Category Archives: Immigration

Conservatives Stab Trump in Back Over Immigration Misunderstanding

Rep. Steve King, Ann Coulter, Rush, others, have condemned Trump’s “softening” on immigration amnesty. But amnesty is not the primary issue. Rep. Steve King, it should be added, also declared (previously) he could work with Hillary. With allies like this…

In so doing, they’ve helped soften Trump’s base of supporters. Voters are not rational, and this perceived flip-flop will harm Trump’s base. It feeds to the CruzCult that Trump is less of a conservative than Cruz, despite how Cruz flipped quite a bit even on immigration.

Trump’s mistake is how, early on, he focused overmuch on the wall and on a deportation force; when we already have a deportation force, and neither are the primary immigration issue.

Also, Trump has confused supporters and critics with his rhetoric, exaggeration. If you look at his website, there is little mention of deportation. This is not new.

What many supporters are failing to understand is illegals would self-deport under a Trump presidency, assuming Congress passes and funds much of his plan.

Each amnesty we’ve had over the years has been followed by another amnesty, then another. This is what must end. Trump must agree to a partial amnesty for those remaining here only after most of the rest of his plan is in place.

Ann Coulter writes:

“First step: Build the wall. Second step: Let ICE do its job. Third step: Stop importing jihadists and welfare recipients. Fourth step: enforce e-verify to protect American jobs. Fifth step: prosecute social security card/ID theft/voting fraud.

“Then, once ALL the borders are secure, the criminals gone, our vote and jobs secure, and the Third World no longer pouring in — we’ll get to what to do with the illegals still here.”

What is Coulter saying? Grant partial amnesty.

With immigration, numbers are key. Legal, illegal, it’s the numbers that matter. If Trump reduces legal immigration while granting amnesty to a few hundred thousand remaining illegals, we have an actual win.

Thanks to Trump, we’re increasingly seeing how many things are driven by money in this society. Hopefully under Trump we see populism win an actual battle for once, do more than merely slow the moneyed interests down.

George Borjas Asks Congress Why No Lawyer Guest Workers

I’m late posting this, but George Borjas is “a person who matters” on immigration. He recently testified in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Borjas proposes:

[I]nstead of talking about an H-1B program that lets in 65,000 high-tech workers (workers that most people attending those hearings have little in common with), we should instead think about an A-1B program that lets in 65,000 attorneys. These attorneys would have passed some sort of certification exam prepared by the American Bar Association. The test could be very, very hard, but I bet that Kaplan-like test centers would magically spring up all over the world to teach the requisite skills to would-be lawyers and that many potential lawyers would quickly join the queue.

And of course Congress would never pass such a bill – too many lawyers.

Borjas adds:

In fact, why not attach the proposal to create an A-1B program every time someone introduces legislation to increase the H-1B cap? I would love to hear the reactions from the usual suspects–e.g., the American Immigration Lawyers Association–to the A-1B program. Would it shock anyone if this was the first “more immigrants, please” proposal that they would reject outright? Maybe then we could have a real debate about the costs and benefits of the H-1B program.

This is an excellent tongue-in-cheek proposal, and it should be creating more talk.

New Bill Would Require Minimum Wage for H-1B Workers

From PoliZette:

Chmielenski said a bill sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions that would set a minimum wage of $110,000 for H-1B workers would remove the financial incentive for companies trying to cut labor costs with foreign workers. Currently, there is a four-tier wage system; a majority of H-1B workers are paid at the lowest “prevailing wage,” which is in the 17th percentile for the industry.

This is genius and would work. Currently the incentive for immigration is largely profit. Our side has focused too much on Marxists, but at least part of the problem is this profit incentive.

I’d like to believe this bill proposal is an improvement upon Ron Unz’s minimum wage idea, which was also very good even if we don’t ideally want a minimum wage. The primary goal is reducing mass immigration, legal and otherwise.

Source: NumbersUSA

Trump Can Make Mexico Pay for the Wall

James Kirkpatrick explains at VDARE how Trump really could make Mexico pay for the wall. Trump could threaten to block or tax remittance payments, and if necessary, he could use tax money from them to pay for the wall. More likely Mexico would just pay for it directly.

