crime. They make it a crime but provide a road map on how to skirt the law and even make it impossible to refuse to hire an illegal as long as he has the required but obviously phony documentation.

    Once the illegal showed up with the minimal paperwork required by law, these guys couldn't legally refuse to hire him. Sure Obama gets some blame for enforcing such a crappy law, but blame the people who wrote it and signed it into law more.

    If one looks at an I-9 form, it is pretty clear that you are not supposed to validate any documentation supplied by someone you have hired. The I-9 isn’t for “prospective employees”, but for people that have been hired. It is clear from a cursory reading of the rules for this that if someone shows up with a crayon-drawn “Divers License” (sic) as one of their documents that the employer is NOT supposed to attempt to verify this in any manner but take it as one of the required documents.

    This means the I-9 is a joke and there is no real attempt to prevent employers from hiring illegals. Why are people streaming across the southern border? Because a job here is available and pays at least 20x what a job – if you could get one – pays in rural Mexico. So anyone poor in Mexico is assisted onto a train by the Mexican government (who is glad to be rid of them) with probably a 5-10% risk of robbery, rape or accidental death. If they make it to the US, they then have to get to where there are jobs, often having to cross a desert without food, water or even a hat. Still, they come because of that 20x wage differential. Then they can send money home and their family will live like royalty.

    This is the face of illegal immigrant employment.

  82. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

    Diversity comes to the Heartland.

    I'm sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn't be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

    I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There's something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide - indeed, promotes it.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we're on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I'm not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I'm fighting our entire society so I'm a bit outgunned.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically.

    Things look grim, but that is where our brains and creativity are supposed to kick in and save the world.

    – Even if you are past breeding age, you can be involved in social change to influence birth rates and patterns. FYI, women are typically far more influential than men on social and family issues.
    – Build social infrastructure for your favored group. We need more than blogs.
    – Get involved in human genetics and understand which genes we want to preserve + extend.
    – Communicate your ideas with intelligence and humor.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I do what I can, mostly by trying to tell my children about European and American history and by comparing them to other civilizations. Basically, it's along the lines of holy crap, despite out warts and all, we did some amazing stuff. Most other countries just have the warts, though the NE Asian countries were/are pretty remarkable as well.

    I agree in the approach to discussing HBD. It has to be stealth and with humor. We can't all be as good as Sailer, but it's his approach that works. Don't be in their face. Just drop facts in a humorous way and let them sink in over time.

    Still, I catch a lot of ill-will for my views. It doesn't do my social life much good, though I don't care because I have my core friends and I'm married, so it's not like I'm trying to become prom king.
  83. @AnotherDad
    The birther things was indeed silly, because it didn't matter where Obama was born, as long as we agree he's Ann Dunham's child. And, it was a distraction from focusing on his un-American upbrining, his alienation from American whites, his radical circle, his loony left appointments and most importantly his ideology and policies.

    I assumed that the birth certificate non-appearance was simply that it was embarrassing perhaps saying something like "unmarried" or "father unknown".

    What i think Obama didn't want was too much focus on his *actual* creation--which was black man, knocks up naive 17 year white girl and her and his child.

    This story, his story is absolutely bog-standard issue for "black-white relationships" and undermines Obama's whole ludicrous narrative of "unlikely love", and thought about more deeply, the entire "racial healing" justification for his candidacy. Thought about critically, unsentimentally, it's a pretty great narrative for conservatives, race realists, HBDers, those of us who want to save our nation. So no surprise that Obama and the water-carrying establishment media didn't want it discussed.

    Complete editing failure on the key sentence. Make that:

    black man knocks up naive 17 year white girl and then abandons her and his child.

  84. @Prof. Woland
    It is often done with a wink and a nod. Without secure bio-metric ID each side can blame the other. Once the identity can be fully established up front then the employer is on the hook too which means they are subject to fines and penalties; and they are the ones with the deep pockets. If an illegal gets caught they just magically disappear and then reappear with their other cousin's name and social security number. Modernizing our ID will also make a fence 100 X more effective because once someone gets caught illegally entering they will fingered and automatically be prevented from working on a payroll which is why they come here in the first place. Ironically, this is what will make a true guest worker program work.

    The only thing that is needed to “solve” the immigration crisis is to enforce labor laws against employers. Hire and illegal, go to jail. How do you tell? Fax the documents to the Bureau of Labor, ICE or Border Protection. Let them be on the hook for a bad call. But skip that step and you go to jail.

    Right there, that eliminates 100% of the reason people keep coming to the US: Jobs. Without the ability to make lots more than they could at home, they won’t bother. When employers are faced with re-validating their current employees, tens of millions of illegals will pick up and head back home.

    All this takes is government enforcement. Without it, we will have the entire poor population of Mexico coming to the US to get a job that they cannot get at home. A fence is unnecessary, mass deportations are unnecessary.

  85. At the risk of being correctly accused of not having read the entire article and any comments … Does this mean that it is a crime to hire illegals, but also to determine that they are illegal?

    • Replies: @Gato de la Biblioteca
    Does this mean that it is a crime to hire illegals, but also to determine that they are illegal?

    Yes, but they will only come after you for the second part.
  86. @iSteveFan
    Watching the other side in this debate you can see that their number one priority is to let them in. Whether it's in the USA or Europe, they want them in. The more the better. And to facilitate this they will make disingenuous arguments, or just outright change their positions midstream.

    Case in point, in the 1990s the open border crowd denounced the evil employers who were profiting off the backs of illegals. The illegals, it was said, would not come to the USA if there were no jobs waiting for them. Withdraw the welcome mat and they won't come.

    Fair enough. So E-Verify comes along. And you know what, it worked. So now the same people who wanted us to stop attacking the illegals (punching down) and go after the employers (punching up) are doing everything they can to sabotage it. They realized that cracking down on employers works. And we can't have that otherwise it might interfere with the primary goal, to let them in.

    Now when they denounce the evil employers it is not because they are profiting off illegal labor. It is because they are not doing their part by offering jobs to the new arrivals. After all if you won't hire them, they might not come. And we can't have that. The more the better. The sooner the better. Employers must do their part and roll out the welcome mat.

    Here, here! Absolutely, I am of the opinion that what is needed is both some fine-tuning of E-Verify and nationwide, mandatory implementation. No more I-9 BS with being required to accept crayon forgeries of documents – fax it in and let the government say what is valid or what is not. I do think there needs to be substantial penalties like jail time for employers that bypass, evade or defraud E-Verify.

  87. @Muse
    The Feds are fairly specific about what they require to complete an I9 form.

    http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documentshttp://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents

    Potential employees that are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. regularly falsify these documents. The harassment of employers by the U.S. Government seeks to prevent a patriotic employer from doing due diligence when they know the applicant is providing fake social security documents. If employers can ask questions, the house of cards collapses.

    This procedure is the single most important component of immigration reform. A thousand times more important than any fence. You need it to cut the blood supply to the tumor, and e-verify is the knife.

    That is why the Feds are giving this employer trouble. They are ramping up for the fight over this administrative procedure. This is where the war in the trenches will be won or lost. People without jobs self-deport and the whole narrative collapses.

    The key with the I-9 is that the employer is specifically not allowed to validate any documents. This means someone can show up with a crayon forgery and it must, by law, be accepted.

    Someone has to verify the employment status, which is what E-Verify does. If this were required nationwide and there were teeth to require employers to use it, “illegal immigration” as we know it would be over.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Someone has to verify the employment status, which is what E-Verify does. If this were required nationwide and there were teeth to require employers to use it, “illegal immigration” as we know it would be over.
     
    That is what I kept saying for years - start giving real jail time to employers who hire illegals and the problem would be solved in no time. That it is not solved can only be interpreted as deliberate action. Cui bono?
  88. How can anyone still call this suicide when there is plainly a conspiracy by the western elites against their citizens.

  89. @anonymous
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    It is the American people who fail

    The hostile media are the primary cause.

  90. @Massimo Heitor

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically.
     
    Things look grim, but that is where our brains and creativity are supposed to kick in and save the world.

    - Even if you are past breeding age, you can be involved in social change to influence birth rates and patterns. FYI, women are typically far more influential than men on social and family issues.
    - Build social infrastructure for your favored group. We need more than blogs.
    - Get involved in human genetics and understand which genes we want to preserve + extend.
    - Communicate your ideas with intelligence and humor.

    I do what I can, mostly by trying to tell my children about European and American history and by comparing them to other civilizations. Basically, it’s along the lines of holy crap, despite out warts and all, we did some amazing stuff. Most other countries just have the warts, though the NE Asian countries were/are pretty remarkable as well.

    I agree in the approach to discussing HBD. It has to be stealth and with humor. We can’t all be as good as Sailer, but it’s his approach that works. Don’t be in their face. Just drop facts in a humorous way and let them sink in over time.

    Still, I catch a lot of ill-will for my views. It doesn’t do my social life much good, though I don’t care because I have my core friends and I’m married, so it’s not like I’m trying to become prom king.

  91. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Of course not, it's more like sickle cell. It impacts some populations and not others.

    Look, my point is that due to banning of cousin marriage and a host of other cultural/demographic pressures, the vast majority of whites (or, at least, NW Europeans) may have lost their ability to feel tribal on an ethnic basis. Sure, we'll be tribal over our sports teams or even our country, but those are bonds of a shared organization, not shared blood. It leaves us open to anyone who want to change the definition of who's a member of an organization.

    We simply have a hard time saying, "I am English or American white or German. I am for these people because they are my people, my blood, my family. You are not my kind, stay out. No exceptions."

    That loss of tribal bonds may have worked quite well from ~1500 to ~1965. It allowed NE Europeans to form large states, complex military units, corporations and democratic republics. It certainly contributed to the industrial revolution.

    But as communication and mobility increased in the 3rd world, we faced a different environment, one where people simply start moving to your country, asking to come in. Since we're not tribal, our only defense is questioning whether this immigration is good or bad for the economy, not whether it is good or bad for my tribe.

    We've replaced our tribal leaders with economists - many of whom are, in fact, tribal but not of our tribe. Not a good trade.

    In the world that we live in, not being able to identify tribally likely dooms you genetically sooner or later. The Israelis understand this, so do the Japanese and most of the world.

    In principle we could restrict immigration to our dominant ethnicity by citing Professor Robert Putnam’s research showing that diversity causes a loss of community.

  92. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

    Diversity comes to the Heartland.

    I'm sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn't be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

    I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There's something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide - indeed, promotes it.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we're on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I'm not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I'm fighting our entire society so I'm a bit outgunned.