Kirkpatrick notes the US has already banned remittance payments to Somalia, due to concerns the money could end up with extremists within Somalia.

And he notes that Israel has proposed a law to ban remittance payments by “infiltrators” (Israel’s term for illegal aliens), resulting in harsh punishment:

The bill proposes that the penalty for transferring money abroad by infiltrators will be six months imprisonment or a fine of 29,200 shekels. The penalty for a person who will assist an infiltrator in transferring money aboard will be one year`s imprisonment or a fine of 29,200 shekels, or twice the amount he intended to help the infiltrator take out of Israel.

Kirkpatrick adds:

Note also that Trump’s plan to block remittances isn’t just an end in itself. The Republican frontrunner’s strategy was partially crafted by the great patriot Kris Kobach, who accurately noted the purpose of the plan is to give America an advantage in future negotiations with Mexico [Kobach: I helped write Trump’s border wall plan, by Eliza Collins, Politico, April 11, 2016].

Additionally, Ann Coulter recently noted: “– Building a wall: Cruz was against it, and now is for it.” And how will Cruz pay for the wall?

Trump continues to come up with these brilliant solutions, but he gets too little credit for them. Cruz’s BTT is smart, but it’s a regressive tax. Even Hartman’s original BTT was progressive, included rebates. What else has Cruz proposed that is praiseworthy? He otherwise just follows Trump along.

When Libertarians Attack!

The enemy of liberty has been found. Now it’s only a matter of exposing the monster for what it is, and it shall die from humiliation.

That monster is — conservatism.

It seems conservatism is an ideology, like communism or Nazism, that demands a powerful, centralized government, a police state, regulation over every aspect of an individual’s life, and a militaristic foreign policy.

Or so says libertarian author and blogger Tom Mullen. His book Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? claims to expose conservatism as the ugly and vicious love-child of those ancient apologists for despots, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke.

Wait, what? Edmund Burke?

It takes only a cursory look at Mullen’s assertions to see just how sloppy and poorly researched they are. In doing so, I will let conservatives define conservatives, rather than libertarians. Seems only fair.

First, let’s consider how ludicrous it is to claim conservatism was co-founded by Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke. In fact, Hobbes belonged to a camp of political science that was directly opposed to Burke’s. Hobbes was a rationalist philosopher. Rationalists, as Michael Spicer explains in The Founders, The Constitution, and Public Administration: A Conflict in World Views, view human reason as sovereign. Reason, say the rationalists, is the ultimate authority on how humans should conduct themselves and organize society. Rationalists believe man can perfect himself and create utopia on earth. Because reason is the same everywhere, its principles apply to all peoples. Spicer observes that “rationalists distrust ideas derived from customs and traditions,” and therefore customs and traditions “are seen as impediments to obtaining true knowledge and must be swept aside.”

That’s why rationalist philosophers look to violence, whether by revolution or state-sanctioned force, to sweep out those musty old traditions that impede their programs.

Edmund Burke, on the other hand, was an anti-rationalist. As Spicer explains in his book, anti-rationalists do not believe human nature can be perfected. Instead, anti-rationalists “see the world, particularly the world of human affairs, as simply too complex and hence too unpredictable for any one mind, however wise, to comprehend and control.” For that reason, anti-rationalist philosophers look to established customs, traditions, and institutions as the most reliable guides to human conduct.

I cannot improve on this summary of Burke’s thought from the Edmund Burke Institute:

Burke is commonly regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. In his speeches and writings, he articulated the concept of an organic society: a social order that is sacred, natural, historical and traditional. He believed that social change was best achieved when eschewing abstract thought divorced from experience; instead, he favored renewal of the polity in harmony with a regard for individual liberty, respect for the accumulated wisdom within existing institutions and a concern for the greater good of the community. His political theory can best be summarized by his most famous phrase: “Society is a contract between the past, the present and those yet unborn.”

Traditional, organic society, then, is the foundation of order. Russell Kirk argued that traditional society is the only — the ONLY — source of our rules for mutual interaction — in other words, our rights:

Traditions are not abstractions; they are particular beliefs and customs closely related to private life and faith. The American Republic has its traditions, and so has the Cambodian Kingdom; but traditions are not created by political authority, and ought not to be debased into party slogans.