    It’s the media – obviously.

    We’re in a gulag – the media are the secret police and camp guards.

  93. @rod1963
    Oh this you could see stuff like this coming a mile away. In Obama's upbringing, his books, his choices for advisers during his first campaign all pointed to a very anti-white, anti-American administration once he got into power and boy did he give us one.

    He didn't hide anything.

    The media hid it.

  94. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

    Diversity comes to the Heartland.

    I'm sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn't be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

    I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There's something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide - indeed, promotes it.

    As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we're on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I'm not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I'm fighting our entire society so I'm a bit outgunned.

    There’s something seriously [email protected]#$*d-up with whites.

    You have a point about racial differences – whites less tribal etc – but that in itself wouldn’t stop people acting in their self interest if the media told the truth.

    The primary driving force behind white flight is the gang rape of 14 year old girls in and around the schools and the primary cause of that is gender imbalance from for example

    1) mass immigration being disproportionately young males

    or

    2) an even population but where the Muslim component keep their young girls at home while the Muslim males compete for girlfriends from other groups

    Neither of those situations require any kind of racial animosity – just a simple recognition of supply and demand.

    White liberals in theory could incorporate those factors into a sane immigration policy without contradicting liberal ideals but they don’t

    because the media lies.

  95. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Of course not, it's more like sickle cell. It impacts some populations and not others.

    Look, my point is that due to banning of cousin marriage and a host of other cultural/demographic pressures, the vast majority of whites (or, at least, NW Europeans) may have lost their ability to feel tribal on an ethnic basis. Sure, we'll be tribal over our sports teams or even our country, but those are bonds of a shared organization, not shared blood. It leaves us open to anyone who want to change the definition of who's a member of an organization.

    We simply have a hard time saying, "I am English or American white or German. I am for these people because they are my people, my blood, my family. You are not my kind, stay out. No exceptions."

    That loss of tribal bonds may have worked quite well from ~1500 to ~1965. It allowed NE Europeans to form large states, complex military units, corporations and democratic republics. It certainly contributed to the industrial revolution.

    But as communication and mobility increased in the 3rd world, we faced a different environment, one where people simply start moving to your country, asking to come in. Since we're not tribal, our only defense is questioning whether this immigration is good or bad for the economy, not whether it is good or bad for my tribe.

    We've replaced our tribal leaders with economists - many of whom are, in fact, tribal but not of our tribe. Not a good trade.

    In the world that we live in, not being able to identify tribally likely dooms you genetically sooner or later. The Israelis understand this, so do the Japanese and most of the world.

    People are even criticized for cheering for their own children in sports, while it is perfectly ok to cheer for a foreigner of a different race and religion, who might not even speak English.

  96. @njguy73
    Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely.

    “Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely.”

    I don’t doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is indeed ludicrous to think his mother would have dragged him to the depths of Africa to be born. And for what?

    However, who decided that he was a natural born citizen? He was the child of a foreign (non-citizen) father and an underaged mother. I would think that being a natural born citizen would require more than that. Who decided he was?

    It is also possible that his mother renounced his US citizenship when they moved to Indonesia, and that he never reapplied for it. His SSN was from a block of numbers issued to people in Connecticut at a time when he lived in Hawaii, and I believe there was something likewise hinky about his selective-service number. His pedigree is certainly a lot more obscure than any one else who ever ran for President.

    • Replies: @Truth
    "However, who decided that he was a natural born citizen? He was the child of a foreign (non-citizen) father and an underaged mother. I would think that being a natural born citizen would require more than that. Who decided he was?"

    If you are born on American soil, at least until Your Boy Donald gets elected, you are a natural born citizen will full American rights and privileges, including the right to be President. Any other viewpoint on this is foolish.
    , @anonymous
    What does his mother being underage when he was born have to do with Obama's citizenship? She was a citizen, he was born in the U.S. However you construe the 14th amendment, how is Obama not a citizen - just like John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Ted Bundy, and other citizens of like moral stature? Even his father, although a noncitizen, was living in the country legally at the time. That's a black mark against the Eisenhower administration, which let Obama Sr. in.

    The political dysfunction of the American people is well illustrated by the tendency of Americans with real political grievances to get sidetracked into irrelevant obsessions, like this "birtherism" idiocy or support for Putin, to take another example.

    Incidentally, I can believe that Obama allowed his publisher to misrepresent him as a native of Kenya in their promotional material back in the 90s, but, if true, this no longer has any political salience.
    , @Bill Jones
    I think this is the core issue that's being swept under the rug

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamathelovechild.php
  97. @TWS
    Washington state dems followed the 'Soros' strategy to get the Secretary of State's spot for hard core dems. Now they just recount until the Dems win and drop investigations of criminal wrong doing.

    It isn’t just the Soros strategy. It is a Soros funded campaign. He has been backing groups around the country that have concentrated on winning Secretary of State slots. Because, as Stalin pointed out, who votes is often less important than who counts the votes.

  98. Trumpenprole [AKA "Haven Monahan"] says:
    @anonymous
    This is what the American citizens voted for twice. It is the American people who fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to take their own side. That is why the American nation is dying.

    We never got a proper accounting of the voter fraud that went on, because why would they investigated their own side? The Cuckpublicans didn’t care because their Donor Patrons didn’t tell them to care. We will never know the truth about the degree to which this cuckoo president was elected or not.

  99. @Mr. Anon
    "#BlackJobsMatter, but not to the Obama Administration."

    Nor, as far as I can tell, to black Americans, aside from the few Uncle Toms that FOX News interviews from time-to-time. Blacks still seem to see Obama as Malcolm X, Jesus, and Santa all rolled into one. Well, at least Obama is partly on their side, so they've got better sense than the whites who still support him.

    I am not sure that white nationalists who “care” about African-American employment are really going to convince anybody otherwise.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Who here is a white nationalist? I'm sure there are some, but it doesn't seem to be a majority. As to my comments: I was making an observation. I neither care nor do I pretend to care.
  100. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    At the risk of being correctly accused of not having read the entire article and any comments ... Does this mean that it is a crime to hire illegals, but also to determine that they are illegal?

    Does this mean that it is a crime to hire illegals, but also to determine that they are illegal?

    Yes, but they will only come after you for the second part.

  101. OT, but looks like ¡Jeb! is making nice to former anchor babies:

    https://next.ft.com/89fd74d8-563e-11e5-a28b-50226830d644

  102. @Mike Sylwester
    Eventually -- baby steps -- Barone will change the order from "the Kaus-Sailer thesis" to "the Sailer-Kaus thesis".

    ???? I didn’t “Disagree” this. I must have touched the button by accident while I was scrolling on my iPhone. It’s not the first time I’ve accidentally hit a button while scrolling.

  103. I’d like to hear more realistic actions that can be taken beyond complaining on the Internet and casting a meaningless vote.

    I’ve got a pre-med, a bunch of biology + genetics coursework, and I’m a master programmer. I’d like to use some of that knowledge to help in some way. My eugenics ideas got shot down at grad school interviews 🙁 I am still pursuing more coursework.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I hope you don't classify the following as mere complaining on the Internet, but I would find it very helpful if someone could offer a guide on how to--with maximum anonymity-- a) post on Twitter, b) post comments here and elsewhere on the Internet, c) communicate via email, and d) publish a blog.

    I would pay a consulting fee.

    All these things grow awareness and numbers and will eventually begin to enable real world networking and support.

    See horizontal transmission article at:

    www.kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com
  104. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    The birther theories never added up for me either, but at the same time I found it off-putting that the Obama campaign’s response was a contemptuous brush-off. Why couldn’t they just show us the damned birth certificate?

    What they were showing us, for quite a while, was this laser-printed thing issued by Hawaii, attesting to their having the real birth certificate in some vault — “but we can’t release it without Obama’s consent”, or some such nonsense. I think it was finally October 2008 when we finally got to see an image of the real birth certificate.

    My recollection of Trump’s position was not that he thought Obama was a Kenyan, but just “show us the damned certificate, if you have it”.

    The other thing that was off-putting was the clear message that even if Obama was somehow ineligible under the Constitution, they didn’t care. Of course today it’s a lot less shocking to learn that Obama fans place him above the Constitution.

    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama to pull people away from the very simple, Constitutional fact that Obama Sr. was a British citizen at Obama Jr's birth and British law held that Jr. was a British citizen first and foremost for the first few years of his life, regardless of the location of his birth. I don't believe any of the Manchurian Candidate theories (see Chester Arthur, father British citizen at time of CA's birth). The country wasn't radically changed because of Arthur, and Obama, either. However, the conversation needs to be had about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen and loyalty to country and Oath, and the Obama people were very uncomfortable about such a national conversation.
  105. @anonymous
    As other commenters here have noted, whatever may be said of earlier years, by 2008, it was perfectly clear to any attentive member of the public that any Democratic president, and BHO in particular, given his ideological and urban machine background, would move toward amnesty, one way or another, through the constitutional legislative process or otherwise. Enough voters chose to focus on the exhilaration of electing a black president rather than on the interests of their own children to put Obama in office.

    To be fair, one could have anticipated a McCain administration doing something like this, though some things Obama has done (e.g. airlifting "refugees" from Central America to the US on the pretext of high crime rates) probably would have been too extreme even for McCain.

    American voters exercise the franchise capriciously and emotionally, without any reasoned concept of how their votes will advance their own interests.

    To be fair, one could have anticipated a McCain administration doing something like this, though some things Obama has done (e.g. airlifting “refugees” from Central America to the US on the pretext of high crime rates) probably would have been too extreme even for McCain.

    Even if Obama is slightly to the left of McCain on amnesty, McCain was a much greater danger. For one thing, amnesty was one of his two signature issues. Obama waited until after his reelection to even try.

    Worse still, McCain would have been able, as leader of the GOP, to get a “tough, conservative” amnesty bill with “fines, back taxes, learn English” BS past the House. It almost passed the House anyway, even with the anti-Obama taint on it.

    Also most of Obama’s executive amnesty was blocked by the Texas federal judge, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refusing to unblock it. Kaus gets credit for predicting this before the suit was even filed. I thought a legal challenge would be hopeless after seeing how hostile the courts were to the Arizona laws.

    So the McCain result would have been a ’86 style disaster, Obama is just gave us an easily reversed partial amnesty that may never take effect.

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @anonymous
    If Bush couldn't pass the amnesty bill during his second term, why would McCain have been able to do it a few years later? If McCain had tried to do it, it would have blown up in his face, just as it did for W.