Only for the past century and a half has the word “tradition” been employed to signify “ancient customs” or “established habits of life in society.” Edmund Burke, for instance, writing in the last years of the eighteenth century, used the word “prescription” to convey these meanings, rather than the word “tradition.”

When we speak of tradition in America, then, generally we mean prescriptive social habits, prejudices, customs, and political usages which most people accept with little question, as an intellectual legacy from their ancestors.

The stable of rationalist philosophers includes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Irving Kristol. Rationalists believe in the sovereign individual, whose chief concern is economic, and from that assumption, they derive their advocacy of the unitary, consolidated state; open borders; economic globalization; and the eradication of all traditional restraints on individual choice.

Among the notable anti-rationalists are David Hume, Adam Smith, and Joseph de Maistre. Anti-rationalists believe in the social nature of man, whose chief concern is the preservation and well-being of one’s culture, and from that foundation, they argue for small, culturally based political units; mediating institutions, such as families, churches, and voluntary associations to shelter and nurture the isolated individual; border security to insure demographic continuity; economic nationalism to protect jobs; and respect for traditional morality, which strengthens families and communities.

Mullen’s sloppiness is most apparent — and grating — in his conflation of neoconservatives and conservatives. Neoconservatives, despite their misleading name, are rationalists who view America as a “creedal nation” rather than a nation founded on Western traditions. Neocons base their ideology on Trotsky’s strategy of the “permanent revolution,” which called for supporting socialism in other countries to protect socialism in the USSR. So when Neocon handpuppet George W. Bush launched his US-led “global democratic revolution” beginning with Iraq, he argued that exporting democracy would help protect democracy in the US. When real conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, and Sam Francis aired their objections to Bush’s crusade, National Review’s David Frum denounced them as “unpatriotic conservatives.” Nevertheless, Mullen equates “militarism” as a defining conservative value.

There’s also an amusing aspect of Mullen’s intellectual confusion. On the basis of a few quotes, Mullen claims Edmund Burke fundamentally agreed with Thomas Hobbes, despite Burke’s radically different politics. While Burke believed in an organic society, Hobbes argued that man is not a social animal. Hobbes even went so far as to claim that society could not exist without a powerful government. The foundation of conservatism is that culture precedes government. Despite this breathtaking contradiction, Mullen frequently (obsessively?) uses Hobbes to discredit conservatism. Yet, Mullen applauds John Locke as one of the good guys, despite Locke’s frequent citation of Hobbes and partial agreement with him.

Why is this important? If we are to defend liberty, we have to understand where it came from, how it can be preserved, and what threatens it. Today we are faced with an out-of-control and self-serving central government that is busily importing a compliant Third-World population. Libertarians such as Mullen claim to defend liberty, but vocally support open borders and economic globalism, the same double-edged sword the ruling elite wields against us, its subjects. Without a Western majority, we cannot hope to preserve Western standards of behavior and governance.

NumbersUSA Improves Its Grading System

NumbersUSA Upgraded Grade Cards

Bernie Sanders: F- (Deserves credit for speaking against “open-borders” at least)
Hillary Clinton: F
Marco Rubio: D, plus a youtube video. (At all costs, Rubio must lose!)
Rand Paul: C (Not the brightest guy)
Ted Cruz: A (Willing to maneuver as is beneficial)
Donald Trump: A- (However, he made discussing illegal immigration OK, and his immigration platform is excellent. Really, Trump’s set of positions has become near-ideal. And I believe he intends to uphold them, for the most part.)

Sanders’s inability to shift on immigration makes Trump the only candidate worth considering.

Also, increasingly more are realising how Trump truly could attract Democrats. An election between Hillary and The Donald would make the Democrats into the party that defends wars and Obamatrade. It would be an absolute revolution.

This has become the first presidential election worth participating in since Pat Buchanan.

Early results (from realclearpolitics) appear to show a Cruz victory, which is a shame since The Donald spent so much time there. If democracy is capable of working, Trump will win the primary. Trump vs. big money, and it looks like big money wins Iowa.