    I could see McCain totally failing to enforce the law against employing illegal aliens, but I don't think he would have gone as far as suing employers for trying to avoid employing them, which is what the Obama DOJ has done.
  106. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Massimo Heitor
    I'd like to hear more realistic actions that can be taken beyond complaining on the Internet and casting a meaningless vote.

    I've got a pre-med, a bunch of biology + genetics coursework, and I'm a master programmer. I'd like to use some of that knowledge to help in some way. My eugenics ideas got shot down at grad school interviews :( I am still pursuing more coursework.

    I hope you don’t classify the following as mere complaining on the Internet, but I would find it very helpful if someone could offer a guide on how to–with maximum anonymity– a) post on Twitter, b) post comments here and elsewhere on the Internet, c) communicate via email, and d) publish a blog.

    I would pay a consulting fee.

    All these things grow awareness and numbers and will eventually begin to enable real world networking and support.

    See horizontal transmission article at:

    http://www.kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Just download Tor Browser: https://www.torproject.org/
  107. @Luke Lea
    If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    I doubt it will hurt him much. I've long suspected, not that Obama was born in Kenya, but that his Muslim Kenyan father insisted that Muslim be entered as his religion on his original birth certificate and that his non-religious mother acquiesced.

    That embarrassing fact, if true, would fully account for Obama's reluctance to reveal the long-form version of his birth certificate. (It would also raise the interesting question of whether he could be considered an apostate from Islam; Westerners wouldn't think so, but radical Muslims might disagree.)

    It would also raise the interesting question of whether he could be considered an apostate from Islam; Westerners wouldn’t think so, but radical Muslims might disagree.

    They’ve had more than enough time to enforce the punishment this crime calls for. Have you noticed any attempts? I haven’t.

    Christians in Africa were disgusted by the rainbow lights on the White House, but Mo’s army were silent. The “radical Muslims” probably think, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

  108. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    The strongest evidence that Obama was born in this country is that if he weren’t, he’d show a lot more appreciation for it.

  109. @International Jew
    The birther theories never added up for me either, but at the same time I found it off-putting that the Obama campaign's response was a contemptuous brush-off. Why couldn't they just show us the damned birth certificate?

    What they were showing us, for quite a while, was this laser-printed thing issued by Hawaii, attesting to their having the real birth certificate in some vault -- "but we can't release it without Obama's consent", or some such nonsense. I think it was finally October 2008 when we finally got to see an image of the real birth certificate.

    My recollection of Trump's position was not that he thought Obama was a Kenyan, but just "show us the damned certificate, if you have it".

    The other thing that was off-putting was the clear message that even if Obama was somehow ineligible under the Constitution, they didn't care. Of course today it's a lot less shocking to learn that Obama fans place him above the Constitution.

    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama to pull people away from the very simple, Constitutional fact that Obama Sr. was a British citizen at Obama Jr’s birth and British law held that Jr. was a British citizen first and foremost for the first few years of his life, regardless of the location of his birth. I don’t believe any of the Manchurian Candidate theories (see Chester Arthur, father British citizen at time of CA’s birth). The country wasn’t radically changed because of Arthur, and Obama, either. However, the conversation needs to be had about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen and loyalty to country and Oath, and the Obama people were very uncomfortable about such a national conversation.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama…
     
    I've long suspected the same, because it's the only scenario cynical enough to fit the nature of his party.
    , @snorlax

    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama
     
    They were created by Hillary Clinton backers, along with "Obama is a Muslim" and a few more that didn't catch on (like "Obama did cocaine in the back of a limo with a gay prostitute").

    to pull people away from the very simple, Constitutional fact that Obama Sr. was a British citizen at Obama Jr’s birth
     
    Kenyans were not British citizens (thankfully for the British).
  110. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    its really hard to figure out how to organize to fight this when I would probably be fired just for reading Sailer by my far left employer. Giving money to Trump would be a problem. The Mozilla CEO got fired just for donating to a proposition.

    But Sailer and company has pushed me from down the line Democratic voter to a a Trump voter- if he doesn’t go weak-knead on immigration, so there could be hope for other men. Liberal women aren’t going to change.

  111. @ben tillman

    The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.
     
    This can't be right. US citizens don't have any immigration status.

    It is a bizarre, Alice-in-Wonderland paragraph…..Franz Kafka could not be reached for comment..

  112. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @PaulExChandler
    The key with the I-9 is that the employer is specifically not allowed to validate any documents. This means someone can show up with a crayon forgery and it must, by law, be accepted.

    Someone has to verify the employment status, which is what E-Verify does. If this were required nationwide and there were teeth to require employers to use it, "illegal immigration" as we know it would be over.

    Someone has to verify the employment status, which is what E-Verify does. If this were required nationwide and there were teeth to require employers to use it, “illegal immigration” as we know it would be over.

    That is what I kept saying for years – start giving real jail time to employers who hire illegals and the problem would be solved in no time. That it is not solved can only be interpreted as deliberate action. Cui bono?

  113. @Mr. Anon
    "Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely."

    I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is indeed ludicrous to think his mother would have dragged him to the depths of Africa to be born. And for what?

    However, who decided that he was a natural born citizen? He was the child of a foreign (non-citizen) father and an underaged mother. I would think that being a natural born citizen would require more than that. Who decided he was?

    It is also possible that his mother renounced his US citizenship when they moved to Indonesia, and that he never reapplied for it. His SSN was from a block of numbers issued to people in Connecticut at a time when he lived in Hawaii, and I believe there was something likewise hinky about his selective-service number. His pedigree is certainly a lot more obscure than any one else who ever ran for President.

    “However, who decided that he was a natural born citizen? He was the child of a foreign (non-citizen) father and an underaged mother. I would think that being a natural born citizen would require more than that. Who decided he was?”

    If you are born on American soil, at least until Your Boy Donald gets elected, you are a natural born citizen will full American rights and privileges, including the right to be President. Any other viewpoint on this is foolish.

  114. @Anon
    I am not sure that white nationalists who "care" about African-American employment are really going to convince anybody otherwise.

    Who here is a white nationalist? I’m sure there are some, but it doesn’t seem to be a majority. As to my comments: I was making an observation. I neither care nor do I pretend to care.

  115. @Ron Mexico
    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama to pull people away from the very simple, Constitutional fact that Obama Sr. was a British citizen at Obama Jr's birth and British law held that Jr. was a British citizen first and foremost for the first few years of his life, regardless of the location of his birth. I don't believe any of the Manchurian Candidate theories (see Chester Arthur, father British citizen at time of CA's birth). The country wasn't radically changed because of Arthur, and Obama, either. However, the conversation needs to be had about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen and loyalty to country and Oath, and the Obama people were very uncomfortable about such a national conversation.

    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama…

    I’ve long suspected the same, because it’s the only scenario cynical enough to fit the nature of his party.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Same thing with the loony 911 truther "theories", were probably spread by neocons and/or their backers.
  116. @Reg Cæsar

    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama…
     
    I've long suspected the same, because it's the only scenario cynical enough to fit the nature of his party.

    Same thing with the loony 911 truther “theories”, were probably spread by neocons and/or their backers.

  117. @Clyde
    California is beyond Trump but he could easily take very liberal NY State. He could take liberal Maryland. Perhaps Massachusetts which now has a Republican governor although the two legislatures have been Democrat for a few decades. Winning the electoral votes of three out of four very liberal states will be quite something!
    Trump can take Oregon and Washington state. Both states have two Democrat US Senators and Democrat governors too. With the bonus of Oregon's bloodless governess Kate Brown. wikipedia>>>"She identifies as bisexual and is the country's first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor.[10][21][22][23]"

    “California is beyond Trump but he could easily take very liberal NY State. He could take liberal Maryland. Perhaps Massachusetts which now has a Republican governor although the two legislatures have been Democrat for a few decades. Winning the electoral votes of three out of four very liberal states will be quite something!
    Trump can take Oregon and Washington state. Both states have two Democrat US Senators and Democrat governors too. With the bonus of Oregon’s bloodless governess Kate Brown. wikipedia>>>”She identifies as bisexual and is the country’s first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor.[10][21][22][23]“”

    Donald Trump can easily win The 2016 presidential election if he wins the states that George W. Bush won in 2004, but John McCain and Mitt Romney lost.

  118. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    To be fair, one could have anticipated a McCain administration doing something like this, though some things Obama has done (e.g. airlifting “refugees” from Central America to the US on the pretext of high crime rates) probably would have been too extreme even for McCain.
     
    Even if Obama is slightly to the left of McCain on amnesty, McCain was a much greater danger. For one thing, amnesty was one of his two signature issues. Obama waited until after his reelection to even try.

    Worse still, McCain would have been able, as leader of the GOP, to get a "tough, conservative" amnesty bill with "fines, back taxes, learn English" BS past the House. It almost passed the House anyway, even with the anti-Obama taint on it.

    Also most of Obama's executive amnesty was blocked by the Texas federal judge, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refusing to unblock it. Kaus gets credit for predicting this before the suit was even filed. I thought a legal challenge would be hopeless after seeing how hostile the courts were to the Arizona laws.

    So the McCain result would have been a '86 style disaster, Obama is just gave us an easily reversed partial amnesty that may never take effect.

    If Bush couldn’t pass the amnesty bill during his second term, why would McCain have been able to do it a few years later? If McCain had tried to do it, it would have blown up in his face, just as it did for W.

    I could see McCain totally failing to enforce the law against employing illegal aliens, but I don’t think he would have gone as far as suing employers for trying to avoid employing them, which is what the Obama DOJ has done.

  119. @Ron Mexico
    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama to pull people away from the very simple, Constitutional fact that Obama Sr. was a British citizen at Obama Jr's birth and British law held that Jr. was a British citizen first and foremost for the first few years of his life, regardless of the location of his birth. I don't believe any of the Manchurian Candidate theories (see Chester Arthur, father British citizen at time of CA's birth). The country wasn't radically changed because of Arthur, and Obama, either. However, the conversation needs to be had about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen and loyalty to country and Oath, and the Obama people were very uncomfortable about such a national conversation.

    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama

    They were created by Hillary Clinton backers, along with “Obama is a Muslim” and a few more that didn’t catch on (like “Obama did cocaine in the back of a limo with a gay prostitute”).

    to pull people away from the very simple, Constitutional fact that Obama Sr. was a British citizen at Obama Jr’s birth

    Kenyans were not British citizens (thankfully for the British).

    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    Yes they were until 1964 I think.
  120. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely."

    I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is indeed ludicrous to think his mother would have dragged him to the depths of Africa to be born. And for what?

    However, who decided that he was a natural born citizen? He was the child of a foreign (non-citizen) father and an underaged mother. I would think that being a natural born citizen would require more than that. Who decided he was?

    It is also possible that his mother renounced his US citizenship when they moved to Indonesia, and that he never reapplied for it. His SSN was from a block of numbers issued to people in Connecticut at a time when he lived in Hawaii, and I believe there was something likewise hinky about his selective-service number. His pedigree is certainly a lot more obscure than any one else who ever ran for President.

    What does his mother being underage when he was born have to do with Obama’s citizenship? She was a citizen, he was born in the U.S. However you construe the 14th amendment, how is Obama not a citizen – just like John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Ted Bundy, and other citizens of like moral stature? Even his father, although a noncitizen, was living in the country legally at the time. That’s a black mark against the Eisenhower administration, which let Obama Sr. in.

    The political dysfunction of the American people is well illustrated by the tendency of Americans with real political grievances to get sidetracked into irrelevant obsessions, like this “birtherism” idiocy or support for Putin, to take another example.

    Incidentally, I can believe that Obama allowed his publisher to misrepresent him as a native of Kenya in their promotional material back in the 90s, but, if true, this no longer has any political salience.

  121. It would be helpful to people trying to obey the law for the DOJ to explain exactly what they thought Nebraska Beef was doing. Based on the settlement document and some of the general guidance the DOJ had published, my guess is that the company was alleged to have accepted a driver’s license and social security card from people who said they were citizens, but required green cards from people who said they were legal immigrants, even if they had a driver’s license and social security card.

    Checking employable status is a pain – there are a few things you absolutely have to do, and a lot more you absolutely can’t do. Pretty much every business owner needs a good HR lawyer on retainer. (Welcome to the regulatory state!)

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    At least last time I checked, the two fake documents of choice where the green card and social security cards. The green cards might be harder to forge now but they used to just be green cards; literally.
    , @Ttjy
    I worked for a large company that was bought out by another. The new company made everybody bring in a passport, visa or birth certificate if I remember correctly. No ss cards or drivers license. I guess they had better lawyers.
  122. @Luke Lea
    If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    I doubt it will hurt him much. I've long suspected, not that Obama was born in Kenya, but that his Muslim Kenyan father insisted that Muslim be entered as his religion on his original birth certificate and that his non-religious mother acquiesced.

    That embarrassing fact, if true, would fully account for Obama's reluctance to reveal the long-form version of his birth certificate. (It would also raise the interesting question of whether he could be considered an apostate from Islam; Westerners wouldn't think so, but radical Muslims might disagree.)

    When President Obama was conceived, his mother would have been 17 and his father 24. These days, there are several states where that would be considered statutory rape, and even where legal, it’s a situation that a lot of women and also men with daughters, might find distasteful. At the time of the controversy, I don’t know how many dates were widely available to enable unflattering inferences. But if just enough but not all the information was out there, immediately revealing the birth certificate could have cost Obama support from people who might have actually voted for him –without winning any from “birthers” already devoted to his defeat. By waiting to reveal the certificate, Team Obama was also able to represent their candidate as having been treated unfairly (because he was black and had a foreign-sounding name), –a theme that remains popular with the President’s most loyal supporters when discussing his subsequent relationship with Congress and overall job performance).

    Primarily though, I think Obama probably felt insulted to be questioned about his birth in Hawaii, especially given that his opponent at the time had been born in Panama Canal Zone.

  123. @ben tillman

    I’m not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.
     
    And Trump can say, "Obama wrote a book, and the 'about the author' blurb said Obama was born in Kenya." And then he can hold up the book and read the passage in question.

    Exactly. He will just brazen it out and attack his critics, and in so doing will bring to light that very strange blurb episode. What will the media do then? Will they go wall-to-wall with the explanation that Obama never actually read the author blurb written about him by his publisher? Will they say Obama lied about being born in Kenya? The latter is the more likely explanation in my view, but neither one looks good. No way is this a winning issue for Democrats/media to bring up when they know Trump will fight back and not according to their rules.

  124. @Anonymous
    I hope you don't classify the following as mere complaining on the Internet, but I would find it very helpful if someone could offer a guide on how to--with maximum anonymity-- a) post on Twitter, b) post comments here and elsewhere on the Internet, c) communicate via email, and d) publish a blog.

    I would pay a consulting fee.

    All these things grow awareness and numbers and will eventually begin to enable real world networking and support.

    See horizontal transmission article at:

    www.kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com

    Just download Tor Browser: https://www.torproject.org/

  125. @Mr. Anon
    "Sailer himself demonstrated that for Obama to have been born in Kenya, Obama Sr would have had to take his pregnant girlfriend/student on a 100 hour trip from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961. Not likely."

    I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is indeed ludicrous to think his mother would have dragged him to the depths of Africa to be born. And for what?

    However, who decided that he was a natural born citizen? He was the child of a foreign (non-citizen) father and an underaged mother. I would think that being a natural born citizen would require more than that. Who decided he was?

    It is also possible that his mother renounced his US citizenship when they moved to Indonesia, and that he never reapplied for it. His SSN was from a block of numbers issued to people in Connecticut at a time when he lived in Hawaii, and I believe there was something likewise hinky about his selective-service number. His pedigree is certainly a lot more obscure than any one else who ever ran for President.

    I think this is the core issue that’s being swept under the rug

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamathelovechild.php

  126. @Mr. Anon
    It is silly to think that Obama was born in Kenya. However it is not silly to think that he may not actually be a citizen or at least a natural born citizen. There are plenty of oddities in his paper-trail - his SSN, his Selective Service registration - to allow one to entertain the idea that there is something in his background that is not on the up-and-up.

    Short of an actual certified DNA test, I think the evidence is substantial that B-Ho deliberately allowed Birther to go on and on, and that mainstream media may have provoked and prodded it, as a diversion from the real issue, which is that his real father is not B-Ho Sr.

    But that would have nothing to do with SSA or Selective Service issues. Maybe there is a second issue here. Would not astonish me. Clearly, a community organizer with a personality wholly unsuited to organizing anyone to do anything with a 100 IQ and a Harvard Law degree bears the most intense scrutiny. He’s received none whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Or maybe Obama letting the Birther controversy go on and on was both amusing and politically profitable to Obama?
  127. @Former Darfur
    Short of an actual certified DNA test, I think the evidence is substantial that B-Ho deliberately allowed Birther to go on and on, and that mainstream media may have provoked and prodded it, as a diversion from the real issue, which is that his real father is not B-Ho Sr.

    But that would have nothing to do with SSA or Selective Service issues. Maybe there is a second issue here. Would not astonish me. Clearly, a community organizer with a personality wholly unsuited to organizing anyone to do anything with a 100 IQ and a Harvard Law degree bears the most intense scrutiny. He's received none whatsoever.

    Or maybe Obama letting the Birther controversy go on and on was both amusing and politically profitable to Obama?

  128. @snorlax

    I maintain that the birther theories were cooked up and served to the public by people backing Obama
     
    They were created by Hillary Clinton backers, along with "Obama is a Muslim" and a few more that didn't catch on (like "Obama did cocaine in the back of a limo with a gay prostitute").

    to pull people away from the very simple, Constitutional fact that Obama Sr. was a British citizen at Obama Jr’s birth
     
    Kenyans were not British citizens (thankfully for the British).

    Yes they were until 1964 I think.

  129. @J Mann
    It would be helpful to people trying to obey the law for the DOJ to explain exactly what they thought Nebraska Beef was doing. Based on the settlement document and some of the general guidance the DOJ had published, my guess is that the company was alleged to have accepted a driver's license and social security card from people who said they were citizens, but required green cards from people who said they were legal immigrants, even if they had a driver's license and social security card.

    Checking employable status is a pain - there are a few things you absolutely have to do, and a lot more you absolutely can't do. Pretty much every business owner needs a good HR lawyer on retainer. (Welcome to the regulatory state!)

    At least last time I checked, the two fake documents of choice where the green card and social security cards. The green cards might be harder to forge now but they used to just be green cards; literally.

  130. wow,…..better leave the USA now if you can.

  131. @Clyde
    California is beyond Trump but he could easily take very liberal NY State. He could take liberal Maryland. Perhaps Massachusetts which now has a Republican governor although the two legislatures have been Democrat for a few decades. Winning the electoral votes of three out of four very liberal states will be quite something!
    Trump can take Oregon and Washington state. Both states have two Democrat US Senators and Democrat governors too. With the bonus of Oregon's bloodless governess Kate Brown. wikipedia>>>"She identifies as bisexual and is the country's first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor.[10][21][22][23]"

    The People’s Commonwealth has a Republican governor only in the broadest definition of the name. Nice guy, though.

  132. @J Mann
    It would be helpful to people trying to obey the law for the DOJ to explain exactly what they thought Nebraska Beef was doing. Based on the settlement document and some of the general guidance the DOJ had published, my guess is that the company was alleged to have accepted a driver's license and social security card from people who said they were citizens, but required green cards from people who said they were legal immigrants, even if they had a driver's license and social security card.

    Checking employable status is a pain - there are a few things you absolutely have to do, and a lot more you absolutely can't do. Pretty much every business owner needs a good HR lawyer on retainer. (Welcome to the regulatory state!)

    I worked for a large company that was bought out by another. The new company made everybody bring in a passport, visa or birth certificate if I remember correctly. No ss cards or drivers license. I guess they had better lawyers.

    • Replies: @J Mann
    Nebraska Beef was accused of requiring different documents for non-citizens; maybe it's OK to have higher requirements as long as you apply them to everybody.
  133. @Blair
    cousin marriage is still legal in many states in the USA

    cousin marriage is still legal in many states in the USA

    It’s restricted by law in about half the states and, according to Wikipedia’s map, nowhere else in the world. It is still rare in the West, but you can thank the Church for that, not the state.

  134. @Ttjy
    I worked for a large company that was bought out by another. The new company made everybody bring in a passport, visa or birth certificate if I remember correctly. No ss cards or drivers license. I guess they had better lawyers.

    Nebraska Beef was accused of requiring different documents for non-citizens; maybe it’s OK to have higher requirements as long as you apply them to everybody.

  135. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not that serious about it. If Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will unleash upon him his involvement in the silly birther controversy.

    The only mystery now is why Obama released a birth certificate in response to Trump’s campaign in 2011.

    Before that moment, the birther controversy worked entirely in Obama’s favor, by painting the Republicans as racist mouth-breathers. I don’t know why Obama acquiesced to Trump’s demands. Was he in danger of losing support from the lumpenproles of the Democrat base?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS