This article considers the subject that neoliberal rationality constructs.
By engaging first with Michel Foucault’s account of the entrepreneurial self, then with
contemporary critical theorists who build upon and move beyond Foucault’s account, it
considers three aspects of the human condition under neoliberal hegemony: the moral, the
political, and the existential.
Neoliberal rationality, then, analyses not only people’s economic activity (with Smith, those activities
that spring from our natural propensity to ‘truck, barter, and exchange’) in terms of competition and
investment, but all of their action. It turns economics, the study of economic behaviour, into
“praxeology”: the study of human action as such.8 With the rise of rational choice theory in the post-WWII
period, economic analysis becomes one of the most prominent methodologies applied in the humanities
and therewith economics quickly replaces the artes liberales of yesteryear as the core curriculum
for social scientists. “Economic imperialism”, indeed.
Taken together, the notion of human capital
and the widened scope of economics result economic activity is analysed in terms of human capital,
at the same time economics broadens its scope, colonises the all human action as economic action,
thereby effectively recasting every human activity as either the obtention of income, or the
appreciation or depreciation of human capital.11Homo oeconomicus - nomic analysis, is not made
to disappear (notwithstanding neoliberals’ insistence on the contrary)12 homo oeconomicus in
the classical liberal conception was a “partner of exchange” based on “a problematic of needs,”13 under
neoliberalism homo oeconomicus becomes modelled on the enterprise, that is, a business sought
in “the mechanisms of competition.”14 consist of capital and is likewise required to compete in markets.
Homo oeconomicus becomes “an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of himself.”15 The entrepreneurial
self, in short, is the self who is constantly engaged in investing in her own human capital because
she must compete in a marketplace; it is the self “who incurs expenses by investing to obtain some kind
of improvement.”16 or otherwise.
The neoliberal subject for Foucault is thus the subject who invests, who competes, who appreciates
her human capital.17 This subject is considered to behave like an enterprise and, crucially, sees
herself as an enterprise. She is made to conform to entrepreneurial standards through an ethics
of the self and, indeed, the newly fashioned neoliberal “[h] omo oeconomicus is someone who is
eminently governable.”18 The point here is that whereas homo oeconomicus as the classical political
economists understood it had to be left alone (“one must lasser-faire”)19 the neoliberal subject
is so intimately tethered becomes easily conducted.
The neoliberal subject will always respond to socio-economic reality, because her survival, her income,
depends on her adaptation to changing cirto increase the value of their human capital, or more precisely,
to act on the way they govern themselves, by inciting them to adopt conducts deemed valorizing and to
follow One merely has to consider ‘welfare-to-work’ or ‘workfare’ programmes to understand how such
self-government unfolds in everyday life.21 Here ends Foucault’s account of the neoliberal subject.
Although he did not address the topic himself, we can use the framework he provides to ask what kind
of subject neoliberal rationality constructs after having become hegemonic. In what follows I will consider
the neoliberal subject’s moral agency, her political agency, and, somewhat more their theoretical underpinnings.
Moral agency
Neoliberal theory deals with private subjects who “do and permit what they will” according to their
own preferences and value orientations within the limits of legally permissible action. They are not
required to take any mutual interest for one another; they are thus not equipped with any moral sense
of social obligation. The legally requisite respect for private liberties that all competitors are equally
entitled to is something very different from the equal respect for the human worth of each individual.
J. Habermas, The Postnational Constellation
When neoliberal rationality becomes the hegemonic imaginary, a meaningful sense of that the neoliberal
subject, although purportedly non-gendered, is deeply gendered in fact. See the case.22 The argument
runs deeper, for the point is that neoliberal rationality undermines the very possibility of any non-instrumental
moral agency by reconstructing the subject exclusively along entrepreneurial lines. Let us see how this
goes. Firstly, and most importantly, the entrepreneurial logic neoliberalism commits its subjects to
turns them into unabashedly self-interested micro-enterprises. The place proper to enterprises, however,
is the marketplace. This means that subjects, whose activity is other human capitals), appreciation
or depreciation of their own capital, or the obten- But if all human activity is interpreted
as self-interested (as rational choice theory assumes)24 we thereby lose the ability to view anything
other than our own utility as an end in itself. This means nothing less than the inability to act
as Kantian moral agents, because for Kant only prescribes it, are moral in nature. Since neoliberalism
assumes that all action is spurred by individual interests, it becomes impossible, among other things,
to view other human beings (or indeed ourselves) as ends in themselves or to act according to our moral
duty as such. The neoliberal subject is, in effect, not an inhabitant of the Reich der Zwecken
Although this does not mean that the neoliberal subject is entirely divested of moral agency,
it does mean that the only moral agency she is capable of pertains to what developmental children. In
this sense, neoliberal morality is pre-eminently infantile.26 Neoliberalism inherited this utilitarian
understanding of morality from classical liberalism. Classical liberalism too denies that individuals
are anything other than desiring beplanning of supporting. ings, perpetually moving from one joy to
the next.27 The difference lies therein that while classical liberalism held that an individual’s desires
are given prior to any contact with
...For its bastard offspring self-interestedness is wholly tethered to market mechanisms. The self-interestedness
prescribed by neoliberalism is not the quasi-epicurean perpetual want-satisfaction Bentham and his liberal
fellow travellers celebrated; it is, rather, the injunction to be a productive, responsible, self-investing
speck of human capital.29 As Jacques Rancière explains, the neoliberal subject is “called on to be the
microcosm of the great noisy whole of the circulation and uninterrupted exchange of rights and capabilities,
of goods and the Good,” and is “required to see himself [sic own militant, as a small alliance-forming
energy, running from one tie to the next, from one contract to the next as well as from one thrill to
the next.” The neoliberal evisceration of moral agency should not surprise us;
it is inherent in the entrepreneurial logic neoliberalism submits its subjects to. In a critique of
corporate power, Joel Bakan writes that “[u]nlike the human beings who inhabit it, the corporation is
singularly self-interested and unable to feel genuine concern for others in any context.”
This leads him to conclude that if corporations were people, they would be diagnosed as psychopathic.
Surely he is right, and surely this is what neoliberal rationality wants every human being to model
their behaviour on. Neoliberal theory has never been very secretive about its simplistic understanding
of morality either. For while Adam Smith (whose Wealth of Nations, I imagine, is to be found
on every neoliberal’s night stand, while the fact that the same man authored The Theory of Moral
Sentiments is conveniently forgotten) once held that “[i]t is not from the benevolence of the butcher,
the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,”33
Bernard Mandeville, the political economist from whom Hayek derived his theory of spontaneous order,
actually celebrated the vices with splendid candour: Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live, Hunger’s a
dreadful Plague, no doubt, Yet who digests or thrives without?34 The subtitle to Mandeville’s magnum
opus neatly sums up the neoliberal understanding of morality: Hayek, who is very much indebted to
the work of this “master-mind”35 - deville’s lessons to heart and indeed not only condemns all of the
cardinal virtues except for Prudence;36 it actively prescribes all of the cardinal vices, with
the exception of Sloth (more on Sloth below), as vices are imagined to be the fuel of History’s engine:
spontaneous (market) order. That this view of virtuosity is detrimental to any notion of ‘civic virtue’,
upon which many democratic theories rest, requires no elaboration. Moral agency and neoliberalism, in
sum, do not go together. The subject neoliberal rationality creates cannot be anything other than a
self-interested being, whose (literally) vicious behaviour is celebrated because, in neoliberal mythology,
the only way to progress as a species is for individuals to behave like wholly self-interested, atomistic
Benthamites.
Political agency
Voters and customers are essentially the same people. Mr. Smith buys and votes; he is the same
man in the supermarket and in the voting booth G. Tullock, The Vote Motive
Besides undermining the possibility to view themselves, others, and the world as ends in themselves,
neoliberal rationality thoroughly subverts subjects’ capacity for political agency. Although it is an
academic commonplace to refer to neoliberalism as a depoliti- Usually neoliberalism’s depoliticising
tendency is understood to lie in its penchant for rhetorically and institutionally reducing all problems
to market problems. Neoliberalism, in this sense, is indeed “the belief that the traditional questions
of the polis are best answered by the market.”37 This depoliticising logic is inherent in most
neoliberal theory, which as I argued above, tends to understand all human action as economic action:
everything is understood as either investment, consumption, competition, or income obtention (although
obtention of psychic income is literally equated with consumption). The creed underlying this ‘praxeological’
economics is that “[h]uman beings do not behave basically differently when they solve social and political
problems compared to when they turn to economic or legal tasks.”38 To be sure, this is certainly one
way in which neoliberalism depoliticises. If human beings are self-interested specks of human capital
all round, then it follows that in the ‘political marketplace’ they are just as entrepreneurial, self-interested,
and asocial as they are anywhere else. Many authors point to a second way in which neoliberalism depoliticises.
Because politics in a neoliberal era becomes solely about economic matters, which are far too complex
for mere mortals to even grasp let alone decide upon, citizens quickly avert their gaze to the more
interesting things in life. Neoliberalism, as Wendy Brown quite rightly points out, “reduces political
citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity and political complacency.”39 Although people are
still made to vote and perhaps even contribute to politics in other ways (protest, write articles for
newspapers), this politics revolves around banal or inconsequential policies and voting is increasingly
reminiscent of actual consumer choices. “In place of the citizen-participant,” as Sheldon Wolin explains,
“the new politics courts the viewer-consumer.”40 What this results in is “a cant politics of the inconsequential.”41
Meanwhile, actual political processes are submitted to comhegemony, as Rancière points out, “[t]he theme
of the common will is replaced by that of the lack of personal will, of capacity for autonomous action
that is anything more than just management of necessity.”42 The authors discussed here are certainly
right in signalling the way in which neoliberalism turns citizens into apathetic, one-dimensional men
(to borrow a phrase from Herbert Marcuse) and the state into a puppet controlled by today’s greatest
puppeteer: the Global Market. There is, however, another more fundamental way in which neoliberalism
depoliticises. Essentially, the point is that neoliberalism reconstructs both the subject and
democracy, turning them into an enterprise and a market respectively, thereby undermining the very
possibility of genuine political action. Here is how this goes. By casting subjectivity in economic
terms across all spheres of life, neoliberal rationality turns political activity into another strand
of the protean economic behaviour that investors), as is commonly pointed out, it also means that political
agency disappears. The consumer-investor cannot be a political subject, for the latter is a subject
who acts in an Arendtian sense, meaning appearing, speaking, expressing oneself in a public realm
human beings see themselves as citizens of a polis, who collectively act because such action
is a bonum in several subjects are naught but entrepreneurial and, as I already argued above,
are for this reason entirely self-interested, politics becomes, in Arendt’s terms, “no less a means
to an end than making is a means to produce an object,” which “happens whenever human togetherness is
lost, that is, when people are only for or against other people.” In these cases, “speech becomes indeed
‘mere talk,’ one more means toward the end.”44 However, while on the one hand the neoliberal subject
is incapable of viewing herself as anything other than a self-interested, entrepreneurial speck of human
capital, neoliberalism, on the other, denies and deconstructs the public realm that is a conditio
sine qua non for action of this sort. The counterfeit ‘public realm’ that neoliberalism constructs
in lieu of the one it deconstructed is nothing but a marketplace: an agora, not an ekklesia.45
This is to say, neoliberalism does not simply frame democratic institutions in market terminology;
its rationality in fact reconstructs them.
As recent examples of neoliberal jurisprudence in the US make clear, neoliberal rationality recasts
democracy as a "markeplace" . ..Speech, which is understood as a commercial good rather than as the
one capacity that distinguishes humans from animals (as Aristotle, Arendt, or Rancière would have rations,
monetary institutions, and the like. By recasting speech as a good bought with (which protects, inter
alia, free speech) to be interpreted as protecting not citizens from censure but the ‘democratic
marketplace’ from state interference.46
It likewise legitimizes far-reaching political inequality, because
one’s economic capital is translated directly into one’s ‘political capital’. The result: even as subjects
are disenfranchised, turned into apathetic, passive consumer-citizens, and made increasingly powerless
vis-à-vis the demands of global markets, the corporation is allowed into the realm of (what is left
of) politics.47 In effect, neoliberalism’s reconstruction of the subject is a blade that cuts both ways:
by recasting the subject as an enterprise, it simultaneously bestows upon actual business
enterprises a similar political subjectivity. Democracy becomes rule not by the people but by
capital (a redefinition that goes unnoticed by neoliberals themselves, because they understand
people as capital).
The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is
insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker's use of the word
'replacement' in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden's Open Border policy. Mentioning
replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that
all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for
hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill :
"I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally
hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest that the Democratic Party is
trying to replace the current electorate," Carlson said. "But they become hysterical because
that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it. That's true.
Of course it's true, and what's being replaced is the traditional White population of the
country. But Tucker couldn't say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the
current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.
"I mean, everyone's making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement?
No, no, this is a voting rights question," Carlson added later, saying changes to the
population "dilute the political power" of current registered voters.
This is disingenuous but I suppose it's what you have to say to keep your job in the
mainstream media -- and even that might not be enough. Carlson's statement is consistent with
his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he's careful to restrict his comments to
illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: "every time they import a new
voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter" -- an argument that would apply to any
American citizen no matter what their race. "How dare you think I care particularly about White
voters!" But isn't it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?
Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as "white supremacy":
Not clear how replacement theory is "anti-Semitic," but I suppose that Greenblatt considers
anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt's tweet, The Hill noted that "the ADL head explained that the "Great Replacement" theory
"is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites,"
linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a "racist lie." But how much of a
"racist lie" is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60
percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?
Greenblatt also
emailed Fox News, writing "Carlson's full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement
theory on yesterday's show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a
bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to
go." This assertion that Carlson is making a "full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement
theory" is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places
these days -- witness
Biden's lie about the new Georgia voting laws as "Jim Crow on steroids." A full-on embrace
of "white supremacist replacement theory" would at least reference a specific concern for White
people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream
conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology ("every time they
import a new voter "). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One
wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say
it. I am pretty sure he believes it.
Officially, Carlson's heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters
whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate,
particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to
identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective
power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White
political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious
-- at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and
corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it's fine for non-Whites to hate
Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their
ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White
minority.
And it's not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to
replace Whites as part of the American elite.
Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn't make much sense to say that America's
non-White voters are being replaced when they are being "replaced" by more non-White voters,
although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population
will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin
America and Asia. But in any case, they ain't
White , and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups
strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration,
amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with
Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with
allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given
that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants -- as noted in my comments on
the January 6 "insurrection,"
The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony. " Their strategy also includes packing
the Supreme Court , in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the
groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a
super-majority of liberals .
Biden's immigration plan calls for an increase in "diversity" visas to 80,000 from 55,000
and has an emphasis on family unification -- a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of
Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law (
here, p. 283) and
beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his
immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their
brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and
children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for
legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.
Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!
Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson's mild comments to the manifesto of the
Christchurch and El Paso murderers.
I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot's
Twitter feed . Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative
active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And
now, because of obsessive Trump hate, now is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at
The Washington Post. Boot
wrote that Carlson "the top-rated host on Fox "News" Channel, has been attracting attention
for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he's reached a new low."
As the left-leaning Media Matters for America
has chronicled , Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis "
semiliterate primitive monkeys " and said that Afghanistan is "never going to be a
civilized country because the people aren't civilized." He has complained that an influx of
poor immigrants "
makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided ." He has repeatedly described
immigration as an "
invasion ," and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a "
hoax " and "a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power."
And that new low is that Tucker said something a mass murderer had said, implying, I guess,
that if Hitler said the sky is blue, it would be extremely racist for anyone else to say
it.
The Guardian
noted in 2019 that there were already disturbing parallels between Carlson's rhetoric and
that of white supremacist killers in El Paso, Tex., and Christchurch, New Zealand. For
example, in one of his books, Carlson wrote: "When confronted or pressed for details,
[proponents of diversity] retreat into a familiar platitude, which they repeat like a zen
koan: diversity is our strength. But is diversity our strength? The less we have in common,
the stronger we are? Is that true of families? Is that true in neighborhoods or businesses?
Of course not."
And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his
manifesto: "Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It
is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum . But no one ever seems to give a reason
why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?"
On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by
explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are
orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New
Zealand shooter's
manifesto was literally headlined "The Great Replacement," and the neo-Nazis who marched
in Charlottesville chanted "Jews will not replace us."
In a
previous article I noted that Tucker Carlson's comments on 'replacement' in the context of
immigration had unleashed a torrent of hatred from the ADL and the liberal media. When the ADL
goes after public figures, the usual response is groveling apology in a typically futile effort
to prevent getting ostracized or fired. After all, the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt had tweeted
that Carlson's comments were "anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic." Accusations of racism -- and
especially anti-Semitism -- are pretty much a death sentence for anyone so accused.
So I was gratified that Carlson didn't back down. Indeed, he doubled down, with a 20-minute
opening monologue elaborating on exactly why the Democrat Party is completely wedded to
importing a new electorate and has been doing so for decades. He also mentioned that Whites
(and Blacks) are being replaced as voters, that the entire project is immoral, and he called
out the hypocrisy of the ADL. As he notes, it's not about compassion as usually advertised, but
about power. And everyone with any brains knows it.
To date, Carlson's monologue is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the
mainstream media that Whites -- as Whites -- have an interest in immigration. Indeed, a vital
interest. In making his argument, he discussed states like California and Virginia that have
become reliably Democrat because of immigration, and he mentions Vermont that is now blue
because of disenchanted New Yorkers who brought their politics with them when they moved there.
He says the same thing is happening to Montana and Idaho as yoga instructors, Google
vice-presidents, and assorted rich White folks leave California for greener pastures. It will
happen to your state. And the result will be permanent hegemony of the left because
the imported electorate are reliable clients of the Democrat Party. 'Client' is the right word
(from the Latin for 'dependent') because these people come to the U.S. for better pay and all
the free stuff -- medical care, welfare if they have children, and the promise of eventual
citizenship and the right to bring in their relatives. This description applies at least to the
Mexicans, Central Americans, and Africans who have flooded our shores (that IQ thing again).
They remain toward the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and dependent on the government.
Hence reliably Democrat. California went from being the envy of the world to having poverty
levels on par with Mississippi. Without explicitly mentioning Whites, he notes that the middle
class is leaving in droves, resulting in the cost of a U-Haul being five times higher for
people leaving the state as for entering. He portrays the middle class as one of the victim
groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile,
ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters.
Tucker also doubled down on his voter-replacement logic, but this time he was explicit about
White people's vote being replaced, noting that Whites went from 90 percent of Californians to
30 percent since 1960, which means that how White people vote matters much less than it used
to. It's shocking to hear someone in the mainstream media claim that Whites and their vital
interests are victims of the immigration tsunami. One can easily imagine a situation where,
even if White Californians woke up (far too many are still drinking the Kool-Aid), they
couldn't win a statewide election. And that's the whole point. Permanent hegemony.
But because the interests of Whites are definitely not supposed to be paramount, he
emphasized that Blacks in California have also been losing political clout rapidly, with very
large declines in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. In my previous article, I noted
that the voter replacement argument doesn't apply so much to Blacks because the people
replacing them have pretty much the same politics. But I stand corrected. Identity politics has
changed everything. Black Californian politicos like Maxine Waters, Willy Brown, and Kamala
Harris may well become a thing of the past. Harris was replaced by Alex Padilla, a Latino,
after being elevated to the vice-presidency, a result that was not
warmly greeted by the Black political establishment.
California progressives had pushed [Gov. Gavin] Newsom to appoint Representative Barbara
Lee [who is Black] or another like-minded Democrat. Mr. Newsom was also under pressure to
appoint a Black woman to take the place of Ms. Harris, the only Black woman in the Senate.
Representative Karen Bass and Ms. Lee were at the top of that list. The Congressional
Hispanic Caucus strongly backed Mr. Padilla. The L.G.B.T.Q. community and Equality California
lobbied for Robert Garcia, the mayor of Long Beach. Black Women United, a co-founder of Black
Lives Matter, and a range of Black elected officials pushed for Ms. Bass or Ms.
Lee.
As Blacks become less of a demographic force, they will also become less of a political
force. There will be less official sympathy for Black issues like BLM, reparations, dealing
with criminals, and centering on Black grievance in the educational system.
Tucker also did some dog-whistling on Jewish involvement by mentioning Michelle Goldberg's
NYTimes op-ed, "
We can replace them, " which celebrates replacing the White electorate by doing a screen
shot of Goldberg's statement: "The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent
non-Hispanic White." He didn't mention Goldberg's ethnicity, but anyone who knows anything
about the media knows she is a strongly identified Jew writing for a Jewish-owned publication
that is the crown jewel of the elite liberal-left media. As Tucker noted, Goldberg is "a
New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger."
The left pretends that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right, but in fact,
it's an obsession on the left. "It's the central idea of the modern Democratic Party." So true.
And so refreshing to hear it in the mainstream media.
As always, the left pretends that their plan to replace the White population is a moral
imperative. In 2019 then-Senator Harris condemned Trump's plan to deport illegals on the basis
that Trump was trying to "remake the demographics of the country"; she tweeted that such
actions are "deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values." Of course, the left would
never think of remaking the demographics of the country!
What's immoral -- and obviously so -- is the left's scheme to remake the electorate in
opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional White majority. Tucker confronted the
issue head-on, turning the tables on the leftist moralizers by framing their actions as
"cheating." This is an important message for Whites to hear. What is happening to the White
population of America is profoundly immoral. It's an important message because we Whites are
uniquely prone to framing our actions in moral terms. As often discussed here, a major weakness
of uniquely individualist culture characteristic of the West is that individualists are highly
prone to forming moral communities rather than
kinship-based communities typical of the rest of the world. It's a very exploitable weakness,
and our hostile elites have taken full advantage by defining the legitimate interests of Whites
as immoral, as Greenblatt and Harris do. Moral communities are fine as long as they serve the
community's interests, and in the long history of the West, they have indeed been a strength.
But the problem now is that the people who define the moral communities of
the West since World War are the hostile elite who have shaped academic and media culture,
i.e., strongly identified Jews and Jewish-owned mainstream media like the New York
Times. So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it's a moral imperative to replace
the White population. No other culture anywhere at any time has ever felt a moral imperative to
replace its founding population.
However, the best part about Tucker's monologue was that he confronted the ADL directly by
highlighting their lack of principle. Confronting any powerful Jewish organization is virtually
unheard of in American media and political culture where groveling, apologies, and firing are
the norm. And he chose a particularly glaring weakness in Jewish rationalizations of the
adversarial culture they have championed in the U.S.: Jewish hypocrisy in claiming the moral
high ground in America by insisting that any opposition to immigration is racist and hence
immoral, while legitimizing Israel's ethnocentric immigration policy because it threatens the
legitimate interests of its Jewish population. In fact, these activist Jews are consummate
ethnic nationalists -- exactly what they condemn in White Americans. White Americans deserve
just what the ADL and the rest of the activist Jewish community want for Jews, a safe homeland
that remains theirs.
Granted, Carlson didn't mention that the ADL was leading the charge against him, but anyone
paying the least bit of attention to this episode knows damn well that the ADL is leading the
campaign against him. Carlson quoted from the ADL website:
With historically high birth rates among Palestinians, and a possible influx of
Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be
a minority in a bi-national state, thus ending any semblance of equal representation and
protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be politically -- and potentially
physically -- vulnerable. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jewish population
to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and national
identity and become a vulnerable minority in what was once its own territory.
This is another recurrent theme on TOO -- that the traditional White majority will
become a hated and oppressed minority ( 58 articles )
because of the immigration of non-Whites in a culture dominated by an elite with a long history
of hatred toward the White majority of the U.S. We already see a multitude of examples of
hatred toward Whites emanating from the elite media, liberal-left politicians, and just
ordinary non-Whites (like this one from James
Edwards on Twitter), and hate crimes against Whites are ignored or quickly buried. Why would
anyone think this will stop if and when Whites become a minority? It will increase. But the ADL
thinks that Jews, who have been and continue to
be the leading force enacting a multicultural United States, beginning with their
influence in passing the
1965 immigration law , should retain sovereignty in Israel because ceding sovereignty would
be dangerous for Jews. This is massively hypocritical, as Tucker implies, and he invited
Greenblatt on his show to explain why the same principles that he champions for Israel should
not exist in the United States. I rather doubt that will happen.
In fact, Greenblatt repeated his attacks on Carlson in a letter to
Fox News , demanding that he be fired while never mentioning that Carlson had broached the
hypocrisy of the ADL. Pretty clearly he wants to avoid the issue like the plague. Fox News CEO
Lachlan Murdoch responded with a typical mainstream media mantra: "Fox Corporation shares your
values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind." But he rejected the
argument that Carlson had endorsed "anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism," retreating to
Carlson's original voting rights argument. Always a safe move to refuse to avoid issues that
vitally affect White America by presenting them in non-racial terms.
In his letter to Murdoch, Greenblatt claimed that Carlson "did not accidentally echo these
talking points; he knowingly escalated this well-worn racist rhetoric. At a time of intense
polarization, this kind of rhetoric galvanizes extremists and lights the fire of violence."
Intense polarization indeed. That's what happens when there is a powerful attempt to
dispossess the founding population of the country. Ultimately the polarization is a result of
Jewish activism which has been a necessary condition for the immigration and multiculturalism
that is tearing the country apart.
Greenblatt thinks that Tucker's message will galvanize "extremists." Let's hope that it does
indeed galvanize the White population. In any case, it's important for Carlson to not let this
issue drop. It was courageous of him to broach the issue, but it needs to be repeated, just as
the messages of the left on race and multiculturalism are continually repeated on TV, movies,
print media, and throughout the educational system.
Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that
encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be
ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative
media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would
encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare [and
when they occur, they are subjected to vicious attacks, as has happened to Carlson]. Indeed,
the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority.
And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit
demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and
fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.
[1]
In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit
ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one's racial group is threatened are able to
trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the
areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living
in an essentially White environment hasn't changed while the population centers of New York,
California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50
years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to
Whites' higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.
White replacement is our most powerful message. Let's hope Tucker continues to repeat it. We
certainly will.
Note
[1] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, "Feeling threatened about
the future: Whites' emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,"
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.
Go Tucker Go.There is a lot of room to advance on this front. It shouldn't take much more
to expose the complete hypocrisy of their argument,but what has being right got to do with
it? We're talking about trillions upon trillions of "wealth,"not, "debt" and the self
absorbed,egotistical materialists will do everything under the sun to continue ignoring
reality,i.e.humanity.Money is "the GOD"and nobody should get in the way of "the PROPHET$"
that assumed divine authority after the black book was written.Gold, diamonds,private
jets,yachts,islands and lots of "faithful followers" to do all the work. They will
assassinate anything that threatens "THIS"religion,good luck.
Tuck has the moral high ground ..not only are we being replaced ..but Greenblatt's buddies
GLOAT openly about our replacement ..that doesn't really seem like being a light unto the
nations.
For a long time, Tucker has been more than just a political talk show host. He's become a
Man on a Mission; even more so since Biden's enablers stole what was left of our "democracy,"
and fixed November's election. Will Fox fire him due to growing Corporate and Jewish
pressure, or will the Murdoch's continue to have the guts to back him?
No one can know for sure. But Tucker, to a large extent, has Fox News over a barrel. He's
even recently expanded his reach, with his newest show on the subscription based Fox Nation,
where he is able to do long form interviews without commercial interruption. The Murdoch's
must be keenly aware that, if they fire their number one ratings star, they've just flushed
their consistently most watched cable news network down the toilet.
There's another huge issue, never mentioned on TV except with derision, that I'd love to
see Tucker address one day soon: SECESSION! It's the only way forward.
I think ol' Tucker may have bit off more than he can chew on this one. He touched the 3rd
rail pretty strongly on live TV and Big Jew doesn't like that whatsoever. Given that Israel
is supported by both right leaning Neocons and the more liberal Jonathan Greenblatts of the
world his days may truly be numbered now.
Tucker does a good job of poking holes in idiotic liberalism. However, I think it is
interesting that almost no one mentions the elephant in the room, which is that whites went
from a fertility rate of 3.7 to 1.7 in the space of 60 years. Americans in general started
murdering their babies, and swallowed all the jewish lies and "isms" hook, line and sinker.
That is why you have lost your country. The brown tide is a symptom of the problem, not the
cause. The problem is a nation given over to greed, foolishness, and perversion.
Since she first appeared as a talk show host on MSNBC during Obama's first presidential
campaign, Rachel Maddow has been bragging about how Democrats were going to ascend to a
permanent majority in the Congress and permanently control the presidency by virtue of
unhindered "minority" migration into this country. The concept had been floated before by
numerous analysts and even termed the "Reconquista" which Hispanic spokespersons
enthusiastically embraced as the rightful recovery of their stolen patrimony from the
Gringos.
I distinctly recall Maddow gloating about this anticipated outcome night after night while
she demeaned the incipient shrinkage of a "rump Republican Party" to complete irrelevance
when this desired scenario came to pass. She spoke excitedly about recruiting not only the
tidal wave of Hispanic migrants into the Democratic fold to cohabit with the long loyal
blacks, but also assumed that every foreigner, including all Orientals, East Indians, Middle
Easterners and Black Africans should naturally ally with the liberal Dem philosophies:
literally every immigrant but White Europeans (the "Eurotrash") would be a part of the coming
new Democratic Golden Age.
Nobody on the left ever thought of calling her and her bigoted ideas to be "racist," and
she is never called out for being "racist" when she spouts her totally hysterical
over-the-top Russophobia (or is "Russophrenia" a more correct descriptor?). Why doesn't the
ADL pick a bone with her while they are attacking Tucker Carlson who has always been much
less excitable and far more logical that Maddow even when she is sober and not fixing mixed
drinks on air.
A newly formed "America First Caucus" in Congress, supported by a
few far-right Republicans in the House of Representatives, is looking to recruit new
members with an old set of arguments.
These white nationalist tropes found a receptive audience in the American people.
Its platform, now circulating in Washington, is little more than a retread of the white
nationalist screeds of the 1910s and 1920s.
"America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for
uniquely Anglo-Saxon traditions," asserts the section on immigration. "History has shown that
societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse
into a country."
A century ago, these same sorts of arguments about the "Anglo-Saxon" character of the United
States and the threat that "foreign" elements would bring to its politics and culture were
quite widespread.
... ... ...
The popular panic over immigration and the pseudo-scientific justifications for nativism and
racism came together in the push for the National Origins Act of 1924, a quota-based measure
that drastically reduced immigration from southeastern Europe and banned all Asians from
immigrating entirely.
Kevin M. Kruse is a professor of history at Princeton University. A specialist in modern
American political, social and urban/suburban history, he is the author and editor of several
books, including "White Flight" (2005), "One Nation Under God" (2015) and "Fault Lines: A
History of the United States since 1974" (2019). He grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and earned
his bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his master's and
doctoral degrees from Cornell University.
Contrary to the previous immigrants - who were economic immigrants (not religious
immigrants, as the official history of the USA states) - the post-war immigrants to the USA
are all political immigrants. They're the remnants of South Vietnam, Kuomintang, South Korea,
Mensheviks, Refuseniks, Zionism, Batista's Cuba, Latin American comprador elites. I remember
that once Hugo Chávez or the then president of Ecuador claimed that in Florida alone
were more than 2,000 wanted people (most of them compradores and generals) enjoying political
refugee status.
The only exception to the rule are the Mexican immigrants and some Central American
immigrants (El Salvador, Guatemala in some cases), which had their economies dollarized or
devastated by the advent of NAFTA, and were by chance close to the USA's territory.
@Beckow
ow quality Indian workers far less interesting to the profiteers that then get the same low
quality code and have to pay white/east Asian male wages.
It's funny how the tech companies are all about diversity until it means higher costs.
It will also be funny when the token blacks people hiring programs by the tech companies
mean that peak-diversity signaling, token hire Jamal realizes he'll be working with nothing
but Indians that hate anyone would who is not brainwashed by Jewish propaganda and speak
nothing but Hindi to each other and whom you can't understand when they actually try to speak
English,
Excellent analysis, entirely plausible. Lacking any survey of broad opinion, I'm apt to
project my own view as Trump's Waterloo: that while the political damage of poorly managing
the pandemic was mostly washed out by the emerging view that the economic damage (including
the rioting) of the severe course favored by the left has been more harmful than the virus, a
decisive fraction of his core demographic nevertheless arrived at the view – despite
the ceaseless scolding insistence of this by much of mainstream media – that their
president is indeed glaringly ill-suited for public office.
Perhaps it is due to living near Philly, but there is always fraud. Democrats are good at
it, and Republican Inc. loves it. Can't have any honest, straight shooter interrupt the long
standing political graft. Of course the Donald isn't really an honest man. Had he kept that
5% of the 2016 white male vote, any cheating would have been impossible. But hey we have
still have Israel first with President Kamala. Whew on that. However I don't look forward to
being uncomfortable in my house due to the Paris Accords mandates.
In defense of Maga, there are so many professional agitators in their ranks besides Qanon.
Call them dumb, but they really desperate for something called hope. Maybe that is the reason
I tend to think Trump was the bait to reel them in for the sporting catch and kill.
@prime
noticer Trump's a business man, not a career politician like Biden or Hillary. The system
wants the latter. Soros funds BLM, antifa, ect. It's safe to say the system was against
Trump. Much of his own party of sellout politicians weren't with him. Trump got through the
cracks once, the deep state wasn't going to let that happen again. To get 8 years in office
you have to be a total puppet. The Bush's, Clinton, and Obama were all hand-picked puppets.
Trump wasn't in the club. Trump as President was an accident they had clean up, even if he
was more than willing to betray the White men that voted him in and submit to the beast.
It is obvious why (((they))) wanted Trumpstein out, Trumpstein, despite being a cuckold to
the Zionist was threatening to bring our brave young men and women home, protect our borders,
and his base was about 98% White at the lowest. And many of those were common everyday
working class Whites, you know, the people who really made America great, the people who
actually grow food, build buildings, work and produce automobiles in factories, drive trucks,
you know jobs that are REAL JOBS, JOBS THAT ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING.
(((They))) didn't really hate Trump, they hated the typical Trump voter. Actually it has
already been pointed out, Trump did very little for the average White other than give them
hope, he really didn't deliver that much. Trump became uber popular by just giving the people
crumbs, now can you imagine how popular a man or woman will be when they come out of nowhere
and give the people the hundred per cent truth. It will take a fearless man or woman, someone
with nothing left to lose, because that is the way it has always been. I NEVER expected Trump
to do much, after all, this guy is the typical NYC businessman, think of who this guy has had
dealings with in his lifetime, hell, look at his in-laws. For all his, "I am not a
politician" rantings, Trump spent his life around politicians and pictures are all over the
place with Trump & Bill Clinton golfing together, Trump and Ghislane, Trump &
Epstein, Trump with his friend Baby Nut&Yahoo, etc. Sounds like the typical politician to
me. Trump was NEVER a man of the people and it will take a real man of the people to set
things right in America.
@Ano4
emonized, censored, attacked, and even murdered. I am glad to have sat this one out, between
who knows how many men like me and those 5% we brought this supposed contest to a standstill
and caused a nation of cope.
Wignats gave him 2016 and we turned 2020 into a shitshow in answer to his betrayal. Trump
only has himself to blame for doing almost nothing to stop censorship, clean up the FBI/DOJ,
prosecute Antifa, end birthright citizenship, end H1B, so many other opportunities
squandered. Trump supporters should start working toward something productive for their
interests.
Harris/Biden like Trump/Pence are Israel Firsters, so really all this hoopla over a
transition is not really called for when you think about it. Matter of fact, the 1st and 2nd
Amendment will continue to be under attacked just like it was with Trumpstein, now more than
ever. Anti-White racism will continue until Whites start standing up for their rights the
same way as everyone else. Trumpstein was never the savior for America, face it. Maybe things
will become so bad IF Harris/Biden take over that this country and Whites will gain a spine
again. Until then, new boss, same as the old boss, more or less. Still as bad as the Orange
Man was, IF you are "White" and voted for Harris/Biden, you have to be legally retarded.
Thanks to all the WINOs and white traitor trash out there. Brilliant you bunch of
retards.
A nice splash of cold water on the sadly losing side in the 2020 election. What you say is
mostly true. There are some significant points you don't acknowledge, such as the idea that
massive numbers of mailed ballots will certainly result in unauthorized votes being counted.
It's hard to say how many that is, but I suspect, like you, that it can't have made a
difference of hundreds of thousands across all the states necessary for a Trump victory.
Blame the phony virus for most of these results and I insist that shutdown policies have
been a gross overreaction designed to make Trump powerless to campaign.
Finally, one simply has to admit that Trump was unprepared to be an effective President
and never learned how. Saying things that sound populist over and over isn't governing.
We have a nice wall that's 400 miles long down on the Mexican border and that's about it.
At some point in the fast approaching future, it will have a plaque on it saying, "I am
Ozymandias Trump. Look on all that I survey."
Well?
What kind of pathetic miserable 17 intelligence agencies, with support of democratic party
and Judenpresse would be , if they would not be able to fix the election such way that their
mischief cannot be found. And on top of it Covid with mail in voting was a surefire help.
.
But than you sleep in the bed you make.
Very misleading and dis-informative post. It ignores the Democrats' history of fraudulent
elections and manipulation of Americans. From the beginning and before the elections, the
Democrats said that they will do everything to remove Trump from the White House, by violence
if necessary.
In reality, the only times the Democrats won fair elections were by JFK and Obama recently.
The reasons were because of the efficient and highly successful advertising campaigns
(propaganda) to manipulate Americans. In fact, Obama won a prize for his efficient
advertising campaign to con Americans and "win" the elections. He was far more criminal than
his predecessors.
@vk #110
You do realize that H1B is literal indentured servitude, right?
And that its purpose is nothing more than cheap(er) labor for the tech companies?
I know many people on H1B, as well as several people who specialize in H1B "hiring".
The good news: many of these people are smart and capable.
The bad news: they're stuck at the companies they start at for 7 years or more - and are paid
significantly (20% to 50%) under "market". If they leave, their green card process starts
anew even assuming they find another H1B sponsor.
More bad news: there are also a significant number of "body shops" who do nothing but enter
the lottery for H1B visas, then auction off the "wins" to the tech companies. The H1B people
in these situations are far worse off because they work for the "body shop", not the tech
company.
Most importantly: H1B, even at its peak, brought in less than 200K people (188K by law).
In comparison: in 2017 - legal immigration was
Family and Immediate Relatives: 748,746
Employment: 137,855
Refugees and Asylees: 146,003
Diversity and Other: 94,563
Total Visas Issued: 1,127,167
Over 1.1 million people came in legally without the H1B.
White House counselor Stephen Miller and CNN's Jim Acosta clash at the Wednesday press
briefing focused on the administration's new immigration proposal:
An estimated $24 billion of Venezuelan public money has been looted, and the Trump administration has used at least $601 million
of it to construct a militarized wall on the US-Mexico border.
By Ben Norton
In his new book "The Room Where It Happened," former Trump administration national security advisor John Bolton boasted
that the British government "was delighted to cooperate on steps they could take" to assist in Washington's coup efforts, "for
example freezing Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England, so the regime could not sell the gold to keep itself going."..
####
Remember that Juan Guan is recognized by 50 UN states as interim President of Venezuela. But it's not the number that counts,
but who those countries are. It is an effective loading of more votes per country though the unofficial Law of the Jungle system
that the democratic West employs.
A bit off topic, but, personally, I'd really appreciate it if the Current Affairs-Jacobin
crowd would drop the childish open-borders fantasy stuff.
Marx himself figured out what the immigration game was all about back in the mid-1800s,
why do those who purport to represent the working class seem so intent on unlearning what was
patently obvious back then and continues to be so, today?
Yes, I get we all like to meet different people, learn up close about different cultures,
cuisines, and all that, but let's be clear-eyed that there's a cost to those things. It comes
in the form of rising rents/property prices and gentrification, disinvestment in the labor
force (why train workers when you can just import replacements?), degradation in local
environment.
Also, can we stop strip-mining the human capital of other countries?
Let's focus more on creating a right to 'stay in place' instead of 'freedom of movement'
fantasy stuff which sounds more like a right to tourism or something weird like that.
"I have regretfully come to the conclusion that The Hill, owned by one of Trump's close
personal friends, puts on Rising mainly for the purpose of trying to trick leftists into
softening on Trump & see nationalist racists as preferable to moderate Democrats"
Wow that is flat out ridiculous how stupid does he think people are?
Have you talked to people in public lately? They can't understand how you can be against
both republicans and democrats. Then spend the next hour trying to convince you to vote
democrat. Orrrrr they storm off in a fit.
Neoliberalism's support of very open boarders for both finance and labor arbitrage is
assumed to be always good because the American and English nomenklatura and their
apparatchiks implicitly. very often without any real thought, believe in the ideology of
neoliberalism. So, while there is often manipulation by whatever hidden authority is doing
it, most of the time there is no need. The writers have brainwashed themselves into
ignorance. 2+2=5
One of the groups that suffers most from open borders is African Americans. If Blacks in
Los Angeles, for example, lacked a college degree, they could nevertheless earn decent wages
in various sectors including construction and janitorial work, as two examples. Illegal
immigration ended that.
Borders are a problem only when capitalism prevails. Note the problems/objections you
cited having to do with wages, property prices, and other "market" features that would not
apply under socialism. When people rule themselves cooperatively and share the wealth that
presently is stolen from them and used against them, the problem of borders will cease to be
a problem.
The problem I have is that, even assuming you're correct, the utopian socialist crew
somehow thinks that open borders is compatible, in the actual capitalist world we live in,
with forwarding the interests of the working class. It's just not.
Certainly 'open borders' are not compatible with anyone's interests because they're a
contradiction in terms. The capitalists see the border (the real border, not the mythical
'open border') as a kind of valve which can be opened or shut as their interests require. It
also provides for ways of further disadvantaging certain portions of the working class and
thus reducing their wages and eliminating their rights. So the institution of the border
turns out to be a kind of variable form of coercion, as well as a myth to build racist and
classist politics on.
The media is more fascinating by the day if you try not to take it seriously. Really.
Trying to deconstruct who is the real audience, what is the underlying message (aka dog
whistle), how is the media doing plausible deniability, who is the real source (who is the
piece written to serve) and what is the motivation for the piece could take whole PhDs to
figure out sometimes.
And it's hard because I have biases, like everyone I guess, which can get in the way.
Every few days I get a lightbulb moment on something and that is fascinating.
But at the bottom of every media pronouncement is the money, so follow the money and the
power. Not so easy sometimes because the real hallmark of the powerful is the ability to pay
for invisibility. My CEO used to say that he had no real power. Now, he knew how to
operate.
Yes, this is now my approach. I still watch and read widely, but never (or hardly ever) in
the expectation that I'll either learn something or get told anything even vaguely related to
the unvarnished truth.
Much more interesting (but as you say, requiring adroit mental gymnastics and prone to all
sorts of misdirection) is trying to work out the answers to the inevitable questions:
-- Why am I being shown this at this time ?
-- What narratives are intended to be constructed by this "story"?
-- Who is trying to influence me and why, into doing (or refraining from doing) what?
-- Is it a false-flag or should it be taken at face value?
-- Is it supportive of existing norms or trying to change them (or, the old favourite
stand-by "controlled opposition")?
-- Is it organic (highly, highly unlikely) or is it the latest exciting instalment of the
ongoing oligarch v. oligarch grudge match?
-- What messaging / influencing technique is being employed (fear, guilt, appeal to ethics,
tribalism, family values et. al.)?
The last is usually the most intriguing. Is this the family-favourite Soros v. Putin title
fight? A Bill Gates v. Trump proxy war? The Clinton Democrats-in-name-only leftist faction v.
whoever Sanders constituency actually is? Globalist Internationalism capitalists v. disaster
capitalists?
I was going to write the following sentence at this point:
"Someone should publish " Top Trumps " (no irony intended) so we can
all work our way around who's who in all this
But then, can you believe it, reality trumped me because some
wisecracker beat me to it . Of course, the political power players Top Trumps pack really
needs additional categories to make it realistic. "Number of SuperPACs", "$Billions Grifted",
"Brown People in Far Away Places Blown to Pink Mist Total in Office", "Media Outlets Owned",
"MSM Actors on the Payroll" etc. etc. etc.
Thank you Clive for enunciating and listing so clearly the mental editing of reporting
that I too have been doing for decades.
My only addition: __'Who profits from this being accepted.'
There's a lot more recent papers on the issue than Marx. To put it shortly, it's almost
impossible to separate the effect of immigration on wages from the effects of "free trade"
and automatisation.
For example, in "The impact of massmigration on the Israeli labor market" in 2001 R.M.
Friedberg concluded that wages actually went up, when Russians migrated en masse to Israel,
though they did not migrate to seek employment.
Ottaviano and Peri in "Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the theory and the
empirics" and Card in "Immigration and inequality" state that the models used to estimate the
wages are mostly too simple and very sensitive to how education levels are defined.
All economists seem to agree that in the least skilled or educated "class" the effect of
migration is lower wages or raising unemployment, if wages are the only way for
the economy to adjust.
I just don't think the issue is as clear cut as people make it to be.
Robinson is continuing a great British tradition where mediocrities from the Mother
country head for the colonies to wow the gullible colonists with their fancy ways. The guy is
such a lightweight, like fellow grifting Brits Niall Ferguson or Louise Mensch.
Robinson could refer not to Fox, but to Fox Butterfield . That has a quaint, somewhat
British-sounding aspirational upper class twit aspect that seems fitting. /s
Per wikipedia, Robinson moved with his family from the U.K. to the U.S. in 1995; he was
born in 1989. He's almost entirely the product of an American upbringing and education. He
hasn't dropped the accent because he doesn't want to. Frankly he's more of a Florida Man than
a Brit imo. (I say this as an admirer.)
I generally like Nathan Robinson -- most of the time he writes long detailed heavily
linked arguments that are worth reading and which I think most people here would agree with.
He is not liked by mainstream Democrats.
I was very disappointed with his Taibbi piece. But I tend to be disappointed by nearly
everyone at one point or another. When Robinson says he likes Taibbi, I think he is telling
the truth. He just thinks Taibbi is wrong in this case, while I think it is Robinson who is
wrong.
Why is everyone ignoring one of the most bizarre aspects of the Bernie Sanders campaign?
That his campaign staff and most prominent supporters were mostly members and supporters of a
small religious sect that comprises 1% of the US population, and they were not typical
members of this sect, but instead the most extremist ones.
Moreover this small religious sect that comprises 1% of the US population causes one half of
US terrorism deaths. Proof:
According to Wikipedia, between 2008 and 2016
right-wing terrorists caused 79 deaths
left-wing terrorists caused 7 deaths
jihadi terrorists caused 90 deaths
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#
Recent trends
Therefore Islamic terrorists actually killed MORE people than right-wing terrorists.
Furthermore, if we assume that right-wingers make up 10% of the US population, and Muslims
make up 1% of the US population, then per capita, Muslims accounted for TEN TIMES as many
terrorism deaths as right-wingers did. Furthermore Muslims accounted for ONE HUNDRED TIMES as
many terrorism deaths as non-Muslims did.
Bernie Sanders' campaign was run by Muslim extremists Faiz Shakir and Matt Duss.
But nobody seems to mind. Anyone who criticizes Islam is called a bigot. But Islam's holy
book says: "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are ruthless to
unbelievers, merciful to one another." (Qur'an 48:29) Is that bigotry or is that not
bigotry?
In 1946 the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, praised Amin al-Husseini, the
leader of the Palestinian national movement, in the following words:
Germany and Hitler are no more, but Amin el-Husseini will fight on!
Source: Die Welt, Hamburg
https://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article107737611/Von-Deutschland-lernen-heisst-erinnern-lernen.html
Bernie Sanders represents left-wing ideas and programs that are ANATHEMA to this small sect
and ESPECIALLY to its extremist wing. Ideas like sexual freedom and religious freedom,
freedom to criticize religions, equality among religions and non-religions, and equality
between sexes, the idea that laws must be made by human beings elected by majorities through
democratic elections instead of by some divinity who is obviously merely a social construct
invented in order to exert tyrannical power over society. Those are all principles that
flatly contradict Islam and its legal code, sharia law, which CAIR has been doing its utmost
to protect from anti-sharia lagislation.
All of Bernie Sanders' most prominent supporters opposed ALL of his leftist ideas, because
they want a theocratic state where binary sexuality is the norm and criticism of their sect
is verboten.
They hopped onto the Sanders bandwagon and took control of it out of sheer opportunism,
because they see Sanders as the path firstly to liquidating Israel and thus achieving one of
the primary goals of the worldwide Islamist movement, namely to turn the Middle East into a
homogeneous Muslim region, and secondly in order to seize key political positions in the
political system of the US, DESPITE BEING SUCH A TINY MINORITY.
Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders' foreign policy adviser, is tightly linked through his family to
World Vision, a Christian charity that for decades has funded the FDLP, a Palestinian
terrorist group that is nominally secular, but in reality is Islamist. This is proved by the
fact that when some of its members killed 4 rabbis in Jerusalem a few years ago, they yelled
Allahu akbar. It was recently discovered that World Vision has financed Hamas with US
government money. Moreover Matt Duss together with Faiz Shakir, Sanders' Islamist campaign
manager, have campaigned in favor of sharia law, a legal system that claims divine authority
and is a product of 7th century Arabian society.
By contrast, 20% of Americans are secularists who -- at least in theory -- strongly oppose
the reactionary and obscurantist program of Bernie Sanders' principal supporters. But no
prominent secularist appeared among Sanders' most important backers. Now why is it that
Sanders relied principally on people who wholeheartedly oppose his program and ignored the
vastly greater number of Americans who support freedom and equality?
Proto -fascism? I rather think it might be here already, but in an American
guise.
(Sorry, I just couldn't decide where the sentences and paragraphs should be. Semicolons
were the solution.)
As the United States is its own unique blend; utopian, socialistic, religious, fascistic,
authoritarian or totalitarian, dysfunctional, increasingly hourglass shaped (oligarchy with
skilled workers, tiny middle class, and massive poor class) like any very corrupt Third-World
country; an increasingly oppressive police state trying to control a very diverse, well
educated, skilled "rightsized" people, often armed and getting more so, with a large number
retire military; everyone is angry or afraid and most know that it was laziness or stupidity
or the race/social group/Russians/Chinese/Space Elves that turned the prosperity, power, and
general competence of fifty into the economic hellscape, weakness, and near complete
incompetence of today; it is increasingly obvious that it was the wealthy with the help of
their courtiers and servants of the apparatchiks, and the intelligentsia/punditocracy.
Fear and self righteousness facing anger and desperation. What a situation to have.
Bookmarked for later. Nathan Robinson manages to insidiously smuggle Cold War propaganda
into articles that ostensibly argue against Russiagate. He appears to be the most dangerous
kind of propagandist.
Read that Taibbi piece and boy does he have links -- to back his sound and clear
narrative.
It seems like he always has a lot of research, way more than he makes his case with
Drawing fire, as a tactic for the well prepared, can be useful.
If NC wants to add a Media Whores Online section to Links or Water Cooler we won't object.
Of course this would probably inspire PropOrNot part deux. Those MSM journalists can dish it
out but not take it.
As I seem to recall MWO somewhat got the stuffing knocked out of it after 9/11. But when
it was really rolling it seemed to embodied what the internet was for and why many of us took
it up. Monica-gate followed by Bush v Gore offered a TINA media landscape begging to be
debunked.
MWO published what might have been my first blog comment, really just an email, and it was
on the Kaus affair, piling on with sarc mode set to high, another example of the 'hate' we
were apparently guilty of. It was the daily visit then that NC is now. It was important. The
creator remains a mystery, though Bartcop seems to deserve favouritism.
Looking at some of the MWO Wayback pages from 2002 took me back (though the whole of July
when the Kaus thing blew is missing). Lots of familiar names – digby, Alterman,
Marshall, Conason, Lyons, Pierce et al, all of whom I just stopped reading at some point,
probably about the same time I ceased to have any respect for the Clintons.
Color me skeptical when it comes to the wonders of Mr. Taibbi's observations. I find his
narratives full of sound and fury as often as they are sound and clear. But, like Craig
Murray or Glenn Greenwald, he can be a good read on the right topic. Sy Hersh and Thomas
Frank, however, I have a lot of time for.
By contrast I've always found that Taibbi always signifies something, but tries to do so
in a way that might enable him to avoid being cancelled or deplatformed. Sy Hersh has no such
concern. And last time I checked Thomas Frank was trying to signify to me that "maybe there
is a case for Joe Biden". With more than 40 years' experience of the man, I utterly
disagree.
"maybe there is a case for Joe Biden" is the headline and most of the article. It's
deception. Read to the last paragraph if you want to see what Frank actually thinks of Biden.
Quite a sucker punch! Though that does not fully capture the sticking and twisting of Frank's
shiv.
Yes I think Taibbi knows a lot more than he puts forward in his articles. How could he
not? Same with Frank, probably. Even Hersh censors himself, as evidenced by that recorded
phone conversation about Seth Rich.
The wonder of Mr. Taibbi's observations is that he's brave enough to keep making them.
Real journalism is rare these days because our corporate organizations have removed
journalists from the protected species list. Mr. Taibbi is just documenting the fallout from
the officially sanctioned behavior that leads to people canceling those who are discussing
actual injustice and real problems in our country. He's also trying, and failing, to show
Team Blue fans that their inability to accept reality hurts their electoral chances. For
example, the many attempts to scrub Hillary's problems from the media lead to a sense of
complacency in likely Democrat voters and made people voting for her opponent highly
motivated to turn out at the polls. Taking something like her "basket of deplorables" comment
and not discussing why it was just as problematic as Mitt Romney's "48% of people who are
voting for Obama don't pay income tax" comments was journalistic and political malpractice.
It remains to be seen whether the many attempts to shield Biden using similar tactics will
help or hurt him. Personally I think the Democrats will lose because they have rubber stamped
the reduction of voting access so much in so many states that the people who would like to
vote for them won't be able to vote. Which is a legitimately awful problem.
There are so many issues that Mr. Taibbi has discussed which bear repeating because unless
you're getting your news from sites like NC you just don't see it. A recent Useful Idiots
podcast episode that Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper did with Shahid Buttar noted that an
interview that Mr. Buttar gave which mentioned corporate democrats supporting the re-approval
of the Patriot Act under Trump was removed from YouTube and no reasons were given as to why
that occurred. Stuff like that makes me think we're living on a spectrum between Brave New
World and 1984, with class largely determining where you fall, and we have Cancel Culture
people in media running around playing the role of Fireman from Fahrenheit 451 to keep the
wrong people from asking too many questions regardless of class. As Mr. Buttar pointed out
during his UI podcast interview, the algorithms that FB and YouTube use to remove content
without due process catch all the videos of violent acts AND video evidence police abusing
citizens. That's by design. But you wouldnt even know about it without reporters like Matt
Taibbi.
Yes, thanks for taking the time to encapsulate what Taibbi represents for me.
I admire his relentless pursuit of the 'how' our world is being spun out of control.
That is a very interesting story. Call me paranoid, but IMO we are witnessing the collapse
of American society, where every institution is losing it's credibility for various reasons.
Personally, I think it is a combination of increased oppression from the threatened rulers,
resulting in increased conformity by its victims ((journalists and the public) This combined
with the privatization of information, ( ie everything becoming paywalled) is aimed at the
reduction of important information by making it unavailable. I fear all of this ends in a
veil of tears. This can only lead to fascism, where only the current accepted narrative is
permitted.
We face the criminal persecution and torture of Assange; the criminal persecution of Craig
Murray; the recent debacle at TruthDig; the demise of the Weatherunderground, the growing
numbers of pay walls and pop-ups pleading for money and email addresses all suggesting a most
unhappy outcome for the future. The consolidation and control of the major media is old
history. Reporters are becoming extinct. And there's the pollution of youtube, search
engines, and social media. Our society is devolving -- it is being dismantled, vivisected
before our eyes to no end but the end of social order.
I am not sure fascism is the result. We already live in what is technically a fascism
where State and Business share the same bed.
'The consolidation and control of the major media is old history. Reporters are becoming
extinct. And there's the pollution of youtube, search engines, and social media'
There should be a public option for the provision of information (surely up there with
food, water and shelter as an essential public good) that is not polluted. Of course it would
be derided (and feared) by the wingnuts, the Borg and finance capital as a vehicle for
progressive propaganda. Which it could well be given consistent polling indicating majority
support for many if not most progressive positions. That of course means that the Democrats
would hate it too.
Which segues into my next pipe dream: Abolish parties!
Ellsberg, like, Seymour Hersh and Thomas Frank, has been drummed out of town.
Interesting that those with a conscience are the ones "drummed out of town". Guess that
tells you everything you need to know about that "town".
As for Matt Taibbi, he is one of the VERY RARE journalists that I give the benefit of the
doubt is actually telling the truth (even though I still verify) as I usually assume most
"journalists" are lying (or trying to sell a particular story) and go from there. I also find
his podcast with Katie Halper entertaining and informative.
I read that article. I thought it was one of the best of his I've read. Hats off Matt
Taibbi. As far as I'm concerned once we lose the complexity that inhabits a serious regard
for the truth, we're done. I always appreciate being brought up short by my 'enemies.' It
means they might not be as hideous as I'd thought.
being consistently lied to by TV reporters, print media, and politicians not only breeds
cynicism, it births, welps, nurses, and rears. the limitation of news outlets until the
explosion of social media meant they could be parsed out in narrow sets of ideas and
language. Today big media is laid bare, McLuhan was so right, Today it is crucial to know
ones own biases, allow opinion and research in opposition into my field of view. As a trader,
I always searched for the refuting argument, chart, analysis that would tell me i was wrong,
saved me a lot of money. Inflaming passions today is crucial to getting buy-in, not just
voting, which is the tail trying to wag the dog. Taibbi has earned his stripes, fields
critics on twitter at least, faithfully and honestly.
I have been reading Taibbi since the eXiled. Robinson and Current Affairs I only found out
about more recently.
I view Taibbi as a real journalist with a proven track record. Current Affairs often has
some entertaining and thoughful content, but Robinson frankly seems to be more of a
lightweight, especially in comparison to Taibbi.
He specializes in "takedowns" of right wing grifters like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.
Not exactly difficult targets. His turning on Taibbi, and more recently Krystal Ball and
Rising, has been interesting to see. I don't know if he just grew tired of writing about only
right wing types, or if he's trying to raise his own profile by attacking better-known left
media figures (probably a bit of both). Either way, Robinson's shitck has gotten decidedly
old.
Robinson's not really an investigative reporter. More like a pundit for the over-educated
left. So it's not really fair to compare him to people like Greenwald and Taibbi. He's also
quite young, and every one his age has some big blind spots and youthful hubris that will
(hopefully) shrink in time.
And of course his shtick got tired. Anyone who's job consists of basically writing 2-3
op-eds a week is gonna run out of new material real fast. In a marginally more sane world
he'd have a nice job as the regular NYT lefty op-ed guy, and be pretty good at it I
think.
In any case, he's a sincere young man who does seem to listen and learn. I mostly side
with Taibbi in this kerfuffle, but maybe I wouldn't have 10 years ago. Given the large number
of truly horrible people in the public eye these days, the vitriol towards young Nate seems a
bit excessive. Frankly, if there's anyone who could get the PMC+DSA crowd to start
questioning identitarianism, it's probably him (as I believe they constitute the near
entirety of his readership), so lets work on helping him "recognize his own privilege" re:
the working class instead of bashing him or questioning his motives.
I forgot about the attack on Krystal Ball. I didn't like that either, but another person I
generally like, Adam Johnson, did the same.
I have just gotten used to the fact that there aren't going to be people I agree with on
every important issue 100 percent of the time. This isn't irony or sarcasm -- I really am
disappointed when otherwise smart and (IMO) clearly well intentioned people have opinions I
think are wrong. But it is possible I am wrong. ( This is all painfully earnest, as corny as
it sounds. )
I think you have the correct approach. People are far too hair triggered about certain
topics. A journalist has to churn out lots of copy, even the best will occasionally get it
wrong, or just happen to express beliefs that don't match up with what i or anyone else
believes. It is I think the sort of trap that IdPol people fall into – insisting on
increasing levels of purity from those on their side, and immediately casting them out if
they dare shift one inch from the narrative.
It should be possible to read and learn from good writers, even if you disagree with them.
And it's very important that progressives learn and develop by listening to those who have
respectful and intellectually coherent reasons not to buy into every precious shibboleth. I
think its very important to have voices like Taibbi and Stoller, people who aren't afraid to
make even fellow left progressives angry by taking strong positions.
As seen on TV, Frank Figliuzzi x Greenwald mistaking Figliuzzi's shingle advertising
body-man services, for a Wurlitzer. "Figliuzzi" is "small son" in Italian, a euphemism for
abandoned orphans, also known for working on behalf of the parents that raised them: The
State. Perhaps Figliuzzi's booking agency has insight into clandestine media control. It's
hard to decipher whether Taibbi's beef is that journalists' ethical lapses are not properly
coordinated or whether the lapses are not authentic enough. Which is the same criticism
leveled at the street demonstrators without acknowledging that higher levels of coordination
and authentic anger potentiate more physical harm. Spontaneity is the x-factor in both
pursuits. Last point. When the surveillance state is conceptualized as the ever-vigilant eyes
of BLM and the feverish archiving of Journos, rather than the underworld of the Police State,
the surveillance state-less becomes a mode for positive change. Vindication by security
camera. Can one be baffled by hope?
"What the heck is the correct pejorative for a member of the intelligence commumity? "
The intelligence communities must have there own terms for these people. "Agents of
influence"? Psychological warfare specialists? Propagandists? Minitrue Goodthinker?
I think the United States needs a mandatory high school class in "How to read propaganda".
Americans are probably the most propagandized people on the planet.
Some of the CIA are analysts, like Ray McGovern, albeit politicized ones. The CIA has
different departments. The best word for the CIA is probably "disgrace" or "national
shame".
Would love to hear Taibbi explain why the NY Times spent the summer of 2016 pretending to
care that Republicans pretended to care about Clinton's email protocols.
Speaking of the fake news NY Times, here is a good 2017 analysis of its decades-long
mendacity and war propagandizing. Here is a snippet:
"The CIA's brazen intervention in the electoral process in 2016 and 2017 broke new ground
in the agency's politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell announced in an August 2016
op-ed in the Times: "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton," and former CIA boss
Michael Hayden published an op-ed in the Washington Post just days before the election,
entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is Russia's Useful Fool." Morell had yet another op-ed in
the Times on January 6, now openly assailing the new president. These attacks were
unrelievedly insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, even portraying Trump as a traitor;
they also made clear that Clinton's more pugnacious stance toward Syria and Russia was
preferable by far to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and cooperation with Russia."
Note where so many seemingly-disreputable people end up, and why. There is money , whether
to reward for past services, or to transfer in anticipation of legal defenses needed.
Money shows up in novel ways, like book deals and in plain old propagandizing ways, like
pundit spots.
And of course there really is such a thing as "Left Wing Hate" (for some definition of
"left," I admit).
Glad to see this qualifier added. I suspect the language that is necessary to have
meaningful discussions about political ideologies with people from different political tribes
is purposely corrupted by the conservative and liberal media establishments, probably at the
behest of the CIA.
Einstein's definition of madness "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting to
get a different result"
Do you remember the last time you let the robber barons and reckless bankers run riot in
the 1920s?
No.
Do you remember the last time you used neoclassical economics in the 1920s?
No.
Do you remember how bad it was in the 1970s?
Yes.
Do you remember how bad it was in the 1930s?
No.
During the 1920s there was a great consolidation of US businesses into often single
companies that dominated every sector.
This time this has happened in the media.
About six corporations control the US media, and they make sure you hear, what they want you
to hear.
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s – neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation,
low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising
nationalism and extremism
1940s – World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
I remembered where this path goes.
When the US needed an FDR, it got an Obama.
Now they've got Trump.
They've taken a more European approach this time.
Trying to maintain the status quo is not a good idea, they needed a New Deal.
Somewhat relevant. Don't threaten the narrative.
"Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex (@slatestarcodex deletes his blog after a @nytimes
reporter threatens to doxx him, which could ruin his career as a psychiatrist and raises
serious safety concerns."
That said, anyone who believes the NYT was ever respectable, as in worthy of respect, not
as in "mainstay of the establishment", needs only harken back to Pulitzer's role in fanning
the Spanish-American War to understand how fundamentally depraved an institution it really
is.
His name was known to many readers of Slate Star Codex, and they were too polite to repeat
it. There is a decency and brilliance that would be sorely missed with any permanent
silencing of his unique voice and views.
Absolutely, its a brilliant blog, on so many levels. Its beyond belief that the NY would
insist on publishing his real name, when there is absolutely no reason or public interest in
doing so.
The NYT fancies itself an empire, dispensing and dispatching at will. Here is a Star Wars
quote from Obi-Wan applicable to those that the Grey Lady targets, or even purposefully
ignores:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in
terror and were suddenly silenced.
It is quite interesting, and positive, should I say, that nobody resorted to the argument
of "lefty" thinkers destroying themselves as the perennial malaise of the left. Regarding the
confrontation between Taibbi and Robinson it looks clear they do not represent 2 variations
of the same camp: They inhabit completely different camps though, as an outsider, I am not
able to establish clearly the limits between their audiences and their supporting
platforms.
It strikes me, as very well pointed, the similarities that Lambert brougth from Taibbi in
the ADDENDUM about the, IMO very likely, Trump reelection and the 2016 elections: he can
easily run away with his errors and the liberals look poised to make similar mistakes in 2020
as they did in 2016. They learnt nothing and forgot nothing.
On this I really would like a well informed discussion on some news pieces that have seen
linked here before indicating that Trump very much dislikes voting by mail "because of fraud"
though my opinion is that he just wants the election turnout to be the smaller the
better.
Regarding the vast U.S. media propaganda machine, Chomsky famously said long ago that
propaganda was MORE necessary in democratic societies. In a totalitarian regime, the
government can control the public with force and violence, imprisoning or executing
dissidents. But in a democratic society, citizens have the power to vote and change the
government. Therefore, it is more necessary in a democratic society to control how the public
thinks. Thus propaganda is the very essence of democracy. Propaganda ids thought control in
democratic societies.
There was a time when I went to the established media to learn things. Now, it feels more
like checking in on an evolving soap opera with a baffling plot and inconsistent characters.
There's a certain grim amusement in seeing the latest plot twist but that's about all. I get
my actual information from sites like NC and specialist sites and newsletters by experts. I'm
afraid that my gut reaction to clicking on a MSM story these days is: why is this bast**d
lying to me?
Likewise. The thing is, as a teenager back in the 1980's I'd read my Chomsky and a number
of radical media writers. My eyes had been opened when I was around 15, home on holidays and
bored watching afternoon TV when a particular incident occurred in NI. I remember watching
open mouthed as the narrative was completely twisted around 180 degrees by the time of the
evening news (I won't go into the details, but it started as 'brave mourners tackle
terrorists who drove a car into a crowd saving many lives' into 'barbaric Republicans lynch
two innocent soldiers who had lost their way' over the course of about 4 hours of reporting.
But I still, up to a few years ago, as a default tended to believe what I read in the
newspapers or watched on TV, unless I had a reasonably good reason not to do so. But no more.
I don't really know whether things have gotten much worse, or I've just become more
educated/cynical.
Fast forward to 2003, very much like the terrorist attacks in Atocha train station when
Aznar phoned all the media to say "it is certain it was ETA" and so the publications in Spain
went with this story. Thereafter, only the conservative media went on with a conspiracy
theory with the Spanish police in collusion with ETA to maintain their narrative even when it
was crystal clear it was a yihaddist attack.
So, regarding the media, it is the narrative what goes first and much more important than
facts. No matter if it is a conservative or a liberal outlet, they will stick to their
narrative. This has worsened with time.
I love this quote, so let me be a stickler. The actual question is: Why is this lying
bastard lying to me?. It was originally atributed to Louis Heron of the Times and
channeled by Paxman in an interview at the end of his Newsnight career. Otherwise, I am
depressed to say that I can do nothing other than agree with your view of the MSM in general,
although there are a few journalists who appear to be doing what they should be doing even if
they may not doing it as well as they probably could. As for the rest, some of them can't
even write.
Yes, I'm not sure whether Heron actually said that (accounts differ) but I remember
thinking when I first read it decades ago that it was silly: I spent a good part of my life
preparing politicians for interviews, and, at least then, you made sure they were briefed to
put the best spin on things, which is not the same as lying. But on subjects I was familiar
with, I used to reckon that most jobbing journalists (ie not the deep specialists) would get
things factually accurate about 50% of the time, and that the problems were more related to
ignorance and preconceptions than active attempts to mislead. I don't think that's the case
now. Journalists today, by contrast, actively tell lies, often for political reasons or to
conform to groupthink.
Taibbi is a national treasure. He is a funny, engaging writer who knows where the
boundaries are involving spin, humor and articulating a precise message. The fact that he has
been so clairvoyant about hundreds of issues (Political futility, Financial Crisis, Policing,
and changes in Media) is due to his unique willingness to talk to people in all walks of life
to understand the complexity of what he is writing about. And when he does not know
something, he owns it. Connectivity to people, and his marriage to journalism all breed more
and more trust (as well as puts a target on his back).
We live in a time of fracture (capital/labor, institutional decay, and the indelible scars
of markets taking over our lives at every level) means we need people to cut through the
noise, effectively -- reminding us of our fantastic thinking and proffering uncomfortable
truths. And nowhere has this been more apparent than the NL core of the democratic party on
the Left:
1. Russiagate Maddowers versus Mate-Blumenthal
2. Syria/Bolivia/Venezuela/Chile CIA media engineers vs The Grayzone and Greenwald
3. The Warren/Sanders rift. The Warren/Warren rift.
4. The night of 1000 Knives.
5. BLM and Democratic Party.
6. And left media puts out a hit against Taibbi – with very little serious discussion
of Hate Inc..
7. Leftist Fractures – N Robinson vs Krystal Ball, Lee Fang, Taibbi and an academic
accused of "bad research"
8. Attack on the show Rising – why would the left talk to the populist right
canard.
The left are playing a role in their own demise -- often at the behest of the NL center or
in concert to a more individualistic lens, separate of that to ordinary people. Kyle Kulinski
just did a 30 minutes on this too.
All in all, the group who needs to be shattered into a thousand pieces in the wind (the NL
core of both parties) just got stronger this election cycle -- and in my mind the fractures
on the left are just starting.
It did not have to be that way. Sickening to consider when you think about the opportunity
we had in January.
Over the years I have asked many people about press coverage of subjects they knew well. I
asked if, from their perspective, the press got all, most, some or none of the story right.
The long run average response is between some and none.
Then I ask, "Why, if your personal experience says the press rarely gets it right
concerning something you know a lot about, do you believe they get it right concerning things
you know little about?"
Taibbi is correct in that piece, undeniably so, but more than that it's the entire
Sanders-based social democratic movement that's coming apart. The media is mostly a
reflection of that. I had always hoped that the movement towards social democracy Sanders
fostered could survive beyond him as a viable candidate, but I must confess I no longer think
that likely. The whole movement is imploding in on itself, and people lashing out against
Taibbi is, to me at least, just more evidence of how much of his criticism hit the mark.
Even if the current left can survive the end of Sanders as a political figure on the
national stage, I see even less of a path for it once Trump is gone. Rabid anti-Trump
sentiment is the only adhesive that keeps the different parts of it together. They saw a boom
when Trump was elected, and I can only conclude there will be a big bust when he goes away.
If they put a lot of effort into publicly shilling for Biden, then it's even more likely,
because on some level they'll be bound to carry water for him while he's in office because
they advocated for him as a leader in the first place. No, it's not just the press that's
destroying itself it's also practically all of the liberal class and most of what flies under
the banner of the left too.
I have to disagree with your assessment about the movement towards social democracy. There
isn't a specific "leader" at present, but just the sheer number of people who protested in
the streets around the country (during a pandemic I might add) in regards to police
brutality, economic inequality, a better healthcare system such as Medicare For All, are all
fighting for social justice and democracy. This is coming from people who recognize what our
system is doing to them and others.
"Rabid anti-Trump sentiment is the only adhesive that keeps the different parts of it
together."
Once again, I have to disagree. The supposed "liberal" media, many "liberal" politicians,
and supporters who base their personal opinion on whatever is popular that particular day may
have "rabid anti-Trump sentiment".
But there are plenty of people who recognize we are going through a major "social
collapse".
Some people may not want to discuss these issues because they don't want to change the
current system (they would rather attack Matt Taibbi and others than discuss the legitimate
problems we have). These problems, including an economic collapse, are not going to disappear
the day Donald Trump is out of office nor will it improve with a "more of the same" Joe Biden
administration.
At this point, I tend to believe our country will either
a) become even more authoritarian where the citizens just accept they have no civil
rights and view police and military brutality as part of "everyday life" or
b) we continue on this trajectory of collapse with a very small percentage of people
doing quite well and the vast majority wondering or already in circumstances which lead
them to question how long it will be before they are homeless, without a job, how they will
feed their family and whether they can get any healthcare if they need it or
c) we finally wake up as a majority of citizens and demand a government (executive,
congressional, and judicial) responsive to the citizens which deals with social and economic
collapse. All of those with the current ideologies of the Democratic/Republican parties
need to go as they represent either their careers or moneyed interests. Then again, maybe the
level of corruption and greed is so far gone in this country that the only trajectory is
collapse.
Taibbi has been doing good work on this. This would seem to be another example. Krystal
and Saagar: CNN viewers REVOLT after journalist correctly says 'Biden is a flawed
candidate:
In Continental Europe the 'all together' theme is barely holding, and momentum is in the
opposite direction In fact migrant communities are growing afraid of backlash and eventual
anti-migrant campaigns, even eventual quasi-ethnic-cleansing
With social welfare systems strained to the breaking point given lockdown unemployment,
there is regret and anger building about public funds spent on migrant waves in recent
years
The lockdowns are often barely being enforced in migrant communities, for fear of riotous
explosion by youthful troublemakers if enforcement is attempted, as noted in the first
comment above by jbwilson24 re France French officials have explicitly said so, in effect
'just leave migrant areas alone'
Last weekend in Belgium, an age-19 youth of migrant heritage, confronted by police when
with others, tried to speed away on a scooter but in his haste hit a police vehicle head-on
and died, leading to two days of rioting and 100 or so arrests When a police vehicle was
attacked by a mob, at least one police firearm was removed by a rioter
As people watch these videos of migrant-origin youths rioting, whilst local people receive
heavy monetary fines for lockdown violations, emotions run high as lockdowns continue, or
with another wave in the autumn, it may get quite dramatic politically
This is sad for those of us with migrant-heritage friends, who think positively of a
certain degree of 'organic' (not forced or induced or manipulated) immigration
I am amazed that how many immigrants who migrated from a nation state, still love their
nation but hate when us nationalist. It's such a hypocrisy. The number one rule of any
migrant is to adapt the new country and culture and not the other way round. This whole PC
culture is going out of hands everywhere. I think every one should be forced to watch the
southpark to understand the irony of what we are becoming.
Democrats Ignore the Immigration Elephant in the Room
The most important issue of Trump's ascent has drawn silence from the Democratic Party, now
the party of the elites.
(Jim Larkin/Shutterstock )
January 17, 2020
|
12:01 am
Robert
W. Merry At Tuesday's Democratic debate sponsored by CNN and the Des Moines Register ,
nobody seemed to notice the elephant in the room -- or perhaps the candidates and moderators
just didn't want to acknowledge its presence. Whether it was out of blindness or stubbornness,
it tells us a great deal about the state of the Democratic Party in our time -- and also about
the state of American politics.
That elephant is immigration, and the issue it represents is the defining one of our time.
It is the most intractable, the most emotional, and the most irrepressible of all matters
facing Western societies. And yet it was almost totally ignored in the most crucial debate so
far in the Democratic quest for a presidential nominee. Two passing references was all the
issue got over two hours of polemical fireworks.
President Trump certainly came in for his share of opprobrium from the top six Democratic
candidates, yet nobody seemed to have the slightest awareness that the single most important
issue driving Trump's political rise four years ago was immigration. A Pew Research Center
survey revealed after the 2016 election that 66 percent of Trump supporters considered
immigration to be a "very big" problem, the highest percentage for any issue. For Hillary
Clinton supporters, the corresponding percentage was just 17. Also, fully 79 percent of Trump
voters favored building the border wall he advocated, compared to just 10 percent for Clinton
supporters.
During the 2016 campaign, the Washington Examiner called immigration "the mother of
all issues" -- touching on jobs, national security and terrorism, the public fisc, and the
cultural definition of America. That latter factor, said the paper, was a "nearly existential
question" involving the ultimate definition of a nation without borders.
Elsewhere in the West, we see the same political percolation. By most analyses, immigration
was the driving force behind Britain's 2016 vote for Brexit. The Atlantic ran a piece
in June of that year headlined: "The Immigration Battle at the Heart of Brexit." After the
vote, Slate rushed out to interview former British prime minister Tony Blair -- who, as the
website noted, "presided over the opening of Britain's borders." That had unleashed "a wave of
immigration unprecedented in [Britain's] history." Within a few years, noted Slate, "roughly
twice as many immigrants arrived in the United Kingdom as had arrived in the previous
half-century." The Brexit vote was in large measure a rebuke to that Blair project, pushed
avidly and relentlessly by the British ruling class.
Elsewhere in Europe -- Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, Italy, even Sweden, among other
nations -- mass immigration has emerged as the dominant issue, roiling the waters of national
politics and pushing to the fore various types of conservative populism. New parties have
emerged to join the issue, and old parties have gained new sway.
Many commentators and political analysts in recent years have posited the idea that a new
political fault line has emerged throughout the West, between the globalist elites and ordinary
citizens who are more nationalist in their political sensibilities and more culturally
protective. This is true. And while there are many issues that have come into play here, such
as trade, military adventurism, identity politics, and political correctness, immigration is
the key driver.
Generally, the open-border elites have been on the defensive since Donald Trump seized the
issue in 2015 and tied it to the emotional matters of terrorism and crime. Trump was probably
correct in the first Republican debate of the 2016 election cycle when he said that, were it
not for him, immigration probably wouldn't have been a major topic of discussion. It certainly
seemed as if the other candidates preferred to keep it out of the campaign debate so it could
be handled after the election in the more controlled environments of Congress and the courts.
By bringing it up, even in his crude and disturbing manner, Trump galvanized a large body of
voters who had concluded that the elites of both parties didn't really care about controlling
the borders.
Indeed, in their 2018 book, The Great Revolt , Salena Zito and Brad Todd posit that
Trump got an extra boost from working class Americans put off by the attacks on him from
prominent politicians of both parties who called his immigration concerns "unhinged,"
"reprehensible," "xenophobic," "racist," and "fascist." Zito and Todd write that many Trump
voters "saw one candidate, who shared their anxiety about immigration's potential connections
to domestic terrorism, being attacked by an entire political and media establishment that blew
off that concern as bigotry."
In this great political divide, the Democratic candidates at the debate represent the elite
preference for policies that embrace or nearly embrace open borders. An NPR study of candidate
positions indicated that, on the question of whether illegal crossings should be
decriminalized, four of those on the debate stage say yes, while the positions of the other two
remain "unclear." On whether immigration numbers should be increased, four say yes, while two
are unclear. On whether federal funding for border enforcement should be increased or
decreased, five have no clear position, while one says it should be decreased. A separate
Washington Post study on the candidates' views as to whether illegal immigrants should
be covered under a government-run health plan found that five say yes while one has no clear
position.
The Democratic Party has become the party of the country's elites -- globalist,
internationalist, anti-nationalist, free-trade, and open borders. Those views are so thoroughly
at variance with those of Trump voters that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we
have here a powerful issue of our time, perhaps the most powerful issue. Yet the journalistic
moderators at Tuesday's event didn't see fit to ask about it. And the candidates weren't
inclined to bring it up in any serious way.
Perhaps they thought that if they just ignored that elephant, eventually it would go away.
It won't.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is
the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon &
Schuster).
A million Eastern Europeans (Poles) move to the UK, and this precipitates Brexit. A million
Ukrainians move to Poland, and it is hardly noticed there. There is a difference here which
the author did not notice, or care to notice, and I feel no obligation to explain;
Also, in 2016 some truly nasty things were said about the Mexican people, and they were
not said by the people on the left. Again, this post fails to mention any of that;
These two things suggest a myopia of American conservatism.
Mark, you really are a voice of reason. I enjoy engaging with you.
Agree with you entirely here. I think you'll notice that ethnocentrism I was talking
about in the previous conversation we had in Rod's post about BenOp for the humanities. The
ethnocentrism is in full display on that thread.
It's weird to call the democrats the party of the elites when about half, it not more of
the working class vote democratic. The Washington post just put out a poll on black
Americans and their hatred of Trump is almost universal. Most blacks are working clsss. The
vast majority of Hispanics are also working class and they sure aren't Trump voters
either.
Trump and the GOP: had a mandate for populist reform, passed a tax-cut-for-billionaires,
almost start a neocon war with Iran
Obama and the Dems: had a mandate and passed ACA, which BigMediPharma is totally fine
with, gave Wall Street a big bailout and no punishment for the derivatives crash
Both of the parties are owned by the elites with a few exceptions here and there, such
as Sanders and Gabbard. And of course those two are attacked quite a bit by the elites.
Both parties want to increase immigration, because they drive down wages and increase
profits. Both parties are funded by the same crew of the shareholding class.
Trump is an outlier in that he is willing to talk about the unmentionable, which got him
elected. Unfortunately, by calling Mexican immigrants rapists, drug dealers and murderers,
he associated the immigration issue with racism instead of wage issues. While that played
to an ugly subset of his supporters, it took the discussion of immigration off the board
for Democrats because they don't want the association.
Bernie Sanders has fought against open borders in the past because of the effect on
wages. But he can't discuss it now.
@Peripatetic
Commenter "He has built more wall than the last three presidents and is on track to have
one fully built by November next year. He has also reduced the amount of illegal immigration
into the US."
To date (August 2019), the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated
barriers with new fencing. And a major component of Trump's pledge -- that Mexico would pay for
the wall -- hasn't been part of the equation. U.S. taxpayers have paid the cost.
"So right now, 78 miles have been built, have been built where there was an existing form of
barrier," [Acting CBP Commissioner Mark] Morgan said, effectively admitting that none of the
wall that has been constructed has been in new areas.
For the record, I have no problem with rebuilding and/or replacing our border wall. But
Trump has failed to deliver on his campaign promise.
my grandfather's property in West Berlin was maybe 700 yards from the wall. With
binoculars, I could get a good view from my second floor bedroom. Of course the Berlin Wall
was a much more modest border than the inner German one.
Arguably, after upgrades were started in the late 60's, the inner German border became a
very effective barrier. One thing that made it effective (and mind you, it was a border
keeping people in more than a border keeping people out) was the exclusion zone extending 5km
from the border. Only people with special permits could live and work there.
In order to make the border more practical, entire villages were razed and parts of th
physical border were located back from the actual border to avoid difficult terrain. Throw in
the land mines, booby traps and 50,000 or so troops guarding about 870 miles of the inner
German border, and it came to an effective barrier.
So I don't want to say we can't "seal" the Mexican border. But I think the expense in land
seizures, manpower, and land mines is likely a lot higher for the 2000 miles of our southern
border than the 15-20 billion estimated for its construction.
Bismarck says that politics is the art of the possible. Given the huge demand, stamping out
drug running is impossible. For an adequate price, there will always be people willing to
meet the demand. At best, you drive up the price and make successful runners incredibly rich.
Dean Baker bruited this idea: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/a-trade-war-everyone-can-win
"The alternative is simple: Mexico could announce that it would no longer enforce U.S.
patents and copyrights on its soil. This would be a yuuge deal, as Trump would say."
I agree sealing the border would be exorbitantly expensive. This would include not just a
big,beautiful wall and the manpower to watch over that wall, but a massive surveillance and
security presence along the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The expense would be similar
to the cost imposed on the home front during WWII. It will require widespread sacrifice,
probably a progressive tax structure similar to what we had during WWII. Maybe even
rationing. Would that make America great and please the great deplorable mass?
Colonel Lang's idea of killing all the drug cartel leadership wherever we find them for an
extended period of time would definitely be a cheaper proposition. I would call it the
Rodrigo Duterte plan. I think making sure a lot of bankers end up sitting in their big
leather chairs with bullet holes in their heads would do much to hasten the success of this
plan.
The point of the article is that a strategy of leadership decapitation of an organization,
whether it be a drug cartel or a jihadist group, does not lead to the destruction of the
organization. The original decapitation strategy was based on the premise that the targeted
organization was strictly hierarchical and could not function without an intact hierarchy. In
fact, most of these target organizations evolved into more distributed organizations. We
weren't quick to see this because we are also wedded to the need for a robust hierarchy in
our organization. This is where the article ends, but the story continued.
Our strategy also evolved in Iraq and Afghanistan. JSOC strike missions became more than
checking faces off a static organizational chart as a hit list. Each strike became an
information gathering mission. That information was quickly analyzed into "actionable
intelligence" resulting in ensuing JSOC strikes and more information gathering. This evolved
into a rapid cycle with often several strikes in a night. This strategy struct at the enemy's
growing resiliency and distributed organization. This is the present state of the art in JSOC
operations.
A few years ago, in response to the notion of a resolution naming English as the country's
official language, a prominent Democratic politician said it wasn't necessary -- it's already
obvious.
Is it set to remain so?
As
noted by ConservativeReview.com, a report
by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates there's a whole lotta people speaking somethin'
else, at least at home.
Conservative Review submits an interesting proposal:
Imagine if the American people were told in 1980 that the non-English-speaking population
in America would triple and rise to a level that is greater than the population of
France.
That statement comes in response to CIS's implication
of 67.3 million people speaking a foreign language at home in America.
As per
numbers from the 2018 American Community Survey, that's roughly 21.9% of U.S. residents.
It's not just the sheer number of foreign language speakers that is shocking; it's the
trend. The number has tripled since 1980 and doubled since 1990. The foreign-born population
has grown seven times as fast as the native-born population since 1980. But even since 2010,
when the foreign population had already ballooned, it has still grown twice as fast as the
native-born population over the past eight years.
If you're curious about the distribution of ESL (or English as No Language)
residents, in nine states, the digits top 25%:
California 45%
Texas 36%
New Mexico 34%
New Jersey 32%
New York 31%
Nevada 31%
Florida 30%
Arizona 28%
Hawaii 28%
How do things fare in the five largest cities? The buncha peeps eschewing the ways of
America's motherland at home breaks down like this obtener una carga de LA Sorry -- I
mean, get a load of LA:
Los Angeles 59%
Houston 50%
New York City 49%
Phoenix 38%
Chicago 36%
Among foreign-language use, in terms of popularity, Spanish dominates like the Dream Team at
the 1992 Olympics: Español's
grown 12% since 2010, and it hits the boards with approx. 62%.
In fact, there are more Spanish-speakers in the U.S. than in any Latin American country --
short of Mexico, Argentina, and Columbia.
Chinese snags 2nd place, with 3.5 million moving mouths.
The fastest growing languages: those from India and Islamic countries.
Arabic speakers have grown 46% in only eight years.
Since 2000, they've doubled.
If all this signals a mere skyrocketing of bilingualism, then good for America: It's
becoming more sophisticated.
On the other hand, if it points to a cave-in of
inglés , that's quite a different trajectory.
And with 2020 Democrats wanting to do away with that quaint notion of protected borders,
we're not sure to have millions more mastering the King's any time soon.
It seems to me that language is one thing we need to share -- it's the way we connect, in
order to be One Nation Under God.
Presently, we're on our way to One Nation Under
Dios/bog/Déu/xudo/Deus/Bondye/Ilaah/Tanrı/ღმერთი/परमेश्वर/하나님/พระเจ้า/الله.
And while all those words are, of course, beautiful to know and use, that's gonna be one
big-a** dollar bill.
"... Baudet also argues that establishment politicians push for immigration because they favor a globalized worldview under which national identities will disappear: "They genuinely believe we should move beyond religious and national identities to become global citizens." Baudet, however, thinks such policies would be disastrous, not only because they risk plunging Europe into "tremendous conflict," but also because they risk creating a "brain drain" from Africa and the Middle East. ..."
The leader of the Spanish Vox party, Santiago Abascal, argued that immigration is a
political euphemism for the trafficking of cheap labor into Europe so that multinational
companies and financial interests can increase their profits: "The establishment argues that
our system must be maintained in the face of an aging population, but mass immigration renders
work increasingly precarious." According to Abascal, the 2015 refugee crisis was used as a
pretext to further the economic ambitions of Brussels bureaucrats at the expense of Europe's
working population, especially its youth.
Baudet also argues that establishment politicians push for immigration because they favor a
globalized worldview under which national identities will disappear: "They genuinely believe we
should move beyond religious and national identities to become global citizens." Baudet,
however, thinks such policies would be disastrous, not only because they risk plunging Europe
into "tremendous conflict," but also because they risk creating a "brain drain" from Africa and
the Middle East.
The solution to this problem, many of these conservative leaders say, is to provide
motivation and assistance to Europe's young people so they have their own children. Abascal
uses Hungary as a model,
where , under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, families that have three or more children
are given government grants to buy houses and no longer have to pay income tax. The state
finances free nurseries, allowing women to re-enter the workforce without having to worry about
childcare costs. In addition, Hungary has inscribed Christianity in its constitution to create
a strong religious identity, providing its youth with a sense of direction and meaning.
The problem of low birthrates ultimately lies internally, within Europe's culture and social
life. A young generation that doesn't aspire to have families and that's increasingly alienated
from any sense of community has driven much of the crisis. Whether Europe can be salvaged and
revived is yet to be seen.
Alessandra Bocchi is a freelance journalist focusing on foreign policy in North Africa,
Europe, and the U.S. She has been covering the protests in Hong Kong. Follow her on Twitter
@AlessaBocchi
.
"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the
state law.
Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special
privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell
"discrimination"
@J. O.
Step 1 in ending hunger in America:
Stop importing hungry foreigners who can't earn a living here.
Do that and somebody might take you seriously. As it is, you're morally despicable.
A new Homeland Security rule to screen out immigrants who are at risk of becoming
dependent on government benefits was put on hold by a federal judge until there's a final
decision whether the so-called green card wealth test is legal.
US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said Friday that the rule, which was set to
go into effect Oct. 15, can't be implemented nationwide.
The rule, announced in August, replaces a current policy that says immigrants shouldn't
receive more than half their income from cash benefits, such as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income from Social Security.
Under the new more expansive definition, immigrants aren't supposed to use public benefits
like Medicaid, public housing assistance, or food stamps for more than 12 months over a
36-month period. Immigration officials will consider an immigrant's age, health, education,
and wealth to see if they are at risk of becoming a "public charge."
Immigrant rights' advocacy groups and several states have argued that the new rule
conflicts with existing immigration laws and would drive up the cost of providing health care
and other services to immigrants.
Daniels blocked the rule following a. August lawsuit filed by the states of New York,
Connecticut and Vermont and the city of New York, which alleged that the policy specifically
targets immigrants of color. He ruled that the Department of Homeland Security went beyond
its authority under federal immigration law.
"Defendants do not articulate why they are changing the public charge definition, why this
new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the rule -- which has
absolutely no support in the histroy of U.S. Immigration law -- is reasonable," Daniels said,
calling the rule "repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and
success through hard work and upward mobility." ...
Mexico. Mexican criminal groups based in Mexico smuggle bulk quantities of methamphetamine
via couriers traveling in private and commercial vehicles, usually equipped with hidden
compartments, or by foot through and between land POEs along the Southwest Border. These
criminal groups also smuggle small shipments (2 kg to 4 kg) via couriers aboard commercial
flights and via mail services. Methamphetamine shipments often are transported to stash sites
and staging areas, primarily in California and Arizona, before the drug is distributed
locally, regionally, or nationally.
Methamphetamine transported from production areas in Mexico to the Southwest Border
typically has been smuggled through and between POEs in California; however, recent data
indicate that more methamphetamine may now be smuggled through or between POEs in Arizona
than other Southwest Border states. According to EPIC seizure data, the combined amount of
methamphetamine seizures from 2001 through 2003 at or between POEs in California (1,725 kg)
was much higher than the amount seized at or between POEs in Texas (1,145 kg), Arizona (1,120
kg), or New Mexico (60 kg). However, in 2003 the amount seized in Arizona (640 kg) surpassed
seizures in the other Southwest Border states including California (593 kg), Texas (484 kg),
and New Mexico (16 kg) possibly because of specific law enforcement operations conducted in
Arizona (see Figure 11).
-------
Pick an index then call it something vague like crime.
Are these immigrants importing meth? Mostly, immigrants crossing back and forth across the
border.
The number of murders and armed robberies committed by people addicted to methamphetamine
is "truly frightening", Western Australia's Chief Justice says.
Justice Wayne Martin said 95 per cent of armed robberies and up to half of all murders
could be attributed to people taking methamphetamine, also known as ice or crystal meth.
---
The number I hear is about half of all crime.
So, sure, pick a particular index, generate the result you want, and if it meets the
delusional demands of Economist View then it is printed.
I didn't even need to read it, I already know what result he engineered, otherwise it
never would have appeared here.
Non-citizens accounted for 64 percent of all federal arrests in 2018, according to new data released
on Aug. 22 by the Justice Department. The surge was driven largely by immigration -crime arrests, which have soared
to the highest level in at least two decades.
Federal authorities conducted 108,667 arrests for immigration crimes in 2018, up more than
five times from the 20,942 arrests in 1998. Immigration arrests accounted for 95 percent of the
total increase in the number of federal arrests over the past 20 years, the data shows.
That data also
shows a flip in the percentage of arrests of noncitizens compared to arrests of U.S. citizens.
In 1998, arrests of citizens accounted for 63 percent of the total arrests. By 2018, arrests of
noncitizens had grown to 64 percent of the total.
In a press
release accompanying the data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) noted that while
noncitizens accounted for 7 percent of the U.S. population, they committed 24 percent of all
federal drug arrests, 25 percent of all federal property arrests, and 28 percent of all federal
fraud arrests.
... ... ...
In terms of prosecutions, more than 78 percent of noncitizens were prosecuted for illegal
reentry, alien smuggling, and misuse of visas. The most common prosecutions of noncitizens
outside of immigration-related offense dealt with drugs, at 13 percent of the total, and fraud,
at 4 percent.
Weall, they say it right out. 78% of those noncitizen arrests were for illegal
immigration, a "victimless" crime. Most prosecutions for robbery, murder, rape, assault, and
even drug trafficking are prosecuted under state laws. They'd only move it to federal court
specifically because non-citizens or cross-border activity was involved. So what this
really says is, "Hey, folks. Trump is actually enforcing immigration laws." That's it.
The only crimes that foreigners really commit more than citizens are immigration violations.
That and, historically, organized criminal gangs have used connections in other countries,
whether Mexico or Sicily, to escape American justice and facilitate smuggling of whatever's
profitable.
US: Noncitizens Commit Crime At 2.5X Their Population Share (2018)
"At least 21 percent of people convicted of non-immigration crimes in the United States
between 2011 and 2016 were non-citizens -- 2.5 times their share of the population, a new
study has shown."
High Numbers Of Indian Nationals Crossing Into US At Southern Border (2019)
"In the 2018 fiscal year, 8,997 people from India were apprehended at the Southwest
border -- more than triple the number from the year before, when 2,943 Indian migrants were
apprehended."
That NYT article is not for the proles.. it is for the ten percent. They want their
hairdressers, lawn maintenance, nannies, and home health aides to make $10 an hour. It is
better for them to have a lower class pool of people's to do this work. This is why the
author didn't question the "$10-12 an hour for a CNA" statement. He/she wants that cheap
labor for themselves.
Typo in the text for your link s/b 44.5 million. The report makes a further adjustment for
illegal immigrants to obtain a total of "likely 46.4 million" immigrants. Then, from your
link:
Between 2010 and 2017, 9.5 million new immigrants settled in the United States. New
arrivals are offset by roughly 320,000 immigrants who return home each year and natural
mortality of about 2ha90,000 annually among the existing immigrant population.2 As a
result, growth in the immigrant population was 4.6 million from 2010 to 2017.
So net average about 12.6K per week, though the detail shows numbers increasing over the
time span.
As far as "overloading the social systems, welfare and finances" it would be helpful to
see some detail. There are often studies showing factors like the overall contribution of
immigrant labor to the economy, and comparative immigrant uses of social services which
illustrate these issues, pro and con. For example, a
recently proposed change would make it more difficult for military veterans to obtain a
green cards for themselves and their families if they had accepted public benefits, though
some would argue that military service is a valuable contribution to the country.
A key consideration for me is that there are powerful politicians, and those who vote for
them, who favor even the most inhumane versions of gutting or ending immigration who also
favor gutting or eliminating social programs and workers rights for non-immigrants.
This is NOT about immigration. Get the terms right and you can see the problem clearly.
Allow others to define the vocabulary and you get the mess we are in where illegally
trafficked, quasi-slaves are lumped together with legal immigrants.
The difference is rights. A legal immigrant has the right to a minimum wage, safe working
conditions, a vote and all of the other protections afforded a native born citizen. And guess
what, both government and corporations work hard to make legal immigration difficult. It
costs thousands of dollars, takes years and if, at any time throughout that period you, or
– more likely your now teenaged kid – makes a mistake involving law enforcement,
then YOURROUT.
On the other hand we have human traffickers trawling around Guatemala, Nicaragua and
probably rural Mexico selling the American dream for your teenage son. And all you have to do
to get him trafficked to a life of luxury working fifteen hours a day in a battery chicken
shed for 4 bucks an hour .. is to give over the deeds of your Guatemalan shack. So if kiddo
doesn't work hard enough or, heaven forfend, says forget this and bails, then you're all
homeless.
Unfortunately, open borders proponents are partly to blame for the terminological
murkiness.
Pro illegal immigration advocates typically use slogans affirming the value of immigrants and
immigration. They correctly note that immigrants make the country great, etc. No argument
there. But they use these slogans and line of argumentation to advocate for illegal
immigration. They deliberately conflate the two processes of legal and illegal
immigration.
"The difference is rights. A legal immigrant has the right to a minimum wage, safe working
conditions, a vote and all of the other protections afforded a native born citizen "
They..the legal immigrants also often enjoy protections from their original country and
dual citizenship. They have an escape route
Leaving the US citizen ass out with ZERO protections.
Just, ugh, to seeing rightwing talking point anti-immigrant comment thread on NC. Sorry.
Thanks to anyone attempting to correct the stirring-up-of-reactionary-resentments with some
critical thinking. Right now, I can't even.
That's fair, but you pay taxes at full rate with no rights for a decade, then you pay
thousands in legal fees to keep your legal status correct and you can't leave the job your in
till you get the green card – which can take years.
The "right" to go back to your own country" is indeed true. But now you have American kids
and likely/eventually American grandkids who know nothing of your "old country" – which
is itself unrecognizable from when you lived there – and maybe that "right" is less
valuable than you think.
Anyway, my aim was to point out the difference between a legal, organized system of
immigration and a cynical nasty system of wage suppression using quasi- slavery. They are
different things and conflating them serves to hide what is going on
"Why a Banking Heiress Spent Her Fortune on Keeping Immigrants Out"
'Newly unearthed documents reveal how an environmental-minded socialite became an ardent
nativist whose money helped sow the seeds of the Trump anti-immigration agenda'
By Nicholas Kulish and Mike McIntire...Aug. 14, 2019
"She was an heiress without a cause -- an indifferent student, an unhappy young bride, a
miscast socialite. Her most enduring passion was for birds.
But Cordelia Scaife May eventually found her life's purpose: curbing what she perceived as
the lethal threat of overpopulation by trying to shut America's doors to immigrants.
She believed that the United States was "being invaded on all fronts" by foreigners, who
"breed like hamsters" and exhaust natural resources. She thought that the border with Mexico
should be sealed and that abortions on demand would contain the swelling masses in developing
countries.
An heiress to the Mellon banking and industrial fortune with a half-billion dollars at her
disposal, Mrs. May helped create what would become the modern anti-immigration movement. She
bankrolled the founding and operation of the nation's three largest restrictionist groups --
the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration
Studies -- as well as dozens of smaller ones, including some that have promulgated white
nationalist views."...
On a Friday afternoon in late July, a crowd of techies, military types and a few civilians
deployed to the new Irvine, Calif., headquarters of Anduril Industries, a defense tech
start-up, to sip hibiscus margaritas and admire the sensor towers and carbon-fiber drones on
display. Dave Brubeck tinkled over the sound system, and the dress code skewed office casual
and pastel, offset by the bright red pop of a lone "Make America Great Again" hat by the taco
bar.
After an hour of socializing amid surveillance equipment, Palmer Luckey, the company's
26-year-old near-billionaire founder, mounted a stage for the ribbon-cutting. Luckey had
wanted to use the company's namesake sword -- a legendary weapon in "The Lord of the Rings"
wielded by the hero Aragorn -- for the ceremony. ...
Armed instead with large scissors, and wearing his trademark uniform of Hawaiian shirt,
cargo shorts and flip-flops, he dropped some Tolkien on the audience.
"Anduril," he said, leaning into the long Elvish vowels, "means Flame of the West. And I
think that's what we're trying to be. We're trying to be a company that represents not just
the best technology that Western democracy has to offer, but also the best ethics, the best
of democracy, the best of values that we all hold dear."
Along remote stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, and on the perimeters of military bases
around the world, Luckey's vision was already becoming reality. Customs and Border Protection
is using Anduril's high-tech surveillance network as a "virtual wall" of interlinked,
solar-powered sentry towers that can alert agents of suspicious activity, and the company has
signed similar deals with U.S. and U.K. military branches. ...
Much depends on the flow via particular area. If the flow is low this is probably a viable
technological solution.
Cheaper then the physical wall as spacing between towers can be hundred yards or even
more.
Solar powered towers is an interesting feature suitable for this particular area, where
sun is abundant during the year.
Drones add flexibility of following intruders "from above" until they are captured, but
how efficient they are at night remains to be seen. Again this presupposes a very low flow in
the guarded area.
In any case the main task of walls and other entrance barriers is to slow down the flow
not to eliminate it completely.
So that those who manage to penetrate the barrier can be dealt with more quickly and
efficiently.
A Supreme Court decision to allow President Trump to redirect $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds
towards his long promised border wall will "really accelerate" progress on the project,
according to Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan in Sunday appearance on Fox News .
The 5-4 decision will allow for the construction of more than 100 miles of fencing - the
most significant step yet, according to
Bloomberg .
McAleenan said while the court's ruling was "a big victory" to build more of the wall, "
we do remain in the midst of a border security crisis " with migrants flooding the region and
that Congress must take more action to deter crossings.
"We made very clear the targeted changes in law that we need," McAleenan said. -
Bloomberg
... ... ...
The wall segments in Arizona, New Mexico and California would give Trump a tangible
achievement to tout in his re-election campaign. Until now, congressional and court
resistance had thwarted significant progress toward a stronger barrier on the almost
2,000-mile frontier.
During his campaign, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. On Saturday he said the
U.S. would be "fully reimbursed for this expenditure, over time, by other countries." He
didn't say how. -
Bloomberg
'Accelerate border wall progress'-- give me a fuckin' break. Trump has had almost three
years to secure the border but has done nothing but blame the Demotards and our ***-infested
jewdiciary for why he can not perform his sworn constitutional duty as POTUS to protect our
borders/citizens. Christ, he must think that he has to have their permission and go on bended
knee before them with his begging bowl in hand. Trump is a god-damned waste. He is what he
described politicians in his campaign-- All talk and no action.
I voted for the guy and supported him. I will not support him in the next go round. Time
to get a fuckin' crazed loon Demotard in office to motivate us to cross the line and start
the shootin'. I ain't gonna end up a slave to jews/niggers/beaners/muslims/hindus/illegal
alien mudmen just because I am a normal Christian Heritage American white guy. **** that
noise. I no longer slumber in The *** Matrix.
Trump should award contracts to 10 contractors and immediately disburse the funds so
libtards can't stop the building.
100 miles isn't near enough and we've seen areas where replacement walls are being put up
at over a mile a day by one contractor. He could get 10 contractors or more building a couple
hundred miles a month. Trump needs to build faster!
Donald Trump's false comments connecting Mexican immigrants and crime
By
Michelle
Ye Hee Lee
July 8, 2015
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're
sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're
bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement
speech
,
June 16, 2015
"I can never apologize for the truth. I don't mind apologizing for things. But I can't apologize for the truth. I said
tremendous crime is coming across. Everybody knows that's true. And it's happening all the time. So, why, when I mention,
all of a sudden I'm a racist. I'm not a racist. I don't have a racist bone in my body."
–Trump, interview on Fox News' "Media Buzz," July 5, 2015
"What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the
United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
–Trump,
statement
about
his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015
Several readers asked us to fact-check Trump's initial comment, which has drawn outrage from Latino groups and led to
breakups with his corporate partners distancing themselves from the inflammatory remarks.
This posed a conundrum for The Fact Checker. We had
fact
checked most of his statements
from his news conference announcing his effort to win the GOP presidential nomination,
but many of those were in the realm of domestic and international policy. We tend not to wade into fact checking incendiary
comments that some might label opinion.
But Trump's statement -- which he repeatedly has defended -- underscores public perceptions that can drive immigration
policies. For example, the 2010 murder of a rancher by a suspected smuggler in an Arizona border city
fueled
public and political pressure
on then-Gov. Jan Brewer to sign the controversial anti-immigrant Senate Bill 1070 into
law.
What do the data tell us about the criminal threat of immigrants?
The Facts
Data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, but a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes
than native-born Americans. In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born
Americans. (The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, has
a
detailed report
showing the shortfalls of immigrant crime data.)
Immigration and crime levels have had inverse trajectories since the 1990s: immigration has increased, while crime has
decreased. Some experts say the influx of immigrants contributed to the decrease in crime rates, by increasing the
denominator while not adding significantly to the numerator.
In his July 6 statement, Trump clarified that he was referring to cases where undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes
or smuggle drugs. He pointed to the
recent
incident in San Francisco
, where an undocumented immigrant and a repeat felon who had been deported five times to
Mexico was arrested on suspicion of fatally shooting a woman.
Trump's campaign pointed to data from the
U.S.
Sentencing Commission
, which tracks citizenship of offenders in federal prisons by primary offense, which is the
offense with the longest maximum sentence when a person is convicted of multiple offenses. Of 78,022 primary offense cases
in fiscal year 2013, 38.6 percent were illegal immigrant offenders. The majority of their cases (76 percent) were
immigration related. Of total primary offenses, 17.6 percent of drug trafficking offenses and 3.8 percent of sex abuse were
illegal immigrants. Of 22,878 drug crime cases, 17.2 percent were illegal immigrants.
But these numbers are not indicative of general crime trends of non-citizens. Federal prisoners made up
10
percent
of the total incarcerated population in the United States in 2013. When asked how the data are indicative of
the Mexican government sending criminals to the United States, or that there is a crime wave coming across the border, a
Trump campaign adviser said: "The data speaks for itself."
The
Congressional
Research Service
found that the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants do not fit in the category that fits Trump's
description: aggravated felons, whose crimes include murder, drug trafficking or illegal trafficking of firearms.
(Congressional Research Service)
CRS also found that non-citizens make up a smaller percentage of the inmate population in state prisons and jails, compared
to their percentage to the total U.S. population.
An analysis of 2010 Census data in a
report
from
the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration group, shows that 1.6 percent of immigrant males 18 to 39 years old
were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of native-born males. That disparity in incarceration rates has been consistent
in the decennial Census since 1980, the report says.
The trend holds when comparing less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men -- who make up the bulk of the
undocumented immigrant population -- to their native-born counterparts, as shown below:
(American Immigration Council)
Are countries like Mexico "not sending their best"?
Immigration offenses account for
the
largest portion
of federal convictions of immigrants (the majority of whom were from Mexico), followed by drug and
traffic violations. Sex offenses comprised 1.6 percent of total crimes in 2013.
Inmate legal status is not always tracked at local jails or state prisons. The Government Accountability Office's
2011
analysis
collected reports from 2003 to 2009 to the Department of Justice's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program,
through which states and localities get reimbursed for convicting and incarcerating inmates of illegal or unknown
immigration status (mainly from Mexico).
The GAO found that drug offenses made up the majority of convictions in fiscal year 2008 in the five states (Arizona,
California, Florida, New York and Texas) with the largest populations of such inmates. These convictions were both felony
and misdemeanor crimes, including use/under the influence, manufacturing, transporting and possession of paraphernalia.
Cartel- and gang-related arrests along the Texas southern border decreased after a border surge in 2014, the
Houston
Chronicle reported
. In 2013,
the
Center for Investigative Reporting
found that four out of five arrests for drug smuggling involved U.S. citizens.
The Department of Homeland Security in recent years has targeted immigration enforcement to those who committed serious
crimes through efforts like Secure Communities, rolled out per county from 2008 through 2012. But a
recent
study
showed that increased enforcement didn't lead to decreased crime, calling into question whether serious crimes
were prevalent.
Researchers found Secure Communities did not result in a meaningful reduction in the FBI's overall index crime rate or in
rates of violent crimes. There were modest reductions in burglary and motor vehicle theft, not serious crimes like
homicides or violent crime. (This program is now
on
its way out
.)
The theory is that immigrants generally have a stronger incentive than native-born Americans to stay out of legal trouble --
especially undocumented immigrants, who risk deportation. And those who legally are in the United States (or are pursuing
legal status) are required to pass a criminal background check.
"Immigrants in general -- unauthorized immigrants in particular -- are a self-selected group who generally come to the U.S.
to work. And once they're here, most of them want to keep their nose down and do their business, and they're sensitive to
the fact that they're vulnerable," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the
Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank.
Interestingly, crime rates increase as generations of immigrants assimilate into America. Second-generation immigrants, who
are born in the United States and have at least one foreign-born parent,
are
more likely to
commit crimes than first-generation immigrants, and have similar crime rates as native-born Americans.
The Pinocchio Test
It's difficult to connect any crime with illegal immigration, by its nature. Drug smuggling and violent crimes do exist,
but the cases are not indicative of larger trends in the immigrant population. What we do know about crime rates among
non-citizens and inmates with unknown or unauthorized immigrant statuses show Trump's assertions about a crime wave are not
accurate.
Trump's repeated statements about immigrants and crime underscore a common public perception that crime is correlated with
immigration, especially illegal immigration. But that is a misperception; no solid data support it, and the data that do
exist negate it. Trump can defend himself all he wants, but the facts just are not there.
"... On the other hand, more open immigration policies will mean more workers, which will of course take jobs away, especially from the poorest in our own societies. Similarly, more open trade will more jobs in poorer countries and fewer jobs here, again taking jobs, especially from the poorest in our societies. this is morally wrong: we should feel solidarity with our own poor. ..."
"... Further, more open immigration policies are what capitalism 'wants': more workers will necessarily drive wages down, and so produce greater profits for corporations and the rich, and therefore greater inequality in our society overall. ..."
There is a fundamental difficulty here which progressives have not fully faced. It is that
more open trade and welcoming immigration policies are, on the one hand, a progressive and
moral good (we should feel solidarity with people from the global south; it feels wrong to
bar them from our countries and stop them from benefiting from our economies).
On the other
hand, more open immigration policies will mean more workers, which will of course take jobs
away, especially from the poorest in our own societies. Similarly, more open trade will more
jobs in poorer countries and fewer jobs here, again taking jobs, especially from the poorest
in our societies. this is morally wrong: we should feel solidarity with our own poor.
Further, more open immigration policies are what capitalism 'wants': more workers will
necessarily drive wages down, and so produce greater profits for corporations and the rich,
and therefore greater inequality in our society overall. Comfortably well-off liberals can
appear and feel progressive by supporting more open immigration, while in fact this support
aligns with capitalist policies that benefit them and exploit those who are worse off.
We need a progressive movement that can resolve this and square the circle.
Honestly, no, beyond stressing the fact that more open and welcoming immigration policies
are not unalloyed morally good things: they lead to lower wages for the poor and middle
class, and lead to greater inequality, since lower wages translate into greater profits for
corporations and their owners.
Perhaps if a progressive argument towards tempering and
controlling immigration can be made, based on the fact that open immigration leads to greater
inequality and in the end benefits the 1% the most, then we can get some sort of
progress.
s="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> I'm part Jewish, but consider myself
Russian above everything else, as Russia is my home country. I don't entirely agree with this
lady, but on some issues she's spot on. Twenty million Russian civilians were exterminated by
Germans and millions of Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese, but how come we only hear
about 6 million Jews all the time almost 70 years after the war? It's only evoked to
victimize Israel, not to benefit Holocaust survivors in any way.
You're so brainwashed. The Zionist jews of Israel are treating the Palestinians like the
jews were treated in Germany just before the holocaust. That's why you see the REAL jews
protesting against their Israeli government and the occupation of Palestine
Helen Thomas is old but that shouldn't mean the less intelligent interviewer should
talk down to her. Thomas is right Israeli people should go back to Poland or Germany, they
were pushed out of there unfairly sixty years ago. I think that she was misinterpreted
because she should've added that second part. Likewise now Israel are doing the same thing to
Palestine. I find it hard to sympathize with journalists and writers especially nowadays but
Helen Thomas was wrongly interpreted in my view.
She spoke the truth & they didn't like it. What they would like to hear is continuous
lies, then u get a pat on the back. Start talkin the truth & bam they're all over you.
She exercised her freedom of speech & they shut her down.
ent-renderer-text-content expanded"> It's amazing how unable to process logic that
stupid host woman is. Everything Helen Thomas said is obvious truth, but she acts as if she
is hearing another language. "Oh but the Jews are sensitive because of WW2!" is literally her
only response, as if that is justification for anything that's happened in the past 50 years.
Why does this view persist in America? Are they all so afraid of offending Jewish people?
They sure don't care about offending anybody else.
ent-renderer-text-content expanded"> She is talking about the Zionist Jews. The is
those Jews who own these networks trying to discredit a wonderful old woman for stating the
truth. Israel is Zionism and its disgusting that the world turns their eye to the atrocities
happening to the Palestinians.
My heart goes out to them. I pray that one day the world will open their eyes. I pray that
I am alive to see it come to pass. Zionism is going to lead to WWIII and it so many are blind
to that fact
comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> lol america is the exact place indians got
almost wiped out and black got enslaved. should you give them a land some where? hell no !!
please wtf and know what? they come back to germany with israeli pasports and gert german one
too and every year they flood the streets with israeli flags no one attacks them! they could
have stayed lol but now we might wonder what the fuck they really want!
She may be old but she is not there for the taking. Although i disagree with the way helen
spoke because israel exists and that is that, i think she is fighting against current
injustices that are happening in palestein. Some people hate injustice and helen is not one
to turn her back on what she believes in so kudos to her.
le"> It is a sin against the Torah to support the "State of Israel" in any way. Thus,
no Jews support Israel, only Zionists. Many Jews who lived in Palestine prior to the Zionist
reign of terror (Irgun, Stern Gang) that drove the Palestinians (including those Jews who
lived there peacefully, often communally with their Muslim and Christian neighbors) off the
land ended up in New York, and are known now as the Neturei Karta. Google them and learn why
Rabbis burn the Israeli flag for Purim.
@SaarVardi Let me show you the difference..... they [ the Palestinians] will bring upon
themselves a bigger 'shoah' [a Hebrew word for catastrophe and a synonym for the Nazi
Holocaust] because we will use all our might to defend ourselves." Israel's deputy defense
minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio on Friday, February 29, 2008
v> @SaarVardi But using the "Holocaust" as a means and way to take land from someone
else is wrong. The crap the Israeli army does to kids over there is wrong. Kids throw rocks
at "TANKS" and the Israeli army breaks their arms. It's crazy. I'm a Native American the
estimates are that we lost up to 20 million native Americans when the "white dudes" took over
America...you don't see me crying about it. It sucks but just get over it and stop using it
as a reason to do whatever you want.
v> @SaarVardi Jews yes have been living in the Palestine area forever. But they were a
very small percentage of the population. After World War II, the "Big Three" sent all the
Jewish refugee's and the one's calling for a Homeland to what is now Israel. Palestinians
have whipped out actual land deeds, not archeological evidence. As you say the Jews were
there before....yes again as a small percentage of the people within the area.
v> @SaarVardi Mexico is not called Spain,and there live Mexicans (many from Indians),
Most of South America people are Indians (Bolivia, Colombia...). U.S. is an other story: most
of the space was empty but yes, there was an extermination (is that ok for you?) we are not
in the 1500 or 1700, Israel is from 1947 (yesterday) and they are killing people right now.
Israel was left empty in the Diaspora (70A.C.).You cant go back now and kill the people who's
livin there for 2,000 years
"... Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent. ..."
"... Beginning on June 10, " a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits 25 percent in October." ..."
"... Lo and behold, Mexico quickly promised to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March ..."
"... How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly. ..."
"... There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever. ..."
"... In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home because of war and violence every two seconds. ..."
"... Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End. ..."
If President Trump doesn't waver, his border deal with Mexico will be a victory. The Mexicans have agreed to quit serving as conduits
to hundreds of thousands of central Americans headed for the U.S.A.
Despite protests from Democrats, stateside -- Mexico has agreed to significantly increase enforcement on its borders.
At first, Mexico was as defiant as the Democrats -- and some Republicans.
Democrats certainly can be counted on to argue for the other side -- any side other than the so-called sovereign people they swore
to represent.
In fairness to the Democrats, Republicans are only notionally committed to the tough policing of the border. And certainly not
if policing the porous border entails threatening trade tariffs against our neighborly narco-state. Some Republican senators even
considered a vote to block the tariffs.
Nevertheless, to the hooting and hollering of the cretins in Congress and media, Trump went ahead and threatened Mexico with tariffs
.
More than that. The president didn't just tweet out "strong words" and taunts.
Since Mexico, the party duopoly, and his own courts have forced his hand, the president proceeded to "retrieve from his arsenal
a time bomb of ruinous proportions."
Or, so the Economist hyperventilated.
Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders
and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent.
Beginning on June 10, "
a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits
25 percent in October."
Lo and behold, Mexico quickly
promised
to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which
Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March
It remains for Trump to stick with tough love for Mexico and the rest. If the torrent of grifters from Central America does not
let up, neither should the tariffs be lifted or aid restored.
Trump's trade and tariff tactics are about winning negotiations for Americans; they're not aimed at flouting the putative free-market.
How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods
starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly.
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic
juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to
harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit
labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
The American market economy is massive. Trump knows its might. The difference between the president and his detractors is that
Trump is prepared to harness the power of American markets to benefit the American people.
But what of the "billions of dollars in imports from Mexico" that are at stake, as one media shill
shrieked
.
Give me a break. The truth about what Fake News call a major trading partner, Mexico, is that it's a trade pygmy -- a fact known
all too well to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard.
The reason these leaders were quick to the negotiating table once a schedule of tariffs had been decided upon by the president
is this.
Via the Economist :
"Only about 15 percent of the United States' exports go to Mexico, but a whopping 80 percent of Mexico's exports head the other
way. 'There is nothing we have in our arsenal that is equivalent to what the United States can do to us,' says Andrés Rozental, a
Mexican former diplomat and minister."
Next, President Trump must compel Mexico to accept "safe third-country status." Translated, this means that the U.S. can expel
any and all "asylum seekers" if they pass through Mexico, as Mexico becomes their lawful, first port-of-call.
Thinking people should realize that Trump's victory here is a Pyrrhic one. For what the president has had to do is convince the
Mexican president to deploy his national guards to do the work American immigration police is not allowed to do.
The U.S. must turn to Mexico to police its border because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has, to all intents and purposes, outlawed
immigration laws.
Congressional quislings, for their part, have sat back and grumbled about the need for new laws. But as Daniel Horowitz
argues
convincingly, this is "a separation of powers problem." Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with
the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
For President Trump, the executive order serves as a way around the courts' violation of the constitutionally enshrined federal
scheme, within which the role -- nay, the obligation -- of the commander in chief -- is to defend the country.
Although they're temporary fixes, executive orders can serve to nullify unjust laws. As I argued in my 2016 book,
"The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Reconstructed," executive
orders are Trump's political power tool -- justice's Jaws of Life, if you will -- to be used by the Executive to pry the people free
from judicial oppression.
Understand: The right of a nation to stop The World from flooding its communities amounts to upholding a negative right. In other
words, by stopping trespassers at their borders, Americans are not robbing invaders of the trinity of life, liberty and property.
All Americans are asserting is their right to be left alone. What we are saying to The World is what we tell our disobedient toddlers
every day, "No. You can't go there."
If you believe Mexico is going to squelch the flow of humans into America -- the same humans who are wiring $25BILLION per year
back to family members in Mexico -- I've got a fleet of taco trucks with square tires to sell you.
There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term
president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate
for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever.
The more this nonsense carries on, the more I empathize with Stalin. Sometimes you gotta bulldoze your way through. Democracy
produces nothing but obstacles. Time to put the keys into the caterpillar.
I applaud this move by Trump, and will of course vote for him in 2020 (for a patriot, what is the alternative?). But unless we
end the LEGAL immigration invasion, all this is for nought, and Trump will likely be the last non-leftist Republican President.
I have fought immigration for 40 years without success, except for CA Prop 187 in 1994, quickly overturned by a dirty Muslim
immigrant Federal judge. Immigration of racial and cultural and (now it's clear to everyone, as I knew by the 80s in CA) ideological
aliens is simple invasion, imperialism by non-military means. We needed Pat Buchanan in the 90s; instead, the stupid Christianists,
with whom I used to argue in the 80s-90s-00s endlessly wrt their insane priorities, worried more about abortion and queers (how'd
that work out, morons?) than alien conquest – with the obvious result that "globohomo" is stronger than ever – AND we have another
50+ MILLION race aliens voting 8-1 Democrat.
Sadly, Trump and the all-GOP 2017-18 Congress were America's very last chance to stop the invasion and save our (and the GOP's)
future. Trump blew it, utterly. Now the USA as a unitary, Occidental, Constitutional, capitalist nation-state cannot be salvaged
and/or restored. The only hope for American patriots is White conservative territorial ingathering and eventual racial secession
and new sovereignty.
Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional
authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
This is the crux. And this is true, too..
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by
bureaucratic juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose
goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing
worlds generally exploit labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home
because of war and violence every two seconds.
"And I'll huff and puff and bow your house down," said the Big, Bad Wolf.
When stories about the record number of illegals flooding in stop hitting the news cycle, and we no longer get possibly Ebola
infected Congolese with wads of $100 bills, I might believe your assumptions.
Africans Coming Across The Southern Border Have "Rolls Of $100 Bills"
One more thought: Remember that hot air the Big, Bad Orange wolf blew that ICE was going to start rounding up millions of
illegals
on Tuesday? Here it is Friday and no action.
How many times will people fall for Trump's BS promises where nothing gets done or he backtracks?
Madame Mercer, I suspect the real reason behind your story is that Trump is the best POTUS for Israel since the traitor
LBJ and that a certain group wants to keep Tubby the Grifter in the WH so he can keep acting as Israel's de facto real estate
agent.
The simpleton Mercer misses what is really going on. The re-election push is on and Trump will roll out "plans" to deal with immigration.
They will never come into fruition as they are mere "boob bait for bubba". The drug cartels run Mexico and people trafficking
is a bigger business than drug trafficking. If you think they are going to stop, you are as delusional as Ms Mercer. By the way
the politicians work for the drug cartels in Mexico. Of course the advice that Mercer gave to South Africa led to the current
situation where the ANC runs the country and whites are disenfranchised. But what else would you expect from a Jew who sell the
goyim down the river every chance they get.
@sarz Grade:
D+ (every other President since Kennedy: F)
Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was
inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax
cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End.
America is gone as not only a White nation, but within 25 years, even a semi-civilized and First World one. Diversity is what
destroyed us. We could have integrated (more or less) the blacks, but the sheer numbers of mostly clannish nonwhite colonizers
since 1968 has doomed us. America was its White, Christian, Anglo-Nordic majority. Without that majority, American dies.
The border situation is so outrageous it appears like something out of a black comedy. "We
are in a full blown emergency," said acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John
Sanders, "and I cannot say this stronger: the system is broken". [ 32% increase
in migrants encountered or arrested at the southern border in May, by Priscilla
Alvarez, CNN, June 5, 2019] Why is this happening? Migrants all
over the world from Guatemala
to
Angola know the loopholes in immigration border enforcement imposed by a
treasonous Leftist
kritarchy , especially the claim of "
credible fear " potentially qualifying people for asylum.
[ While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, March 11, 2019] Thus, most migrants
are not sneaking across the border: they are eagerly turning themselves in at ports of entry,
knowing they will soon be released into the country on the promise, which they intend to break,
that they will show up for adjudication.
Remember, President Trump has the authority to solve this problem without Congress. The
Supreme Court has already ruled that the president can impose a
travel ban on certain countries . Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz argues the
president has inherent powers under Article II to exclude asylum applicants from entering the
country, authority that has been reaffirmed by Congress and repeatedly sanctioned by the
Supreme Court. [ No
judge has jurisdiction to erase our border, ConservativeReview, November 26,
2018]
But Trump won't do it -- partially because he has inexplicably surrounded himself with
political foes who won't back strong action . Instead, he's blaming the Democrats for not
undertaking the "simple" measure of closing the "loopholes."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
... ... ...
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There’s something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It’s
akin to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the
Rhine.
The common migrant cannot be tasked with improving the politics, the financial aspects,
the pay scale, the opportunities for work, the safety of his family in his home country.
The USA has prepared his country the way that it endeavors it to be. That is a vassal,
saddled with World Bank, IMF Debt and currency with ever-declining value pegged to the us
dollar.
Often the US controls his country via election rigging, coups, military intervention,
black ops, etc.
He must do that which best serves his family. That is find the most efficient solution -
which is migration.
Rapid DNA testing has revealed that almost 1/3 of illegal migrants apprehended at the southern US
border
were not biologically related to the children they were traveling with,
nor were they
cases of step-fathers or adoptive parents, according to the
Washington
Examiner
.
The findings were a result of a pilot program conducted by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) in El Paso and McAllen, Texas.
The number of migrants tested and how they flagged people for testing is unknown,
while
the official added that some migrants refused the cheek-swab test and admitted that they aren't
related to the children they were with
after learning that their claim would be subject to
DNA proof.
After analyzing the results of the pilot, the Department of Homeland Security will consider
rolling out the rapid DNA tests on a broad-scale, according to ICE.
"This is certainly not the panacea. It's one measure," said the official.
One upside, the source said, was that in addition to verifying bogus relationships, it also
verified many when Homeland Security personnel were unsure.
The
Examiner
reported in March the Department of Homeland Security and ICE were
looking
at adopting the test, made by a company called ANDE
. On May 1, DHS announced it would launch
a pilot of the program in instances where ICE Homeland Security Investigations agents could not
verify a family unit's relationships. -
Washington
Examiner
In March, former DHS chief Kristjen Nielsen announced that
border crossers have been using "
child
recycling rings
" to trick US authorities
.
"We've broken up child recycling rings -- if you can believe it -- in the last couple of months,
which is where smugglers pick up a child, they give it to adults to present themselves as a family
once they get over -- because, as you know, we can only hold families for 20 days -- they send the
child back and bring the child back with another family. Another fake family," Nielsen told
Fox
News
's Tucker Carlson.
President Donald Trump is planning on using the Insurrection Act to remove illegal
immigrants from the United States, The Daily Caller has learned.
According to multiple senior administration officials, the president intends to invoke the
"tremendous powers" of the act to remove illegal immigrants from the country.
"We're doing the Insurrection Act," one official said.
Under the Insurrection Act of 1807 , the president
has the authority to use the National Guard and military in order to combat "unlawful
obstruction or rebellion" within U.S. borders. The act was last
invoked in 1992 by George H.W. Bush to quell the Los Angeles riots, and was also used by
Eisenhower in 1957 to enforce school desegregation in the south.
An official expressed concerns that Trump's use of the act's powers would face legal
challenges, pointing to the lawsuits against the president's travel ban from majority-Muslim
countries. However, as the official noted, the travel ban ultimately prevailed in the Supreme
Court.
In addition to the Insurrection Act, the president is also considering declaring the
country full and insisting that the U.S. can no longer handle the massive influx of illegal
immigrants. 2019 is currently on pace
to reach the highest levels of illegal immigration in a decade.
"If you take a ship and it holds 1,000 people maximum -- one more person and the ship is
going to collapse," the official explained. "The country is full."
"Our hospitals are full, our detention centers are full," they added."
"... Americans have made this clear twice: in the election of Donald J. Trump and in the equally unexpected rise of Ross Perot, an unprecedentedly successful Third Party candidate in the Nineties who rocketed to prominence by boldly condemning "the giant sucking sound of jobs going across the border to Mexico." ..."
"... Maybe, Perot would have done the same thing as Trump if he had made it to the White House. But people like Ann Coulter are popular because -- like Perot -- they articulate in no uncertain terms crucial, popular points that most politicians are just too cowering to even address verbally, much less redressing voters' grievances with any real action. ..."
Americans probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own
history. With little education in our system of constitutional governance in formerly
politically apathetic -- now Woke -- public schools bereft of civics classes, the lack of
historical grounding is not surprising.
One thing Americans do understand, though, is the need to stop the mass flow of
welfare-assisted immigration, curbing the illegal kind entirely and reducing the legal kind
significantly. Americans have made this clear twice: in the election of Donald J. Trump
and in the equally unexpected rise of Ross Perot, an unprecedentedly successful Third
Party candidate in the Nineties who rocketed to prominence by boldly condemning "the giant
sucking sound of jobs going across the border to Mexico."
It just does not matter what Americans want in our rigged system. Whatever we vote for,
mostly for economic reasons but also a few other good reasons, Neoliberal economic Elites
ignore it, pursuing their own economic interests once in office.
Maybe, Perot would have done the same thing as Trump if he had made it to the White
House. But people like Ann Coulter are popular because -- like Perot -- they articulate in no
uncertain terms crucial, popular points that most politicians are just too cowering to even
address verbally, much less redressing voters' grievances with any real action.
On the campaign trail, Trump cleverly sidestepped the issue of immigration with mocking
comedy that could be conveniently repackaged in case of any victory. It was just a matter of
interpretation: whether you heard more Build The Wall or more Big Beautiful Door in the wall
in Trump's thunderous speeches. Trump's voters heard Build The Wall, and many did not show up
to vote for Republicans in the midterms, whereas the Cheap Labor Lobby & the corporate
donor class heard Big Beautiful Door.
"... Jared is more focused on protecting Israel's expanding borders from Palestinians remaining in their homes and homeland, than protecting America's borders. ..."
President Donald Trump was elected on a platform of America policing its own borders, not
the world. His reelection may depend on how well he has fulfilled those campaign promises,
which distinguished him from the bipartisan political class he so eloquently described as the
swamp.
So far, the results are not encouraging. While Trump
campaigned against regime change in the Middle East, his administration has been coy about
whether the authorization of military force to respond to the 9/11 attacks covers
toppling the government of Iran mere days after labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, the situation at the border is deteriorating, with
the number of illegal crossings
approaching the bad old days of the early to mid-2000s. More of these immigrants are likely
staying in the country as the composition of new migrant inflows increasingly shifts from
single men to
families with children .
Single men can be more easily detained and quickly removed from the United States. Families
with children and unaccompanied minors face a
different set of rules -- and, as the White House learned last year, create a
different set of political problems .
One key difference remains, however: on foreign policy, Trump is receiving advice almost
exclusively from officials whose instincts run
counter to the "America First" agenda from the 2016 campaign. On immigration and border
security, there is more of a
split . That's why there's so much at stake in Trump's recent immigration shake-up.
The ouster of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and her deputy Claire Grady has
been
widely reported as an example of senior advisor Stephen Miller consolidating control of his
immigration portfolio. But it may not be Miller time just yet. The moves come after Jared
Kushner, the senior advisor who is also Trump's son-in-law, has been pushing a plan to
increase
legal immigration .
Trump has praised Miller as "excellent," "wonderful," and "brilliant," but clarified that he alone
runs the show on immigration. (It's possible that some of the sourcing for stories putting
Miller's fingerprints all over the Nielsen sacking actually came from his own enemies inside
the White House.) Trump described Kushner's unannounced
immigration ideas as "very exciting, very important." The president recently called for
increased immigration himself, ad-libbing this line in his last State of the Union address: "I
want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come
legally."
Yet a bill Trump endorsed
at the White House last year would eventually cut legal immigration in half. Freshman Senator
Josh Hawley joined Trump-aligned Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue to reintroduce this bill
in an apparent attempt to
thwart Kushner's coming push to expand immigration. On the stump, Trump has railed against
"chain migration" and picking immigrants by "lottery" rather than a "merit-based system." But
like a lot of Republicans, he tends to focus on legality versus illegality, rather than the
number and composition of immigrants entering the country overall.
There was a point last year when a sufficient number of Democrats -- mostly red-state
senators up for reelection that November, like Hawley's since-vanquished opponent Claire
McCaskill -- might have voted to fund Trump's border wall in exchange for the reinstatement of
Barack Obama's amnesty for young illegal immigrants who arrived in the country as minors. The
White House, on advice often attributed to Miller, floated a different compromise. Amnesty
would be provided for an even larger number of young undocumented immigrants in exchange for
the legal immigration reforms in the Cotton-Perdue RAISE Act and border security measures
including wall funding.
Politically, trading the
wall for Dreamers would have given Trump a high-profile border victory at the cost of a
much smaller amnesty than the Gang of Eight plan. The failure
to take that deal, assuming Democrats would have actually accepted it, will always be
regarded
as a mistake . On the merits, however, there were strong reasons to offset the amnesty with
immigration cuts elsewhere while adopting reforms that would make it less likely we would be
debating yet another legalization program for undocumented minors a few years later.
In one of the many examples of how this president has unsettled our politics, David Frum,
author of the Never Trump screed Trumpocracy , endorsed precisely this policy mix in an
important
cover story for The Atlantic. Frum's piece appeared at roughly the same time that
Ann Coulter, author of In Trump We Trust , was excoriating
Trump for failing to keep his immigration promises and filling his administration with people
who constantly undermine them.
Frum, regardless of my other
disagreements with him , has stuck to his skepticism of uninterrupted mass immigration
despite his profound alienation from the Trump-era GOP. Coulter, ridiculed for her pro-Trump
polemics during the campaign, has actually done far more to hold the president accountable than
most denizens of MAGA-land (she was also more prescient about the election than most of those
sneering at her). It was Frum, in a prior Atlantic piece, who credited Coulter,
in a previous book, with opening Trump's eyes to the force of the immigration issue.
Trump and Coulter are now estranged over precisely this issue. The White House palace
intrigue matters. Does Francis Cissna stay or go? Does Kris Kobach
have a chance at DHS? Will Julie Kirchner join Miller or does Ken Cuccinelli come aboard ? But
another question is even more important.
If given the chance for a wall and an amnesty do-over, is the average Trump voter closer to
Kushner or Coulter?
W. James Antle III is editor of .6 Responses to Trump's Immigration
Choice: Kushner or Coulter?
Trump -- ""I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they
have to come legally.""
I don't. I don't want that. I voted for you because I thought you were against it too, you
^^^^ing ripoff artist. Now I'm going to help get you the ^^^^ out of the White House.
For the average voter, even the average Trump supporter, immigration is not as big an issue as
many imagine. Among Trump supporters I know, gun rights, support of Israel, dislike of Hillary
and the PC state in general all are more important than immigration. Kushner, being family,
will beat Coulter on the immigration issue and it will make no difference to Trump's support
level. As long as we have prosperity and just the right amount of tension at home and abroad in
2020, Trump will probably beat whatever array of Demo and third party candidate he has to deal
with.
Jared is more focused on protecting Israel's expanding borders from Palestinians remaining
in their homes and homeland, than protecting America's borders.
Coulter. Hands down. And I have always been a 'lefty'.
Immigration shapes a nation more than any other driver (education, health, defense, etc),
short of outright conquest by another nation.
Allow liberals their unconstrained 'open borders' importation of 'multi-cultural diversity',
and you get colonised fast. Especially when migrants breed faster than locals. Look at Europe.
Or Canada.
Lottery and chain migration must be canned, and retrospectively (ie deport past chain
migrants) – they never had a claim to migrate in the first place. And institute random
audits (with deportation) for fraudulent migration claims. With rising jail terms the more
times they try to re-enter illegally.
You have to have spine to defend your nation. Trump may do. Coulter does. Kushner works for
liberal capitalism, which wants a colonized US, flooded by cheap migrant labor.
"... Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985, for instance. ..."
"... Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view, but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.) ..."
"... Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board of his National Council for the American Worker (which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders in its job postings. ..."
"... There are more former Goldman Sachs employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined. ..."
"... It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives ..."
"... As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish. The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon. " ..."
"... Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the passing of a bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional $550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation. ..."
"... Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better. ..."
"... We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more" ..."
"Unlike other presidents, I keep my promises," Trump boasted in a
speech delivered on Saturday to the Republican Jewish Congress
at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Many in the audience wore red yarmulkes emblazoned with his name. In his speech, Trump condemned
Democrats for allowing "the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party" and emphasized his loyalty to Israel.
Trump has kept some of his promises. So far, he has kept every promise that he made to the Jewish community. Yet he has reneged
on his promises to white America – the promises that got him elected in the first place. It is a betrayal of the highest order: millions
of white Americans placed their hopes in Trump and wholeheartedly believed that he would be the one to make America great again.
They were willing to endure social ostracism and imperil their livelihoods by supporting him. In return, Trump has turned his back
on them and rendered his promises void.
The most recent example of this is Trump's failure to keep his promise to close the border. On March 29, Trump threatened to close
the border if Mexico did not stop all illegal immigration into the US. This would likely have been a highly effective measure given
Mexico's dependence on cross-border trade. Five days later, he suddenly retracted this threat and said that he would give Mexico
a " one-year warning
" before taking drastic action. He further claimed that closing the border would not be necessary and that he planned to establish
a twenty-five percent
tariff on cars
entering the US instead.
Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened
before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985,
for instance.
Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak
into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs
that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view,
but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.)
The past two years have seen a surge in illegal immigration without precedent in the past decade. Since late December, the Department
of Homeland Security has released 125,565 illegal aliens into the country. In the past two weeks alone,
6,000 have been admitted. According to current projections, 2019 will witness around 500,000 to 775,000 border crossings. Additionally,
about 630,000 illegal aliens will be added to the population after having overstayed their visas. By the end of the year,
more than one million illegal aliens will have been added to the population:
These projections put the number of illegal aliens added to the U.S. population at around one to 1.5 million, on top of the
11 to
22 million illegal aliens who are already living across the country. This finding does not factor in the illegal aliens who
will be deported, die over the next year, or leave the U.S. of their own will. As DHS data has revealed, once border crossers
and illegal aliens are released into the country, the overwhelming majority are never deported.
In February, Trump signed a
bill allowing the DHS
secretary to add another 69,320 spots to the current H-2B cap of 66,000. On March 29, DHS began this process by announcing that it
would issue an additional
30,000 H-2B visas this year. The H-2B visa program allows foreign workers to come to the US and work in non-agricultural occupations.
Unlike the H-1B program, a Bachelor's degree is not required; most H-2B workers are employed in construction, maintenance, landscaping,
and so on. The demographic most affected by the expansion of the H-2B program will be unemployed working-class Americans. This flies
in the face of Trump's promise to protect American workers and stop importing foreigners.
Trump has indicated that he has plans to expand the H-1B visa program as well. "We want to encourage talented and highly skilled
people to pursue career options in the U.S.," he said in a
tweet in January.
Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board
of his National Council for the American Worker
(which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has
expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders
in its job postings.
Trump has been working on legal immigration with Jared Kushner, who has quietly been crafting a
plan to grant
citizenship to more "low- and high-skilled workers, as well as permanent and temporary workers" (so, just about everyone). Kushner's
plan proves the folly of the typical Republican line that legal immigration is fine and that only illegal immigration should be opposed.
Under his plan, thousands of illegal aliens will become "legal" with the stroke of a pen.
There is a paucity of anti-immigration hardliners in Trump's inner circle (though Stephen Miller is a notable exception). Trump
has surrounded himself with moderates: the Kushners, Mick Mulvaney, Alex Acosta, and others. There are more former Goldman Sachs
employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined.
The new DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who was appointed yesterday following Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation, is a middle-of-the-road
law enforcement official who served under Obama and Bush and is responsible for the revival of the "
catch-and-release " policy, whereby
illegal aliens are released upon being apprehended. It was reported last week that Trump was thinking of appointing either Kris Kobach
or Ken Cuccinelli to a position of prominence (as an "
immigration czar "),
but this appears to have been another lie.
Trump's failure to deliver on his promises cannot be chalked up to congressional obstruction. Congress. As Kobach said in a recent
interview , "It's not like we're powerless and it's not like we have to wait for Congress to do something. . . . No, we can actually
solve the immediate crisis without Congress acting." Solving the border crisis would simply demand "leadership in the executive branch
willing to act decisively." Kobach recently outlined an intelligent
three-point plan that Trump could implement:
Publish the final version of the regulation that would supersede the Flores Settlement. The initial regulation was
published by the Department of Homeland
Security in September 2018. DHS could have published the final regulation in December. Inexplicably, DHS has dragged its feet. Finalizing
that regulation would allow the United States to detain entire families together, and it would stop illegal aliens from exploiting
children as get-out-of-jail free cards. Set up processing centers at the border to house the migrants and hold the hearings in one
place. The Department of Justice should deploy dozens of immigration judges to hear the asylum claims at the border without releasing
the migrants into the country. FEMA already owns
thousands of travel trailers and mobile homes that it has used to address past hurricane disasters. Instead of selling them (which
FEMA is currently doing), FEMA should ship them to the processing centers to provide comfortable housing for the migrants. In addition,
a fleet of passenger planes should deployed to the processing centers. Anyone who fails in his or her asylum claim, or who is not
seeking asylum and is inadmissible, should be flown home immediately. It would be possible to fly most migrants home within a few
weeks of their arrival. Word would get out quickly in their home countries that entry into the United States is not as easy as advertised.
The incentive to join future caravans would dissipate quickly. Publish a proposed Treasury regulation that prohibits the sending
home of remittances by people who cannot document lawful presence in the United States. This will hit Mexico in the pocketbook: Mexico
typically brings in well over $20 billion a year in
remittances , raking in
more than $26 billion in 2017. Then, tell the government of Mexico that we will finalize the Treasury regulation unless they do two
things to help us address the border crisis: (1) Mexico immediately signs a "safe third country agreement" similar to our agreement
with Canada. This would require asylum applicants to file their asylum application in the first safe country they set foot in (so
applicants in the caravans from Central America would have to seek asylum in Mexico, rather than Canada); and (2) Mexico chips in
$5 billion to help us build the wall. The threat of ending remittances from illegal aliens is a far more powerful one than threatening
to close the border. Ending such remittances doesn't hurt the U.S. economy; indeed, it helps the economy by making it more likely
that such capital will be spent and circulate in our own country. We can follow through easily if Mexico doesn't cooperate.
It would not be all that difficult for Trump to implement these proposals. Kobach still has faith in Trump, but his assessment
of him appears increasingly to be too generous. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in
curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions
of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives . At the same time, he wants to
maintain the illusion that he cares about his base.
As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish.
The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon.
"
Nearly everything Trump has done in the name of restricting immigration has turned out to be an empty gesture and mere theatrics:
threatening to close the border, offering protections to "Dreamers" in exchange for funding for the ever-elusive wall, threatening
to end the "anchor baby" phenomenon with an executive order (which never came to pass), cutting off aid to Central American countries,
claiming that he will appoint an "immigration czar" (and then proceeding to appoint McAleenan instead of Kobach as DHS secretary),
and on and on.
While Trump has failed to keep the promises that got him elected, he has fulfilled a number of major promises that he made to
Israel and the Jewish community.
First, he moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump claimed that the move would only cost $200,000, but in
reality it will end up being more than
$20 million . The construction
of the embassy also led to a series of bloody protests; it is located in East Jerusalem, which is generally acknowledged to be Palestinian
territory.
Second, he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu
claimed on Israeli TV that Israel was responsible for convincing him to exit the deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. (Both Trump
and Netanyahu falsely alleged that Iran lied about the extent of its nuclear program; meanwhile, Israel's large arsenal of chemical
and biological weapons has escaped mention.) Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the
passing of a
bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional
$550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation.
Fourth, he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights (in defiance of the rest of the world, which recognizes the
Golan Heights as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation). Trump's Golan Heights proclamation was issued on March 21 and was celebrated
by Israel. Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed
to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most
credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess
game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better.
If you haven't picked up a copy of Vicky Ward's book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story
of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump , you really should.
I haven't read Mr. Graham's essay yet, but I thought those two links would fit in nicely. I stay in a low boil, like it is,
and having plodded through both those reviews, I can't stand reading too much on this topic at once.
Something's gotta give. Or are the brainless goy just going to let themselves be led off a cliff?
Oh, yes. There's an interview with Ward on
BookTV .
Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to drain, turns out he is one of them
all along. We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel
Great Again, that was the plan of his handlers all along.
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back in 2015 that the H1b visa program
is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard,
I'll vote for them 2020. Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they belong.
His "implicitly white" supporters would have abandoned him in droves, not wanting to be associated with a racist, thus pointing
up the weakness of implicit whiteness as a survival strategy. And is it actually a survival strategy? A closer look at it makes
me think it's more of a racial self-extermination strategy. After all, what kind of a survival strategy is it that can't even
admit its goals to itself? And it's exactly this refusal of whites to explicitly state that they collectively want to continue
to exist as a race that is the greatest impediment to their doing so. It's an interesting problem with no easy solution. How
do you restore the will to live to a race that seems to have lost it? And not only lost its will to live, but actually prides
itself on doing so? Accordingly, this "betrayal" isn't a betrayal at all. It's what American whites voted for and want. Giving
their country away and accepting their own demographic demise is proof of their virtue; proof of their Christian love for all
mankind.
You are definitely onto something here.
Still, I feel it's not that deep and complicated. It could be that they simply don't believe that the danger is closing in.
Boils down to wrong judgment. People who haven't had the need to think hard about serious things tend to develop that weakness.
I guess that boils down to "good times make weak men."
Hard times are coming and they'll make hard men.
The catch is simple: will be enough of them in time ?
Switching to the Democrats is no solution. The DNC has proven itself to be a criminal organization through sabotaging Sander's
campaign and then being instrumental in creating Russophobia, in collusion with Obama, the CIA, the FBI, and the DoJ. The DNC
has rules in place stating that super delegates – elitists aligned with the DNC – can vote if one nominee does not win on the
first ballot at the National Convention.
Because we have a HUGE number of hats in the Democratic ring, the chances that the nomination
will not be decided on a first vote are extremely high, with the result being that the Democratic nominee is not going to be decided
by voters in the primaries but by super delegates, i.e., the elitists and plutocrats.
Democracy exists when we vote to support
candidates chosen by the elites for the elites; when we stop doing that, the elites turn on democracy. It is a sham; we will have
a choice in 2020: between Pepsi and Coke. You are free to choose which one you prefer, because you live in a democracy. For more
on the rigging of the democratic primaries for 2020, see
"... Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with prison reform as proof of his bonafides. ..."
"... Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't. ..."
"... The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss. ..."
"... Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First Con fell for a con man. ..."
Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with
prison reform as proof of his bonafides.
Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want
to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't.
It appears that Kushner talked to a few junior Dems, who were too wet behind the ears to tell the president's son in law that
he needed to change his meds. He read their silence as meaning they were prepared to commit mutiny and, putting all his chips
on that bet, stopped talking to both Pelosi (where the real power lies) and Schumer.
Then he told everyone he'd cracked it.
The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP
Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss.
As others have said below, Trump always finds someone to blame for his mistakes. But in this case there were very good reasons
for pointing the finger at Kushner.
Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that
Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political
neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First
Con fell for a con man.
Incompetent, cowboy style foreign policy is the hallmark of Trump administration. they can only bully, they can't hold a constructive
negotiations. As one commenter observed "American diplomacy still consists of behaving like a bull in a china shop: do what
we say or die."
His appointment of Bolton and Pompeo means that Trump is a neocon in foreign policy and/or does not control foreign policy
of his administration. .
Notable quotes:
"... This is just a hunch but I have a feeling it was undermined by Bolton and Pompeo from the start. ..."
"... Every time I hear a Neocon say this on FOX / CNN I want to strangle the host for not asking any follow up question as in, 'like what?' What has the U.S. given up. ..."
"... Why does the USA keep economic sanctions on DPRK? This article helps to explain it: Despite himself Trump admits the superiority of China's socialist economy to capitalism ..."
"... Jong-un Kim has an advantage his predecessor didn't: he has China. He doesn't need to invent nothing: he already has the long-term solution next door. ..."
"... My guess is the USA and South Korea know if the sanctions are lifted, North Korea will become a mini-powerhouse under China's sphere of influence. They have to create a situation equal to Libya's, where they can invade the North militarily and quickly occupy its territory, thus using its population as cheap labor force for the American multinationals and South Korean chaebols. ..."
"... The US military/foreign policy establishment wants North Korea to disarm so that it can give them a Carthaginian peace. Until then, they are content to do their cushy jobs and rake in the money from South Korean businessmen. ..."
"... An excellent article from Tom Engelhardt on Consortium News, in which he attempts to explain how the USA had the world at its feet, and squandered the chance to do good and instead went on a series of further Imperial military adventures: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/21/the-neocons-have-their-caesar/ ..."
"... American diplomacy still consists of behaving like a bull in a china shop: do what we say or die. ..."
"... summit was derailed by last minute attendance of Bolton, who added demands for NK to also report chemical/biological weapons, in response to which NKs increased their demand for sanctions relief in Korean ..."
"... No surprise that the US is always 'all or nothing'. It thinks it is 'uber alles'. ..."
"... IMO, the key was laid bare by Trump: "Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't do that." [My Emphasis] ..."
"... as you and many others have noted, the US argument seems to be "give up your nukes so we can Libya you into oblivion". if venezuela had nukes would they be putting up with the incessant stupidity of the "blob"? they'd still have sanctions but i doubt the dumb twats running the surrounding countries would be as eager to aid and abet US hijinks. ..."
"... And it seems Trump lied about the impasse that led to Kim walking out, proving that Kim's initial assessment of Trump as dotard was 100% correct. ..."
"... When did Bolton's coups and intimidations ever work? He is, in essence, a megalomanic mustache. ..."
"... I think that Trump represents a pivot from containment of China/Russia to one of "Quick, pull what pieces of empire we can defend/control together." ..."
"... I think that the West is delusional to think they can defeat any alternative that doesn't have profit as its God. That said, that monotheistic myth of "better than others" runs deep as evidenced by some of the opinions expressed in this venue ..."
"... Any nation which still trust any promise coming from the USA and its European, Australian and Canadian poddles deserves to be colonized and destroyed. ..."
twhstmmwmafilwwwww , Feb 28, 2019 8:13:44 AM |
link
This is just a hunch but I have a feeling it was undermined by Bolton and Pompeo from the start. They know the DPRK wasn't
gonna give up its nuclear deterrent unilaterally, so the next best thing behind a the dream of a Libya situation is to once again
have an aggressive relationship with the North to be able to continue to justify all sorts of "defense" maneuvering around China
now that foreign policy has now officially pivoted away from terrorism and towards China(+Russia).
Similar to AEGIS Ashore in Eastern Europe in order to "defend" Europe from "Iran".
We've given up everything, they have given up nothing
Every time I hear a Neocon say this on FOX / CNN I want to strangle the host for not asking any follow up question as in,
'like what?' What has the U.S. given up.
We talked to them giving them legitimacy, OMG, as if we have some kind of glorious halo that is worth a billions of $ or even
more. This makes me want to puke when I heare this.
The N. Koreans have stopped ALL nuclear and ballistic missile testing. We the U.S. have put in place even more draconian sanctions
under Trump than were in place before. We raised the ante. We have more room to give then the N. Koreans do.
Believing Trump is or ever was open to breaking with US imperialism is Trumpery. He wants to sweat the subordinates, wants them
to spend more on the military, buy more US weapons, do more fighting. But to make things look good he will say anything, and renege.
Some people think Trump etc. are trying to detach the north from a Chinese alliance. There are two problems here. First, there's
no sane reason to think the Chinese aren't engaged in economic warfare against the north. Not wanting to squeeze hard enough to
cause a total collapse is not supporting the north. Second, if that's what Trump wanted, he'd actually try offering the north
concessions.
The issue in the background is whether Trump will let the south out of the US orbit. It's an easy question to answer: He won't.
Empires don't give up their territory until they're made to. The Soviet withdrawal from central Europe is not an exception, as
the USSR was not an empire. (Yes, everyone who says "Soviet empire" and means it is a shithead.)
Formally, the Korean War was between Chosôn on the one side and The United nations and Hangok (Daehan)on the other. The UN security
council is the ones to have instituted tthe sanction regime and thus in practice committed a crime against Humanity by inflictin
starvation the people of the North. In practice it was a US & their allie's war against the entire population of Korea. Formally,
peace must be signed by Chosôn and the UN and sanctions lifted by the latter. In Practice, the US must be made to abide with agreements.
Jong-un Kim has an advantage
his predecessor didn't: he has China. He doesn't need to invent nothing: he already has the long-term solution next door.
My guess is the USA and South Korea know if the sanctions are lifted, North Korea will become a mini-powerhouse under China's
sphere of influence. They have to create a situation equal to Libya's, where they can invade the North militarily and quickly
occupy its territory, thus using its population as cheap labor force for the American multinationals and South Korean chaebols.
The US military/foreign policy establishment wants North Korea to disarm so that it can give them a Carthaginian peace. Until
then, they are content to do their cushy jobs and rake in the money from South Korean businessmen.
Moon would probably like to unite the two Koreas and kick US out. But then, the US mil/fp would sanction him and all Korea.
This was yet another photo op on the road to nowhere with our reality show presidency. As Conway Twitty sang, "it's only make
believe." The path to "normalisation" with NK winds through SK.
An excellent article from Tom Engelhardt on Consortium News, in which he attempts to explain how the USA had the world
at its feet, and squandered the chance to do good and instead went on a series of further Imperial military adventures:
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/21/the-neocons-have-their-caesar/
American diplomacy still consists of behaving like a bull in a china shop: do what we say or die.
Time to grow up, it's not the 1990's. You're just another country, and we're not so frightened any more.
Kevin Gray @DrKevinGray Former SK
unification minister Chong Se-hyun suggests that summit was derailed by last minute attendance of Bolton, who added demands
for NK to also report chemical/biological weapons, in response to which NKs increased their demand for sanctions relief
in Korean
We've given up everything, they have given up nothing. Every time I hear a Neocon say this on FOX / CNN I want .. follow
up question {answered} as in, 'like what?' What has the U.S.[ A given up. [please note that unless you are a member of
the 527 persons that make up the USA, you the " WE does not include you. Americans get to elect by a vary strained highly
polarized (Republican vs Democrat) process, 525 persons under Article I, but not the two persons who are the CEOs that govern
the USA ?
Americans cannot elected the CEOs that make all of the decisions. The CEOs of the USA are elected by persons who many or may
not be Americans, have a look PLEASE!
... ... ...
The N. Koreans have stopped ALL nuclear and ballistic missile testing. We the U.S. have put in place even more draconian sanctions
under Trump than were in place before. We raised the ante. We have more room to give then the N. Koreans do.<= once again I remind
you that the " WE d/n include you..
Posted by: Christian Chuba | Feb 28, 2019 8:22:32 AM | 5
So we give up nothing, not even a temporary ease in sanctions and they give up their nuclear weapons program in whole, what a
deal.
Its obvious that even if Trump went there with the intention of making a realistic two sided deal the permanent war state would
just scuttle it anyway by refusing to follow the plan or staging some new provocation like some war games or bomber fly over.
DPRK has to see that after Iran complied with the inspections regime and abandoned its civilian nuclear program the goal post
was moved to not even being allowed to have ballistic missiles.
What I don't understand is how long before South Korea demands we respect its sovereignty in it's own military affairs and
asks us to remove a sizable chunk of our war machine so a lasting peace can be made. Can South Korea not forge its own tit-for-tat
peace plan with the North that makes sense to both sides and tell the US not to interfere, sabotage or ask it to leave? It seems
the opportunity is ripe to exclude the empty suit Trump and his group of Neo-con madmen and forge ahead with opening up trade
and mutual thawing of feeling in Koreas, but is there political will to do so in South Korea?
The link @12 is another form of apology for Trump. Essentially, an insanity defense:
All of this not only gave Americans a visibly unhinged president -- think of him, in axis-of-evil terms, as a rogue state
of one -- but an increasingly unhinged country. You can feel so much of this in Trump's confused and confusing attempts to
both end American wars and ratchet them up . . .
[So] ... think of this piece as an obituary of sorts ... not as an obituary for a single loopy president, a man who ...
was elevated to a strange version of power by a troubled republic showing signs of wear and tear [but of a nation] .
. . whatever Donald Trump does, the Caesarian die was cast early in this century as the neocons crossed their own Rubicon.
It's not Trump's fault - it's the neocons! They constructed a system that allowed for the election of this "loopy" President and
are using him for their own ends.
Sure, the neocons deserve much blame but the Deep State and their US President compatriots (Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama,
and Trump) are also guilty just as the driver of the getaway car is just as guilty as the bank robbers.
IMO, the key was laid bare by Trump: "Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't
do that." [My Emphasis]
Wouldn't or couldn't? Using "couldn't" tells me that possibility was zero to begin with and Bolton's appearance had nothing
to do with anything other than the fact that the impasse was pre-determined. Kim knew it would happen; I was 99% sure it would
happen; and of course Trump knew. And that's where it will likely remain until 2021, although there's a slight possibility that
the UNSC sanctions will be modified and lessened.
Escobar's
recap of recent events seems rather bland, although between the lines I think he's saying that solving Kashmir is more important
than solving Afghanistan, an important point overlooked too long.
So, Koreans are left to their own devices and will continue their unification drive, while the quadrangular relations between
China, Russia, and the two Koreas will grow tighter; all of which serve to increase pressure on Abe and Japan to drop the Empire's
line.
It would be easy to be put off by the failure of the summit under the Americans' blatent treachery, but it is probably better
that way.
Consider what would happen if the US and NK were to have a "fantastically successful" summit with agreements signed - what
are the chances that the US would subsequently honour their commitments? NILL. What would be the effect on NK if NK does not honour
it's commitments? Devastating at best.
Because of the US' well-established behaviour patterns, it is hard to imagine how NK could benefit from signing an agreement
with the US - any concrete agreement - the US will ignore it's commitments, while forcing NK to abide by its commitments.
Therefore a situation in which the US clearly shows itself to be the treacherous partner while the NK side is beyond reproach
is the perfect outcome for NK, allowing her to establish a good reputation in world public opinion and - hopefully - together
with SK find their own way to achieve peaceful reunification without the US.
Peaceful reunification with US blessing was never on the cards and never will be.
Fortunately Kim Jong-Un has thus far been truly masterful in playing his cards, getting the geostrategic benefits at each throw,
while the US only succeed in clearly establishing their treachery and progressively undermining their geostrategic hand.
With support from China and Russia, may the two Koreas eventually successfully achieve their own peaceful reunification without
the US!
thanks b... aside from liking what @26 psychohistorian said, i wonder who really benefits from these sanctions the usa is so quick
to use as a tool against others impose or maintain? the usa appears to be built on this system of financial sanctions and can't
function without it.. is it that the thought of north and south korea working together means the usa gets cut out of the action?
is that a big part of it?? at some point it is going to happen anyway... same deal russia and the rest of europe and same deal
iran and the rest of the world... it seems to me the usa is squandering all the promise they might have had at one time by catering
to whoever profits from these financial sanction routines..
so yeah.. it is back to rome didn't fall in a day, and the usa's time is coming soon enough..
A large impediment to North Korea achieving a lifting of sanctions is the long list of UNSC resolutions establishing global unanimity
for a sanctions regime.
The US has managed to corral China and Russia to join these sanctions.
However, a case can be made that since no nuke testing has transpired, no missile tests have continued, and the threat to neighbors
and the region is now flat-lined, North Korea should be acting, not with the US alone, but with all the UNSC and other nations,
in a way that demonstrates it is walking from nuclear development and ICBM achievement.
We shall see if Russia and China can press this argument in order to pursue economic development as a reward for international
inspection and IAEA control of the NK nuclear program.
What the US wants is to get Moon out of the picture and retain fanatical South Korean leadership that would be against North
Korea development. Trump may see the potential in North Korea, but the MIC and Deep State absolutely do not want to have to leave
South Korea as a base.
To the posters who think Russia should intervene everywhere... Just reading on Orlov's blog and he pointed to an article he wrote
about Russia and Putin in 2014 from a Valdai meeting---Putin--
"5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding "empire of chaos,"
and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already
vast territory).
Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past."
as you and many others have noted, the US argument seems to be "give up your nukes so we can Libya you into oblivion". if
venezuela had nukes would they be putting up with the incessant stupidity of the "blob"? they'd still have sanctions but i doubt
the dumb twats running the surrounding countries would be as eager to aid and abet US hijinks.
i know it's based in "realism" or "realpolitik" or whatever euphemism for "do what we say or be murdered" people prefer, but
south korea not telling the west to kiss the tastiest part of its ass and siding with the dprk and china to settle things is just
absurd. other than financial punishment, what are they afraid of? no more disgusting tainted beef? no more deliveries of WWIII-level
military gear without permission? a drop in sex tourism among pasty white anglos?
at least this does away with all pretense of trump being a "peace president" in the slightest. that was always a fantasy of
the MAGA/"we liek him cuz hes xtian lol" crowd to begin with but now even the suggestion of such is laughable.
i despise trudeau and all, but this oddly timed "scandal" is based on nothing but one woman's testimony (as believable as she
is) and the screeching of the scumbag conservatives along with their bootlickers in the media. global and CTV have always been
conservative party infomercials but lately it's just ridiculous.
saying "a canadian politician did a corrupt thing" is like saying "we caught water being wet". odd how canada has a reputation
as being "smarter" than the US yet its citizens have already forgotten the ten years of dripping, oily sleaze under harper and
his coterie of fat doughy apes (the fattest and oiliest of which - jason kenney - has been oozing from the telly screen on a constant
basis on said channels).
with his repulsive bootlicking on the huawei affair and venezuela, it's easy to want justin out yesterday . but any
conservative taking his place will be harper 2.0 and therefore trump's maple mini-me.
ot - @36 karlof1... next election is oct 2019... it probably doesn't matter as i doubt very much he gets elected in october..
it is kinda true what the pair is saying @40 too... we will get getting our version of trump, as we are one cycle behind the usa...
some conservative jackass will be running canada towards the end of the year to make matters even worse.. canucks are not all
that bright, lol..
South Koreans, where are you? You should be camping 24/7 in front of the U.S. embassy, demanding the immediate removal of sanctions.
The unification will never happen if you don't take a more active stance.
The international community wants it, North Koreans want it, it all comes down to you. Kick the American troops out, break
up your chaebols, and start the unification process. Any sanctions the U.S might impose on you will be more than offset by cheap
Russian pipeline gas, a rail link to Europe, and an economic boom due to integration with the North. What are you waiting for?
You may never have another chance like this.
@38 b:
Thank you very much for the update, b. I am pleased that the DPRK called the press conference. It is a pity the video has been
viewed only 1179 times.
The 1st part is the prepared statement read out by foreign minister Ri Yong Ho with english translation following. The 2nd
part of the interview consists of Q&A (sound quality v bad). It mainly reiterates the 1st part, but from 10:25 on, she says that
(an) American Inspector(s) visited a factory called "Yun Soo" within the Yong Byon. She wanted to emphasise that that factory
was put on the table for closure as well by DPRK.
Given that the sanctions the DPRK was seeking to be lifted were not US imposed sanctions, but UN sanctions, can the UN Sec
Gen intervene (kind of like what happened in Yemen)?
It does make one wonder why POTUS said that DPRK was seeking the removal of ALL sanctions. Was he expecting something like
this? It is so easy to refute that the fact it was said at all is intriguing.
Otto B@33 - I suppose I can't argue with your logic - especially if this was part of an 'Art of the Deal' seminar. I will simply
point out that your premise completely ignores what US citizens think is in THEIR best interests.
Pulling out all of our forces from South Korea permanently and ending sanctions on North Korea would be more than enough for
them to denuclearize (and probably unify with the South). THAT is in US citizens' best interests, period. Chickenhawks within
the US government are the only ones demanding an eternal occupation of South Korea and an eternal standoff with North Korea. They
sell this as a necessary price to pay for 'security', except we're damn tired of hearing about our psychopathic leaders' manufactured
enemy and we don't need protection from it.
Same goes for Iran, despite their nuclear capabilities, or lack thereof. 'Protecting US interests' is not 'protecting the US'.
No amount of marketing or propaganda is going to make Iran a credible threat to the US or its citizens EVER. We don't need protection
from a manufactured enemy. Three million people (give or take a million) were slaughtered in Southeast Asia to protect us against
the last manufactured enemy: those homicidal CHICOMs. I don't recall seeing any fresh, bloody human heads mounted on pikes in
downtown Hanoi during the talks this weekend. How is that possible?
I don't need a better Iranian 'deal'. I need my psychopathic leaders to stop antagonizing the hell out of Iran and stop punishing
the Iranian people. Israel's psychopathic obsession with destroying Iran or somehow containing its regional influence has NOTHING
to do with the security of US citizens - despite the incessant narrative. Are you honestly expecting the little people in the
US to believe the DC chickenhawks or the MSM again?
RT editorial savages BigLie Media
for the usual reasons--but--in choosing to highlight
Susan Rice's NY Times op/ed
in an attempt to discredit her, she actually suggests the very sort of incremental moves agreed to in the initial summit's Declaration:
"To move the needle, the United States and North Korea will need to agree on a series of incremental, reciprocal steps that
would build mutual confidence as part of a road map to full denuclearization."
Oops!! All in all, the editorialist misrepresents Rice, which is what he accuses BigLie Media of doing--OUCH!
Rice's conclusion will surprise a few here:
"In Hanoi, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to achieve incremental progress toward denuclearization. Unfortunately, history suggests
that Mr. Trump will be content with another colorful photo opportunity and more diplomatic shadow boxing that perpetuates the
illusion of success, while running down the clock on a nearly intractable challenge."
And it seems Trump lied about the impasse that led to Kim walking out, proving that Kim's initial assessment of Trump as
dotard was 100% correct.
@27 Jose Garcia: "My question. What will South Korea do now?"
Well, they only have two choices:
Option 1: Continue to be the USA's loyal lapdog, in which case several million of them are doomed to die in the (increasingly
inevitable) replay of the 1950-2 war.
Option 2: Hold secret talks with North Korea that lead to the surprise signing of a peace treaty that contains a clause that
says "Both Koreas agree that no foreign forces shall be stationed on the Korean Peninsular". Then brace themselves to be sanctioned
within an inch of their lives.
They'll go hungry under Option 2, and it will be inevitable that they flip into the "Chinese orbit". But they'll still be alive,
which is not nothin'.
They'll make a stab at Option 2, because under Option 1 they'll all end up dead.
Actually there is one sane reason to think the Chinese aren't engaged in economic warfare against the north: a Shengyang
rail link to Seoul via Pyongyang. This could be constructed in less than 3 years and will take some pressure off congestion in
the Bohai Sea-Yellow Sea shipping lanes. And provide efficient transport of materials, goods & people in new & expanded markets.
I'm sure there are others.
Thank you b for the timely update on the latest theatrical entertainment, Nobel Peace Prize episode
Agreed ff but regarding the Trump timeline from afar he has deliberately and methodically filled the white house staff with
more and more extreme people. Slowly boiling the frog comes to mind. We are supposed to be acclimatized to this huckster being
surrounded by hawks whereas he and his entire family are predators more deadly than hawks.
S #42
Thank you, you nailed it. Perhaps the assembled mass of South Koreans in front of the US embassy could wear a vest symbolising
healing or unity. Perhaps they could assemble around a UN flag demanding that it back off from being a USA puppet. I don't recall
having seen a UN flag burned yet but it would be an appropriate symbol from South Korea, or Haiti, or Libya, or......
Thank you again b and all the comrade writers, it has been a great read.
What I can't understand is why NK would give up its nuclear capability without requiring the empire to do the same. It isn't equitable
for NK to give up its nukes for the mere promise of the empire to not place nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. The empire
could still strike Nk from outside the peninsula. What's good for one country is good for the other.
For your Option #2 to fly, the existing treaty with Outlaw US Empire must be negated along with the entire arrangement with
UN that's existed since 1950. Given Imperial intransigence combined with ever escalating political will within RoK, such a happening
may occur before 2020 begins.
The most
recent article on reunification I was able to find in English is 3 months old and provides grounds for optimism given the
concept's positive direction. IMO, Moon and Kim need to continue down the path they've made for each other,, while the diplomatic
action moves into the UNSC which is where most of the sanctions were born and the only venue where they can be rescinded.
I always check my comments in preview, often many times. The URL seemed to be fine. It works. However, I'll be more cognizant
in the future with any long URLs.
For South Korea to do as you suggest, Japan must do exactly the same. The South Koreans are more afraid of what Japan
would do if they (SK, that is) were to throw out the Americans, downsize their own military and start a reunification or a "one-state-two-systems"
process, and Japan does not follow suit with demilitarisation.
I want to add some more thought to those I shared with Jen. What about the Philippines? I think that at this time in history all
of the outposts of empire are at risk.
I think that Trump represents a pivot from containment of China/Russia to one of
"Quick, pull what pieces of empire we can defend/control together."
I think that the West is delusional to think they can defeat any alternative that doesn't have profit as its God. That
said, that monotheistic myth of "better than others" runs deep as evidenced by some of the opinions expressed in this venue
Are we going to see the dominoes of empire fall? I damn well hope so!
Is it not funny how the boss Bolton shows up at negotiations and El Presidente falls into (his unrealistic) line? El Presidente
de la republica bananera is just a low level employee of his own staff BullbyTon and Pompous Maximus.
Nobody asked this here yet, but how did we get to US negotiating against NK on behalf of UN Security Council ?
Who did China and Russia on the Security Council serve, did they get anything for their service to the republica bananera?
One can recognise how ruthless US is, but one also has to recognise how worthless China and Russia are. US ignores UN
Resolutions it does not like and uses UN Resolutions it initiated as a head-club for achieving its goals whilst China and Russia
go along. This is exactly why the things are as they are - the Selfish Human Condition.
Oh, we are all so happy when someone does not do like the majority of the worthless humanity does (Russia out of own interest
in Syria). Otherwise, back to being the usual shitbags.
@60 Karlof1 As ever, it is instructive to read the text of a treaty.
In this particular case the treaty between South Korea and the USA contains within it the answers to your concerns.
1) either party can end the treaty with 12 month notice.
2) the stationing of US troops is by mutual agreement I.e. if South Korea "No longer agrees" to US troops stationed on its soil
then those troops have to leave.
Uncle Sam would have no grounds to refuse, as the treaty itself says that both signatories have to agree. And, no, the treaty
doesn't have to be "renegotiated" to produce that outcome: the South Koreans need only say "we don't agree any more".
That's what the treaty says, so that's what the treaty means.
Nothing will change until S Korea decides to be an independent country instead of a low vassal. Watching a foreign country
negotiate peace in your own civil war without being at the table must be deeply humiliating to at least some S Koreans surely?
As for the sanctions, if the Koreas re-united as ROK and the DPRK disappeared as an entity, I assume the UN sanctions on extinct
entity would be void.
It's significant that the current PM of Japan is a grandson of a politician with a very dark past, and moreover idolises his
grandfather and believes the policies he followed were right.
You and I live in the year 2019 but the issue is whether Shinzo Abe does.
For that reason South Korea is unlikely to demilitarise and get rid of its US bases unless Japan commits to doing the same.
The two countries also continue to dispute the ownership of a set of islands called the Liancourt islands in the Sea of Japan,
midway between the two nations.
Former SK unification minister Chong Se-hyun suggests that summit was derailed by last minute attendance of Bolton, who added
demands for NK to also report chemical/biological weapons, in response to which NKs increased their demand for sanctions relief
South Korea is a puppet government of the US. Its constitution was written by the US and its early leaders were those who worked
with the Japanese during the occupation. Anyone against the government and continued occupation by foreign forces was labelled
Commmunist and shot. Up until the late 80's South Korea was under martial law
While much of the population is aware of this being humiliated by foreign powers has been a way of life for over a century.
Reunification is a pipe dream unless the North is under the Empires control and the US will not pull out even then because its
conveniently located at Russia and Chinas borders
I can imagine Trump talking to Kim and asking him how he would like to live like him and the global elite. It worked with Gorbachev
and Deng. Just need to adopt the neoliberal religion and loot the resources of your own people (bottom 95%) for eventual handover
to the Empire (privatization or sending cash back to buy Treasuries and other investments).
My guess is Kim and NK elite live pretty well already, but who knows. In any event he knows he cant trust them.
[sigh...] Yes, you're right. I suppose I got kind of got carried away there. But I can't believe the polls
'50% approval rating' for the Syrian retaliatory strike, at least in my little world.
Most people I encounter through the day, especially college kids and millennial debt slaves, don't care about Syria
or Israel and never will. Zero expectations of their government and can't understand why some old people are concerned about distant
wars.
They feel absolutely no responsibility for the actions of the US government any more than they feel responsible for the actions
of their next door neighbors. Society is slowly devolving itself in toad freak show!
I posted this over at TAE. It might resonate with some few. Any one who has held on to their sanity, surely sees the fantastical
reality created by twisted people and their twisted ideals. If that accurate vision is the context from which the U.S. is framed;
then its true health is obvious.
A sick society ruled by equally sick fascisti
Record numbers of U.S. citizens are leaving for distant places they view as an improvement. If in fact they find respite; it
will likely not last, until and unless the U.S. is brought to ground.
May I suggest there is a small matter of war reparations owed by the USA that needs immediate resolution well prior to any
yak yak about denuclear strategies. Ms Susan Rice's piece also blithely ignores that question. And so do all the yankees as they
are fully liable for an unwarranted assault on Korea - both north and south - and reparations are immediately owed to the north.
Pay up yankees.
Will someone tell that to John Bolt-on. I would love see his mustache quiver.
@77 Karlof1 "Guess I need to find a way to create more time to do stuff as I know I'm skimming way too much."
It's not difficult to dig out the source text, and most international treaties relating to Int'l Humanitarian Law are not exactly
dense reads.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact is a mere three articles long, with the first two being single sentences. The Mutual Defense Treaty
between the USA and South Korea consists of only six articles.
The NATO Charter is but fourteen articles long. The Hague Regulations are a comparatively hefty fifty-six articles, but even
the UN Charter - an outlier if ever there was one - contains only 111 Articles.
The Geneva Conventions are much longer but, boy, do the Swiss like to talk.
But none are like slogging through some Hemingway or Melville. Simple prose, as unambiguous as possible while still satisfying
all the negotiators.
I've just read two articles that in one fell swoop can explain a large part of Trump's behaviour, together with policies to eliminate
nuclear arms control, first strike policies, apocalyptic policies towards Iran and North Korea, policies towards Israel, policies
aimed at blowing up the Middle East, willingness and eagerness to precipitate destruction and chaos on a global scale, precipitate
policies towards Russia and China, support for Islamic jihadism, anti-environmentalism, and climate denial:
The key are the so-called "Rapture Christians" nuts - of whom there are 12 in Trump's cabinet [out of how many?]. I've never
looked into this obscure sect of insane nutcases before, but people urgently need to understand this phenomenon - they are an
obscure sect, but they hold the keys to political power in the US, and have determined the key political events of the last several
decades!
These nutters are a million times more dangerous than Islamic jihadists - they have no fear of all-out nuclear war, global
destruction, climate change, environmental devastation or all the things that wise people with foresight advise against - on the
contrary they are eager to bring all these things on as soon as possible, because they associate these things with the return
of Jesus, and ascent to heaven for all the sect's believers.
A key fact in understanding this phenomenon is that they deny evolution, and a scientific basis for reality in its entirety,
and therefore are completely closed to rational argument.
Quote from the second article: 'In an April 2 Bible study, Drollinger focused on the "huge and dire error" of "radical environmentalism".
He argues that humans are incapable of destroying the earth on their own, because it is up to God to "continually renew the face
of the earth until He forms a new heaven and a new earth in the end times."'
They support Trump because they believe he is the "tool of God".
For that reason South Korea is unlikely to demilitarise and get rid of its US bases unless Japan commits to doing the same.
Posted by: Jen | Feb 28, 2019 10:54:54 PM | 74
That seems like a strange argument to me. The US is not in Korea to protect Korea from Japan, nor are they in Japan either
to protect Japan from Korea nor to protect Korea from Japan. In both cases the true target is China.
If the two Korea's unite it will necessarily be under the military protection of Russia and China - there is no other possibility,
because they need protection from the US. Both Koreas are obviously much safer under Russian and Chinese protection than under
US "protection" - the latter being no more than mafia style "protection".
In this case Japan would clearly oppose such an arrangement - in allignment with the US - therefore the last thing [imperialist]
Japan would want would be the pull-out of the US (what ordinary Japanese people might want is another matter - unfortunately they
have no say).
Mig-21-Block 70-2022 , Mar 1, 2019 7:34:39 AM |
link
N.K. should just ask Russia to buy 1000 warehoused MIGs 21 refurbished for year 2023 and thats it!
Kim should go for a No deal with the US.
Mig 21s just shot down brand new f-16s over in India.
Whole world world including Chinese airmen are laughing.
Well maybe except the starving Greeks threw 1 bill. eu out of the window for a new deal with Trumps Lokheed for f-16 modernizations.
The trio of Trump, Pompeo and Bolton, quite frankly spells failure. The leader has zero capacity to learn and understand the motivation
behind North Korea and their very exacting understanding of the English language. Every single word written has a clear and precise
meaning tied into complete sentences. The fact that is written on paper and executed by both parties memorizes the document. Trump
literally has not read the first agreement as executed. To place any faith in this trio of clowns to negotiate with the North
Koreas is laughable. The basic fact is that North Koreans will never trust the US as we literally tried to bomb all their cities
out of existence during the Korean intervention. Trump's trio does not understand the lasting impact that those actions burned
into North Korean souls. Trump is completely out his league on the world stage he has made a fool of the US.
That was my thoughts as well. The real reason Trump handlers sent him to Viet Nam was to not be around for a damning testimony.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 1, 2019 9:42:07 AM |
link
Tom Luongo claims that Bolton's spoke in Trump's wheel was to add chemical & biological weapons to US demands (
Link
). There, just like that. Pretty clever actually. Bolton may be the king of scumbags, but he sure is resourceful. The picture
they have in the article of Bolton watching over Trump is scary and probably very telling.
"Trudeau was detonated today by his former Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Canada's first Aboriginal A-G. She just
testified in Parliament, in meticulous detail, how Trudeau and his staff tried to get her to drop criminal charges against a corrupt
company that he liked."
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 28, 2019 1:15:41 PM | 36
I've just finished reading the article on the testimony in the National Post, linked in Karlof1's link:
Wow! Everybody should read this! This lady is someone who deserves a lot of respect! This text is fascinating in how it details
the arm-twisting that goes on in power - nothing that would surprise us that it happens, but here it is described in black and
white by a former government witness - including even such titbits as:
"if Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write OpEds saying that what she is doing is proper."
Hey, James, you have some good Ministers over there in Canada, despite the more famous ones. Erm, well, one. Erm, well, had.
I am interested in some of the things she is declining to speak about (due to confidentiality of counsel issues), and am wondering
if that might include the Huawei CFO issues, for which she was in a pertinent position. Any connections to the dates 11th February,
and 19th February? (Actually I was travelling at that time so was out of the loop). Then there is the meeting with the PM on 17th
September, requested 2 weeks earlier, which seems to have been intended primarily about something other than the SNC affair. The
Huawei CFO was arrested in early December, I think, so that should be something else.
"...Mig 21s just shot down brand new f-16s over in India.Whole world world including Chinese airmen are laughing.Well maybe
except the starving Greeks threw 1 bill. eu out of the window for a new deal with Trumps Lokheed for f-16 modernizations."
Maybe laughing but maybe not, this fellow seems to feel they are evenly matched depending on their respective upgrades and
concludes by saying it comes down to pilot expertise. BTW he considers Pak as having superior pilots.
reply to Scotch Bingeington 93
"....The picture they have in the article of Bolton watching over Trump is scary and probably very telling."
Yes, I am inclined to think Bolton was foisted upon him. I do think he chose Pompeo though.
Another very telling photo is that of Trump at Bush Sr.'s funeral, in the row behind him was Chaney, the look on Chaney's face
as he stared at Trump's back was very interesting to me, he looked almost afraid.
President Moon's confidence remains strong despite summit outcome.
He tweeted this [machine translation] earlier today:
"Independence of spirit and national integration based on the 'faith based system'considerably.
Please gather all the power of the people.
Peace on the Korean peninsula will drive new economic growth across the North and South, encompassing Northeast Asia, ASEAN and
Eurasia."
Today marks then 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Korean Independence, and Moon makes clear
in his speech that there was and is
only one Korea and one Korean people:
"One hundred years ago today, there was no South and North Korea.
"From Seoul and Pyeongyang to Jinnampo, Anju, Seoncheon, Uiju and Wonsan, loud chants of [the masses] erupted on the same day,
and these calls for independence spread like a wildfire to every corner of the country.
"For two months from March 1, [mass] protests took place in 211 out of the total 220 cities and counties across the country
regardless of the region – whether they belonged to what is now a part of South or North Korea."
Gotta love Moon's optimism in his closing remarks:
"The history of the past 100 years proves that we can achieve changes and innovation if we do not lose hope no matter how difficult
our present reality is.
"Over the next 100 years, the growth of the people will directly lead to the growth of the nation. When unity is achieved from
within by moving beyond ideological confrontations, and when peace and prosperity are accomplished from outside, genuine independence
will be completed."
I'd be very interested in discovering what Kim did today. Hopefully, he, too, gave an address similar to Moon's.
@94 BM - maybe Jody Wilson-Raybould can run for the prime ministers job if she can get on the top of the heap of the liberal party..
chances of this are slim!
If so, economics will suffer and chances for Trump for re-election are much lower, of exist at all due to all his betrayals
In the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," the wolf actually arrives at the end. Never forget that. Peak oil will arrive. We don't
know when, and we are not prepared for it.
Shale play without more borrowed money might be the next Venezuela. .
I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down
and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can
shale oil save us from peak oil?
OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 57% of world oil production.
"I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia
is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all
up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?"
IEA´s Oil 2019 5y forecast has global conventional oil on a plateau, i.e. declines and growth match each other perfectly
and net growth will come from LTO, NGL, biofuels and a small amount of other unconventional and "process gains".
Iran is ofc a jocker, since it can quickly add supply. Will be interesting to see how Trump will proceed.
I am quite original in my opinion about Peak Oil. I think it took place in late 2015. I will explain. If we define Peak Oil as
the maximum in production over a certain period of time we will not know it has taken place for a long time, until we lose the
hope of going above. That is not practical, as it might take years.
I prefer to define Peak Oil as the point in time when vigorous growth in oil production ended and we entered an undulating
plateau when periods of slow growth and slow decline will alternate, affected by oil price and variable demand by economy until
we reach terminal decline in production permanently abandoning the plateau towards lower oil production.
The 12-year rate of growth in C+C production took a big hit in late 2015 and has not recovered. The increase in 2 Mb since
is just an anemic 2.5% over 3 years or 0.8% per year, and it keeps going down. This is plateau behavior since there was no economic
crisis to blame. It will become negative when the economy sours.
Peak Oil has already arrived. We are not recognizing it because production still increases a little bit, but we are in Peak
Oil mode. Oil production will decrease a lot more easily that it will increase over the next decade. The economy is going to be
a real bitch.
Interesting thesis, keep in mind that the price of oil was relatively low from 2015 to 2018 because for much of the period
there was an excess of oil stocks built up over the 2013 to 2015 period when output growth outpaced demand growth due to very
high oil prices. Supply has been adequate to keep oil prices relatively low through March 2019 and US sanctions on Iran, political
instability in Libya and Venezuela, and action by OPEC and several non-OPEC nations to restrict supply have resulted in slower
growth in oil output.
Eventually World Petroleum stocks will fall to a level that will drive oil prices higher, there is very poor visibility for
World Petroleum Stocks, so there may be a 6 to 12 month lag between petroleum stocks falling to critically low levels and market
realization of that fact, by Sept to Dec 2019 this may be apparent and oil prices may spike (perhaps to $90/b by May 2020).
At that point we may start to see some higher investment levels with higher output coming 12 to 60 months later (some projects
such as deep water and Arctic projects take a lot of time to become operational, there may be some OPEC projects that might be
developed as well, there are also Canadian Oil sands projects that might be developed in a high oil price environment.
I define the peak as the highest 12 month centered average World C+C output, but it can be define many different ways.
Our capability to store oil is very limited considering the volume being moved at any time from production to consumption.
I understand that it is the marginal price of the last barrel of oil that sets the price for oil, but given the relatively inexpensive
oil between 2015 and now, and the fact that we have not been in an economical crisis, what is according to you the cause that
world oil production has grown so anemically these past three years?
Do you think that if oil had been at 20$/b as it used to be for decades the growth in consumption/production would have been
significantly higher?
I'll give you a hint, with real negative interest rates and comparatively inexpensive oil most OECD economies are unable to
grow robustly.
To me Peak Oil is an economical question, not a geological one. The geology just sets the cost of production (not the price)
too high, making the operation uneconomical. It is the economy that becomes unable to pump more oil. That's why the beginning
of Peak Oil can be placed at late 2015.
The economic system has three legs, cheap energy, demographic growth, and debt growth. All three are failing simultaneously
so we are facing the perfect storm. Social unrest is the most likely consequence almost everywhere.
If prices are low that means there is plenty of oil supply relative to demand. It also means that some oil cannot be produced
profitably, so oil companies invest less and oil output grows more slowly.
So you seem to have the story backwards. Low oil prices means low growth in supply.
So if oil prices were $20/b, oil supply would grow more slowly, we have had an oversupply of oil that ls what led to low oil
prices. When oil prices increase, supply growth will ne higher. Evause profits will be higher and there will be more investment.
It is you who has it backwards, as you only see the issue from an oil price point of view, and oil price responds to supply
and demand, and higher prices are an estimulus to higher production.
But there is a more important point of view, because oil is one of the main inputs of the economy. If the price of oil is sufficiently
low it stimulates the economy. New businesses are created, more people go farther on vacation, and so on, increasing oil demand
and oil production. If the price is sufficiently high it depresses the economy. A higher percentage of wealth is transferred from
consumer countries to producing countries and consumer countries require more debt. During the 2010-2014 period high oil prices
were sustained by the phenomenal push of the Chinese economy, while European and Japanese economies suffered enormously and their
oil consumption depressed and hasn't fully recovered since.
In the long term it is the economy that pumps the oil, and that is what you cannot understand.
The economy decides when and how Peak Oil takes place. If you knew that you wouldn't bother with all those models.
And in my opinion the economy already decided in late 2015 when the drive to increase oil production to compensate for low
oil prices couldn't be sustained.
Both supply and demand matter. I understand economics quite well thank you. You are correct that the economy is very important,
it will determine oil prices to some degree especially on the demand side of the market. If one looks at the price of oil and
economic growth or GDP, there is very little correlation.
The fact is the World economy grew quite nicely from 2011 to 2014 when oil prices averaged over $100/b.
There may be some point that high oil prices are a problem, apparently $100/b in 2014 US$ is below that price. Perhaps at $150/b
your argument would be correct. Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there
is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.
I agree the economy will be a major factor in when peak oil occurs, but as most economists understand quite well, it is both
supply and demand that will determine market prices for oil.
My models are based on the predictions of the geophysicists at the USGS (estimating TRR for tight oil) and the economists at
the EIA (who attempt to predict future oil prices). Both predictions are used as inputs to the model along with past completion
rates and well productivity and assumptions about potential future completion rates and future well productivity, bounded by the
predictions of both the USGS and the EIA along with economic assumptions about well cost, royalties and taxes, transport costs,
discount rate, and lease operating expenses.
Note that my results for economically recoverable resources are in line with the USGS TRR mean estimates and are somewhat lower
when the economic assumptions are applied (ERR/TRR is roughly 0.85), the EIA AEO has economically recoverable tight oil resources
at about 115% of the USGS mean TRR estimate. The main EIA estimate I use is their AEO reference oil price case (which may be too
low with oil prices gradually rising to $110/b (2017$) by 2050.
Assumptions for Permian Basin are royalties and taxes 33% of wellhead revenue, transport cost $5/b, LOE=$2.3/b plus $15000/month,
annual discount rate is 10%/year and well cost is $10 million, annual interest rate is 7.4%/year, annual inflation rate assumed
to be 2.5%/year, income tax and revenue from natural gas and NGL are ignored all dollar costs in constant 2017 US$.
You do incredible work Dennis and I believe you are correct. Demand for oil is relatively inelastic which accounts for huge price
swings when inventories get uncomfortably high or low. If supply doesn't keep up with our needs, price will rise to levels that
will eventually create more supply and create switching into other energy sources which will reduce demand.
Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being
produced relative to the demand for oil.
You don't seem to be aware of historical oil prices. For inflation adjusted oil prices since 1946 oil (WTI) spent:
27 years below $30
13 years at ~ $70
18 years at ~ $40
10 years at ~ $90
5 years at ~ $50 https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
And the fastest growth in oil production took place precisely at the periods when oil was cheapest.
You simply cannot be more wrong about that.
And your models are based on a very big assumption, that the geology of the reserves is determinant for Peak Oil. It is not.
There is plenty of oil in the world, but the extraction of most of it is unaffordable. The economy will decide (has decided) when
Oil Peak takes place and what happens afterwards. Predictions/projections aren't worth a cent as usual. You could save yourself
the trouble.
I use both geophysics and economics, it is not one or the other it is both of these that will determine peak oil.
Of course oil prices have increased, the cheapest oil gets produced first and oil gradually gets more expensive as the marginal
barrel produced to meet demand at the margin is more costly to produce.
Real Oil Prices do not correlate well with real economic growth and on a microeconomic level the price of oil will affect profits
and willingness of oil companies to invest which in turn will affect future output. Demand will be a function of both economic
output and efficiency improvements in the use of oil.
Also keep in mind that during the 1945-1975 period economic growth rates were very high as population growth rates were very
high and the World economy was expanding rapidly as population grew and the World rebuilt in the aftermath of World War 2. Oil
was indeed plentiful and cheap over this period and output grew rapidly to meet expanding World demand for oil. The cheapness
of the oil led to relatively inefficient use of the resource, as constraints in output became evident and more expensive offshore,
Arctic oil were extracted oil prices increased and there was high volatility due to Wars in the Middle east and other political
developments. Oil output (C+C) since 1982 has grown fairly steadily at about an 800 kb/d annual average each year, oil prices
move up and down in response to anticipated oil stock movements and are volatile because these estimates are often incorrect (the
World petroleum stock numbers are far from transparent.)
On average since the Iran/Iraq crash in output (1982-2017) World output has grown by about 1.2% per year and 800 kb/d per year
on average, prices have risen or fallen when there was inadequate or excess stocks of petroleum, this pattern (prices adjusting
to stock levels) is likely to continue.
There has been little change when we compare 1982 to 1999 to 1999-2017 (divide overall period of interest in half) for either
percentage increase of absolute increase in output.
I would agree that severe shortages of oil supply relative to demand (likely apparent by 2030) is likely to lead to an economic
crisis as oil prices rise to levels that the World economy cannot adjust to (my guess is that this level will be $165/b in 2018$).
Potentially high oil prices might lead to faster adoption of alternative modes of transport that might avert a crisis, but that
is too optimistic a scenario even for me.
China will be in outright deflation soon enough. Economic stimulus is starting to fail in China. They can't fill the so called
bathtub up fast enough to keep pace with the water draining out the bottom. So to speak.
Interest rates in China will soon be exactly where they are in Europe and Japan. Maybe lower.
In order to get oil to $90-$100 the value of the dollar is going to have to sink a little bit. In order to get oil to $140-$160
the dollar has to make a new all time low. Anybody predicting prices shooting up to $200 needs the dollar index to sink to 60
or below.
The reality is oil is going to $20. Because the rest of the world outside the US is failing. Dennis makes some nice graphs
and charts and under his assumptions his charts and graphs are correct. But his assumptions aren't correct.
We got $20 oil and an economic depression coming.
Peak Oil is going to be deflationary as hell. Higher prices aren't in the cards even when a shortage actually shows up. We
will get less supply at a lower price. Demand destruction is actually going to happen when economies and debt bubbles implode
so we actually can't be totally sure we are ever going to see an actual shortage.
We could very well be producing 20-30% less oil than we do now and still not have a shortage.
Oh and EV's are going to have to compete with $20 oil not $150 oil.
When do you expect the oil price to reach $20/b? We will have to see when this occurs.
It may come true when EVs and AVs have decimated demand for oil in 2050, but not before. EIA's oil price reference scenario
from AEO 2019 below. That is a far more realistic prediction (though likely too low especially when peak oil arrives in 2025),
oil prices from $100 to $160/b in 2018 US$ are more likely from 2023 to 2035 (for three year centered average Brent oil price).
My assumptions are based on USGS mean resource estimates and EIA oil price estimates, as well as BIS estimates for the World
monetary and financial system.
Your assumption that oil prices are determined by exchange rates only is not borne out by historical evidence. Exchange
rates are a minor, not a major determinant of oil prices.
Technically speaking. The most relevant trendline on price chart currently comes off the lows of 2016/02/08. It intersects
with 2017/06/19. You draw the trendline on out to where price is currently. Currently price is trying to backtest that trendline.
On a weekly price chart i'd say it touches the underside of that trendline sometime in April in the low 60's somewhere between
$62-$66 kinda depends on when it arrives there time wise. The later it takes to arrive there the higher price will be. I've been
trading well over 20 years can't tell you how many times i've seen price backtest a trendline after it's been broken. It's a very
common occurrence. And i wouldn't short oil until after it does.
But back to your question. $20 oil what kind of timetable. My best guess is 2021-2022. Might happen 2020 or 2023. And FED can
always step in and weaken the dollar. Fundamentally the only way oil doesn't sink to $20 is the FED finds a way to weaken the
dollar.
But understand the FED is the only major CB that currently doesn't have the need to open up monetary policy. It's really the
rest of the worlds CB ultra loose monetary policy which is going to drive oil to $20.
"... "If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be pretty fucked economically thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela. So not a smooth short % decline rate." ..."
"... Realistically the global economy is already in a tight spot. It started back in 2000 when Oil prices started climbing from about $10/bbl in 1998 to about $30/bbl in 2000. Then the World Major Central banks dropped interest which ended triggering the Housing Boom\Bust and carried Oil prices to $147/bbl. Since then Interest rates have remained extremely low while World Debt has soared (expected to top $250T in 2019). ..."
"... Probably the biggest concern for me is the risking risks for another World war: The US has been targeting all of the major Oil exporters. The two remaining independent targets are Venezuela & Iran. I suspect Venzuela will be the next US take over since it will be a push over compared to Iran. ..."
"If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be pretty fucked economically
thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela.
So not a smooth short % decline rate."
Energy is the economy, The economy cannot function without energy. Thus its logical that a decline in energy supply will reduce
the economy. The only way for this not to apply is if there are efficiency gains that offset the decline. But at this point the
majority of cost effective efficiency gains are already in place. At this point gains become increasing expensive with much smaller
gains (law of diminishing returns). Major infrastructure changes like modernizing rail lines take many decades to implement and
also require lots of capital. Real capital needed will be difficult to obtain do to population demographics (ie boomers dependent
on massive unfunded entitlement & pensions).
Realistically the global economy is already in a tight spot. It started back in 2000 when Oil prices started climbing from
about $10/bbl in 1998 to about $30/bbl in 2000. Then the World Major Central banks dropped interest which ended triggering the
Housing Boom\Bust and carried Oil prices to $147/bbl. Since then Interest rates have remained extremely low while World Debt has
soared (expected to top $250T in 2019).
My guess is that global economy will wipe saw in the future as demographics, resource depletion (including Oil) and Debt all
merge into another crisis. Gov't will act with more cheap and easy credit (since there is no alterative TINA) as well as QE\Asset
buying to avoid a global depression. This creating a wipesaw effect that has already been happening since 2000 with Boom Bust
cycles. This current cycle has lasted longer because the Major central banks kept interest rates low, When The Fed started QT
and raising rate it ended up triggering a major stock market correction In Dec 2018. I believe at this point the Fed will no longer
seek any further credit tightening that will trip the economy back into recession. However its likely they the global economy
will fall into another recession as consumers & business even without further credit tighting by CB (Central Banks) Because they've
been loading up on cheap debt, which will eventually run into issues servicing their debt. For instance there are about 7M auto
loans in delinquency in March of 2019. Stock valuations are largely driven by stock buybacks, which is funded by debt. I presume
companies are close to debt limit which is likely going to prevent them from purchase more stock back.
Probably the biggest concern for me is the risking risks for another World war: The US has been targeting all of the major
Oil exporters. The two remaining independent targets are Venezuela & Iran. I suspect Venzuela will be the next US take over since
it will be a push over compared to Iran. I think once all of remaining independent Oil Exports are seized that is when the
major powers start fighting each other. However is possible that some of the proxy nations (Pakastan\India),(Israel\Iran), etc
trigger direct war between the US, China, and Russia at any time.
Notice that the US is now withdrawing from all its major arms treaties, and the US\China\Russia are now locked into a Arms
race. Nuclear powers are now rebuilding their nuclear capacity (more Nukes) and modernizing their deployment systems (Hypersonic,
Very large MIRV ICBMS, Undersea drones, Subs, Bombers, etc.
My guess is that nations like the US & China will duke it out before collapsing into the next Venezuela. If my assessment is
correct, The current state of Venezuela will look like the garden of Eden compared to the aftermath of a full scale nuclear war.
Currently the Doomsday clock (2019) is tied with 1953 at 2 minutes:
1953 was the height of the cold war. I presume soon the Doomsday clock will be reduced to less than 2 Minutes later this
year, due to recent events in the past few weeks.
"the world's nuclear nations proceeded with programs of "nuclear modernization" that are all but indistinguishable from
a worldwide arms race, and the military doctrines of Russia and the United States have increasingly eroded the long-held taboo
against the use of nuclear weapons."
" The current international security situation -- what we call the "new abnormal" -- has extended over two years now.
It's a state as worrisome as the most dangerous times of the Cold War, a state that features an unpredictable and shifting
landscape of simmering disputes that multiply the chances for major military conflict to erupt."
1. When something is increasing 0.8% a year based on data with, say, 2% or higher margin of error this is not a growth.
This is a number racket.
2. We need to use proper coefficients to correctly estimate energy output of different types of oil We do not know real
EROEI of shale oil, but some sources claim that it is in the 1.5-4.5 range. Let's assume that it is 3. In comparison, Saudi oil
has 80-100 range. In this sense shale oil is not a part of the solution; it is a part of the problem (stream of just bonds produced
in parallel is the testament of that). In other words, all shale oil is "subprime oil," and an increase of shale oil production
is correctly called the oil retirement party. The same is true for the tar sands oil.
So the proper formula for total world production in "normalized by ERORI units" might be approximated by the equation:
where coefficients (I do not claim that they are accurate; they are provided just for demonstration) reflect EROEI of particular
types of oil.
If we assume that 58% of the US oil production is shale oil and condensate then the amount of "normalized" oil extracted in
the USA can be approximated by the formula
total * 0.83
In other words 17% of the volume is a fiction. Simplifying it was spent on extraction of shale oil and condensate (for concentrate
lower energy content might justify lower coefficient; but for simplicity we assume that it is equal to shale oil).
Among other things that means that 1970 peak of production probably was never exceeded.
3. EROEI of most types of oil continues to decline (from 35 in 1999 to 18 in 2006 according to
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/eroeihalletal.png).
Which means that in reality physical volume became a very deceptive metric as you need to sink more and more money/energy into
producing every single barrel and that fact is not reflected in the volume. In other words, the barrel of shale oil is already
50% empty when it was lifted to the ground (aka "subprime oil"). In this sense, shale wells with their three years of the high
producing period are simply money dumping grounds for money in comparison with Saudi oil wells.
4. The higher price does not solve the problem of the decline of EROEI. It just allows the allocation of a larger portion
of national wealth to the oil extraction putting the rest of the economy into permanent stagnation.
5. If we assume average EROEI equal 3 (or even 5) for shale oil then rising shale oil production along with almost constant
world oil production is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. Again, putting a single curve for all types of oil is the number racket,
or voodoo dances around the fire.
NOTES:
1. IMHO Ron made a correct observation about Saudi behavior: the declines of production can well be masked under pretention
of meeting the quota to save face. That might be true about OPEC and Russia as a whole too. Exceptions like Iraq only confirm
the rule.
"... Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally." ..."
"... Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists. ..."
"... Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. ..."
"... it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him. ..."
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps college graduates become entrepreneurs.
However, he is now gaining recognition for his signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a
value added tax , Yang claims that it would
reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes
that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left. Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent
libertarians because it would replace the far more inefficient welfare system.
Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A
guaranteed income for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton
Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley, though
Friedman called it a
"negative income tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013 VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would build a new nationalist majority
and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for
citizens
only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin'sdisingenuous
complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal
basic income while still demanding mass immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with
his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic unemployment," Yang
has directly spoken about the demographic
collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance
abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of white Americans.
...He wants to make
Puerto Rico a state . He
supports a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with
pledges to secure the border
and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a massive bureaucratic system to track
gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with taxpayer
dollars...
... ... ...
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to
Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. (Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are
"far right" by Main Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and wrist-flapping about
the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism
[are] a threat to the core ideals of what it means to be an American". [
Presidential candidate
Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge, March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is described as racist, and even national
symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest, "America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity.
Increasingly, "America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring tribes that occupy it
except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this process, especially by limiting mass
immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars, for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has
repeatedly endorsed more legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and whine about
unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to the Left, but to the failed Conservative
Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump specifically
pledged to protect
entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure plan. However, once in office, his main legislative
accomplishment is a tax cut any other Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [
Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget cuts all 3, by Tara
Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path to the Republican nomination, now
embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message. Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans
about "free markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire
generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately
trying to tell his followers not to cheer for Tucker Carlson because
Carlson had suggested a nation should be treated like a
family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most fervent online supporters have turned
on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is
beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like those policies are coming anyway.
If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get
something out of this System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers
ability to affect the vote count "has been overstated" [
Rise of the pink hats,
March 12, 2019].
Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard
are giving up on him.
Weirdly, Trump abruptly attacked Ann Coulter , one of his earliest
and
most eloquent backers , on Twitter Saturday night, perhaps signaling he is repudiating the
immigration patriotism he won on -- or perhaps that he knows Ann is right:
In reality of course, "major sections of the wall" have not been built. And the
administration suffered yet another defeat in the courts last week over its attempts to enforce
immigration law. [ In another blow to Trump, judge rules in favor of ACLU in family separations case ,
by Maria Sacchetti, The Washington Post , March 8, 2019] Trump is fighting, to his
credit, but he simply is not winning on the border.
Congressional Republicans also seem uninterested in immigration patriotism.
Many Republicans want to block President Trump's national emergency declaration on the
border -- the one good thing Trump has recently done on immigration–because it goes
against their " principles ."
Thirteen House Republicans voted to block the executive order last month. "The president
doesn't get to just declare an emergency for something that Congress has deliberated many times
over the past several years," Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian, said of why he
sponsored legislation to stifle the national emergency. [ Rep. Justin
Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency' , by Joe Seyton,
Reason, February 26, 2019]. Amash was joined by a group primarily made up of squishy
Republicans. [ Meet the 13
Republicans who rebuked Trump over his national emergency , by Bridget Bowman, Roll
Call , February 26, 2019]
Trump's executive order is receiving even more pushback from Senate Republicans. Senators
such as Shelly Moore-Capito (R-West Virginia) and Susan Collins think the national
emergency is "concerning" and believe Trump already has enough wall money without the
declaration. [ GOP
wants Trump to back off on emergency , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , March 6,
2019]
Four Republican Senators have announced their intention to vote for legislation to block the
national emergency: Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and usual Trump ally Rand Paul. More
are likely to announce their support for this measure as the vote approaches this week. Pat
Toomey and Todd Young, both who are close with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to
propose resolutions to give
cucky Republicans a way to voice their disapproval without voting with the Democrats.
The resolutions would convey the message that Republicans want border security, but don't
want to take the necessary actions to fund said border security. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wants to
pass a resolution that would restrict the president's emergency powers and place a 30-day or
60-day time limit on how long they can be in effect without congressional approval.
McConnell announced Monday that he could not prevent passage of legislation blocking Trump's
national emergency declaration. The New York Times declared this announcement as proof
that Trump has lost influence within his own party. [ Trump's Grip
Shows Signs of Slipping as Senate Prepares to Block Wall Emergency , By Sheryl Gay
Stolberg and Emily Cochrane, The New York Times , March 4, 2019]
The good news is that Trump will most likely veto this legislation and Congress doesn't have
enough votes to override the veto. The President is also threatening senators who vote for the
block with stiff consequences. [ Senate Republicans divided ahead of vote on disapproval of national emergency , by
Ted Barrett, CNN , March 7, 2019] There is little chance the President will sign a bill
that overrides his own action, even if his close advisers tell him to do so. Trump's instincts
would never allow such behavior.
The bad news: it's a sign congressional Republicans have no will to support immigration
patriotism at the moment. This is very bad considering the immigration bills that may come
before them in the near future, including the possible White House measure on guest worker
visas. House Democrats are set to introduce a new DREAM Act that will legalize at least 1.8
million illegals and extend Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of foreign
nationals.
Congressional Republicans need to get their act together to kill these pieces of
legislation. But
they may be at the forefront in support of them. Last fall, multiple Republican senators,
including the appalling
Thom Tillis, proposed a bill that would double the number of H-2b visas and screw over
low-skilled American workers. And last month, several Republicans -- alas, including supposed
immigration patriot
Tom Cotton -- championed the easement of some regulations on H-1b visas.
The better hope for killing a guest worker expansion lies with the Democrats. Anyone with a
brain realizes this would be bad for American workers and benefits greedy corporations.
Democrats have never been too fond of this plan, as evidenced by their skepticism about its
expansion in the Gang of Eight Amnesty. [ Gang
of 8 defends guest worker plan , by Seung Min Kim, Politico , May 13, 2013].
What better way to portray Trump as a phony populist in 2020 than to skewer him for this gift
to the cheap labor lobby?
The House Democrats' proposed DREAM Act will probably go nowhere–unless Trump includes
that idea in his immigration package. There are some positive signs that the White House won't
do this; and that Republicans would block its passage. Kushner floated the idea of giving green
cards for Dreamers in exchange for wall funding during shutdown negotiations earlier this year.
That plan was firmly opposed by conservative senators who thought it was insanity [ A "go big" idea to end the shutdown , by Jonathan Swan, Axios , January 23,
2019]
Though Congress and the White House seem set on terrible immigration ideas, it's worth
remembering there are alternative patriotic immigration proposals they could push. All of these
ideas would not likely pass the current Congress, but they would shape the immigration debate
in a positive direction ahead of the 2020 election.
El Chapo Act:
This bill proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz would confiscate the money of drug lords like Joaquin
"El Chapo" Guzman and allocate it to building the wall. Cruz reintroduced the proposal in
February and believes the government could obtain $14 billion out of El Chapo's drug profits
through this law [ Sen. Ted Cruz's solution to border wall impasse: Make El Chapo pay for it , by
Deanna Paul, The Washington Post , February 13, 2019]. This would be more money than
Trump currently has for wall construction and would send a strong message to the cartels. The
president himself has said Sen. Cruz's idea is "interesting." There is no reason Republicans
shouldn't hold a vote on this bill and make Democrats stand up for drug cartels.
Kate's Law:
This bill, named after Kate Steinle who was murdered by an illegal alien, would institute
harsher penalties for illegals caught re-entering the country. This measure passed the House in
2017, but it died in the (n.b. GOP-controlled)Senate [ Senate Has Not Voted On Kate's Law Five Months After It Passed The House With Bipartisan
Support , by Will Racke, The Daily Caller , December 1, 2017].
Trump should resurrect the bill. Yes, it's passage is less likely with a Democrat-controlled
House. That doesn't matter. The president needs to convey he still wants to crack down on
illegal immigration and that his opponents favor criminal aliens over American citizens.
Along with the El Chapo Act, probably has the best chance at passage among the ideas the
Trump admin could push as multiple Democrats voted for it back in 2017. There is still a chance
enough Democrats would vote for it again to achieve passage.
No Sanctuary for Criminals Act:
This act would cut Sanctuary Cities off from federal law enforcement funds and it was also
passed by the House in 2017, albeit by a smaller margin than Kate's Law. It also went nowhere
in the (GOP-controlled) Senate. If Republicans want to highlight the chaos created by Democrat
policies, they should revive this bill and remind Americans that Trump stands up for law and
order. This act, however, does have less chance of passage as it was more strongly opposed by
Democrats [ Dems
block Senate vote on sanctuary cities , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , February
13, 2018]
Mandatory e-Verify:
Requiring all American companies to use e-verify seems almost too good of an idea for
Republicans. The bill explicitly protects American workers and puts the onus on employers to
make sure they only hire those who are here legally. This should receive bipartisan support as
both parties want to portray themselves as the true protectors of American workers.
House Republicans included the measure in their DACA deal last year, so they are aware of
this proposal [ Goodlatte offers E-Verify mandate, farm worker fix for immigration bill , by John
Bresnahan, Politico , June 26, 2018]. We just need one patriot Republican to stand up
and offer mandatory e-Verify. This proposal also has a decent chance of passage.
Override the Flores Settlement:
This 1997 court decision has handcuffed the Trump administration's ability to enforce
immigration law and is directly responsible for the current border collapse. It has allowed
liberal judges to deem it unlawful for the government to detain illegal alien minors for more
than 20 days. It also has allowed for these minors to have better access to asylum as they
remain in America undetained. Some Republican lawmakers, including Ted Cruz, suggested
legislative action in the last congressional session to correct this loophole [ The History of the Flores
Settlement , by Matt Sussis, Center for Immigration Studies , February 11,
2019].
A bill to end this policy would not likely pass as many Republicans shrank from the Trump's
family detention policies last summer [ Here
Are the Republicans Opposing Migrant Family Separation , by Jeff Cirillo, Roll
Call , June 19, 2018]. That doesn't change the fact that the Trump administration needs
this legislation to avoid further court losses and to shift public discussion on family
detention to focus on Democratic preference for illegal immigrants.
Eliminating birthright citizenship:
There is no way that this idea would pass Congress, but it does have the backing of the
President and one prominent Republican senator. Trump said he may eliminate birthright
citizenship by executive order and
Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a bill to do so right before the 2018 election. [ Lindsey
Graham Seconds Trump Proposal to End Birthright Citizenship , by Niels Lesniewski,
Roll Call , October 30, 2018]
Those plans, however, seem to have disappeared since then. But Trump still seems interested
in the issue -- he mentioned it in his speech to CPAC -- and events may prompt the president to
revisit the topic. A bill would cause an uproar within Congress and among the Republican
caucus, let alone an executive order. And that's good. If Trump wants to have a serious
discussion on citizenship and reduce the negative effects of mass immigration, then he must
force this issue into the public square.
Javanka would likely oppose any such effort, so perhaps their White House influence would
have to be minimalized from what it is today for this to happen.
The RAISE Act:
The RAISE
Act would halve America's yearly immigration intake and structure our system to be more
"merit-based." It would also cap annual refugee numbers at 50,000 and eliminate the diversity
visa lottery. The bill was introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue with Trump's backing
in August 2017. But (again, despite GOP control of Congress) nothing happened.
If Trump wants to show he still puts America first ahead of 2020, he could resurrect the
RAISE Act. There is no chance it would pass, but it would force Republicans to run on the plan
and win the seats necessary to pass it in Trump's second term.
These are some positive things Trump and Republicans can do. Whether they choose to do them
is up to them.
It's not looking good.
Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source
Inside The Beltway.
Jimmy Dore show is pretty educational... Why hasn't Schultz been charged for election fraud yet (she rigged the 2016 primary
and then rigged her own race in Florida against Tim Canova.)? Just when you thought crooked Hillary and corrupt Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz were finally silent and out of the picture, they keep coming back again and again and again...like a case of
herpes.
Nothing that Bernie will do can satisfy the Democrats. Said the other day he was
wishy-washy over Venezuela but it was still not enough. Seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz
has threatened to have him kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator.
Well then, Sanders better be carrying a polished shield at all times never know when
Debbie the medusa will lurch forward throwing that gazy DNC stink-eye in his direction !
Right now the title should "Can Trump happen again?" ;-)
But this is from 2016 and Professor Stiglitz missed the foreign policy and neoliberal globalization aspects of "Hillary vs
Trump" battle. A vote for Hillary was a vote for continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
It is unclear where is political force that can reverse neoliberal deregulation and neoliberal tax cuts. for example full set of
taxes on all kind of income might help (so that dividends owners should pay Social security tax too) but currently is politically unfeasible,
as control of Washington is in the hands of financial oligarchy which will not relinquish its power without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
"... The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking crisis). ..."
"... Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue to erode. ..."
"... the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping (or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power. ..."
"... we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. ..."
"... The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all. ..."
"... From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was the most tariff protected nation on earth. ..."
"... How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming US presidents. ..."
"... Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy. The rules need to be rewritten. ..."
"... The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed miserably ..."
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are
economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42
years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So
it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong
both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased
nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing partly to massive
tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization
– have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion:
America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization
even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade
agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts
to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing
assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called
into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich
bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans
who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government.
But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he
promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time
they were tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans
poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global
terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between
the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that
have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring
inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which
rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality,
but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens
benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump
phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing
to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
markets aurelius OCT 15, 2016
I've yet to see such a succinct or well-presented analysis on the rise of Trump and the far-left and -right in Europe. Thank
you.
Where I disagree with Prof. Stiglitz, however, is in the second point of his conclusion; to wit, "... we need to rewrite the
rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore
this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments
in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined,
and economies weakened." A political solution is impossible at this point in the USA since the legislative and executive branches
of the have been completely captured by cartels, just as Hayek warned back in the '40s.
It took centuries of war -- civil and foreign -- to evolve the English common law and representative government from which
America derived is greatest strengths. Included in that are the quaint cultural memes of civility and "fair play," which permeated
all levels of society, not just sports; these norms were violated at great personal expense, in that it was difficult to gain
the trust of one's fellow citizens if one violated them. However, it is not an immutable fact of nature such a system will persist
throughout history. Truth be told, it is an outlier in the history of the world. Typically, and to this day outside the Anglosphere,
most societies are spoils systems, in which the strong impose their will on the weak, and take the larger share of everything
their societies produce. Some operate artfully (e.g., Mediterranean Europe), while others are just ham-handed (e.g., Russia, the
Middle East). The ordering described by Hobbes more appropriately captures the state of affairs to a greater or lesser degree
in these states.
It took a revolution, a civil war, and a century-long struggle post-civil war to evolve the US society to its modern, yet-to-be-fully-formed
state. The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal
and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over
the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking
crisis).
Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue
to erode. Either we fade into history as much of Europe did during the Dark Ages or we have another revolution.
While that's going on, the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained
Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping
(or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power.
Daniel Esmond OCT 15, 2016
I agree with nearly everything in Prof Stiglitz' analysis. However, I would like some details about the new 'rules of the economy'.
There is a realisation in many circles that something has to change and the solutions advanced by the new populists are unworkable.
But we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. While analysis like this one about how we got here
are useful and enlightening, we need (desperately!) to move on and do something. I really would like to see a follow up of this
article with Prof Stigliz outlining his plans for a new economic order.
James Murphy OCT 15, 2016
"But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last
six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top.."
The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations
were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase
would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all.
We are a trade deficient nation. As such the only way we lose a trade war is not to fight one. Aside from the short transition
harm the American people would be better off with tariff protection as they were in the past.
From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was
the most tariff protected nation on earth. During that time absolutely none of the bad things you postulate actually happened.
Free trade is an Ivory Tower theory that has never worked in the real world experience of the United States. We have more free
trade today than we have ever had. Where are the blessings of those free trade deals? We abandoned free trade in 1967 and the
real wages of blue collar workers peaked 5 years later never to come back.
Simon Barnard OCT 14, 2016
Rules of the economy do need to be rewritten and also do the rules of economic measurement.
Growth of GDP is not a valid measurement of whether or not an economy is healthy (or indeed growing). Should vast inequalities
be created, that in turn cause social unrest, that in turn lead to a disintegration of society, this society may find it necessary
to build a lot of prisons. The capital expenditure on these prisons will contribute to the GDP. Is it really healthier? Is this
what is happening in the US? - it could be going that way.
So is it any wonder that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo, of which Hilary Clinton is certainly part
of? NO.
Is Trump an alternative? DEFINITELY NO.
As Joseph Stiglitz put very well, he would make things still worse.
So I feel sorry for the USA having such a poor choice and I hope that soon we can change from the neo-liberal hegemony and
develop a new one that will allow a progressive new choice to make itself available.
Vicky Lavendel OCT 14, 2016
The true questions is: How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming
US presidents. And furthermore all presidential candidates who want to have a chance must be ultra rich (like Trump) or must
have very wealthy donors (like Obama). Is this still a democracy or already an oligarchy? That Stieglitz doesnt ask this question
might be a hint that he is part of this wealthy establishment as well.
Yoshimichi Moriyama OCT 14, 2016
The word liberalization is so dazzling that we are captured and made by it to be unable to see the reality; we are often duped
by it. When we hear or see the word, we need to be very careful of what the speaker or writer actually means by it. Corporate
and financial interests have made an extensive use of it to camouflage and promote their selfishness.
Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese
conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not
risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy
and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy.
The rules need to be rewritten.
M M OCT 14, 2016
The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed
miserably. They had eight years to put things right and what did they do, not only maintaining the status quo which made
inequality worse but created mayhem everywhere and the Clintons were part of it throughout the Obama tenure. So Mr. "Yes We Can"
not only managed to increase inequality, re-introduce slavery (albeit in many new forms), help spread terrorism all over the place
and this to state just a few examples.
First of all, what is called "School of management" typically is a voodoo cult that should
have nothing to do with university education ;-)
"He [Bush] signaled the shift [in strategy] in a speech here [in Pittsburgh] last week
when he charged that Reagan had made 'a list of phony promises' on defense, energy and
economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal 'voodoo economic policy' and
'economic madness.'"
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out
people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did
it.
The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian
extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religions have committed heinous
atrocities.
...And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy
votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites?
...The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and
then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many
problems he has he is only an apprentice.
"... As Sen. Elizabeth Warren has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy." You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites. ..."
"... Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare and getting out of wars. ..."
Not surprised at all. The election is over, the voters are now moot. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren
has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy."
You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes
via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites.
Also no mention of NAFTA or renegotiating trade deals in the new transition agenda. Instead
there's just a bunch of vague Chamber of Commercesque language about making America attractive
to investors. I think our hopes for a disruptive Trump presidency are quickly being dashed.
Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things
he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare
and getting out of wars.
As to the last point, appointing Bolton or Corker Secretary of State would be a clear indication
he was just talking. A clear violation of campaign promises that would make Obama look like a
choirboy. Trump may be W on steroids.
I can't imagine how he's neglected to update his transition plan regarding nafta. After all,
he's already been president-elect for, what, 36 hours now? And he only talked about it umpteen
times during the campaign. I'm sure he'll renege.
Hell, it took Clinton 8 hours to give her concession speech.
On the bright side, he managed to kill TPP just by getting elected. Was that quick enough for
you?
"... Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet censorship. ..."
"The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing
but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society ." -- Karl
Marx, The Class Struggles in France
What Marx described, in his analysis of the corruption of the bourgeoisie in France
leading up to the 1848 revolution, applies with even greater force to the United States of
2019, where the bourgeoisie faces its own rendezvous with social upheaval and explosive class
battles.
That is how a Marxist understands the spectacle of Wednesday's hearing before the House
Oversight Committee, in which Michael Cohen, the former attorney and "fixer" for Donald Trump
for more than a decade, testified for six hours about how he and his boss worked to defraud
business partners and tax collectors, intimidate critics and suppress opposition to Trump's
acitvities in real estate, casino gambling, reality television and, eventually, electoral
politics.
What Cohen described was a seedier version of an operation that most Americans would
recognize from viewing films like The Godfather: Trump as the capo di tutti capi, the
unquestioned authority who must be consulted on every decision ; the children, Donald Jr.,
Ivanka and Eric, each now playing significant roles in the ongoing family criminal enterprise;
Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, the consigliere in charge of finance,
mentioned by Cohen more than 20 times in the course of six hours of testimony as the man who
facilitated Trump's schemes to evade taxes, deceive banks or stiff business partners.
Cohen himself was an enforcer. By his own account, he threatened people on Trump's behalf at
least 500 times in a ten-year period, including business associates, politicians, journalists
and anyone seeking to file complaints or gain reimbursement after being defrauded by one or
another Trump venture. The now-disbarred lawyer admitted to tape recording clients -- including
Trump among many others -- more than 100 times during this period.
The incidents recounted by Cohen range from the farcical (Trump browbeating colleges and
even his military prep school not to release his grades or test scores), to the shabby (Trump
having his own "charitable" foundation buy a portrait of himself for $60,000), to the brazenly
criminal (deliberately inflating the value of properties when applying for bank loans while
deflating the value of the same properties as much as twenty-fold in order to evade
taxation).
One of the most remarkable revelations was Cohen's flat assertion that Trump himself did
not enter the presidential race with the expectation that he could win either the Republican
nomination or the presidency. Instead, the billionaire reality television "star" regularly told
his closest aides, the campaign would be the "greatest infomercial in political history," good
for promoting his brand and opening up business opportunities in previously closed
markets.
These unflattering details filled the pages of the daily newspapers Thursday and occupied
many hours on the cable television news. But in all that vast volume of reporting and
commentary, one would look in vain for any serious assessment of what it means, in terms of the
historical development and future trajectory of American society, that a family like the Trumps
now occupies the highest rung in the US political system.
The World Socialist Web Site rejects efforts by the Democrats and the corporate media
to dismiss Trump as an aberration, an accidental figure whose unexpected elevation to the
presidency in 2016 will be "corrected" through impeachment, forced resignation or electoral
defeat in 2020. We insist that the Trump administration is a manifestation of a protracted
crisis and breakdown of American democracy, whose course can be traced back at least two
decades to the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-99, followed by the stolen
presidential election of 2000.
The US political system, always dominated by the interests of the capitalist ruling class
that controls both of the major parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, is breaking
down under the burden of mounting social tensions, driven above all by skyrocketing economic
inequality. It is impossible to sustain the pretense that elections at two-year and four-year
intervals provide genuine popular influence over the functioning of a government so completely
subordinated to the financial aristocracy.
The figures are familiar but require restating: over the past three decades, virtually all
the increase in wealth in American society has gone to a tiny layer at the top. Three
mega-billionaires -- Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- now control more wealth than
half the American population. This process of social polarization is global: according to the
most recent Oxfam report, 26 billionaires control more wealth than the poorer half of the human
race.
These billionaires did not accumulate their riches by devising new technologies or making
new scientific discoveries that increased the wealth and happiness of humanity as a whole. On
the contrary, their enrichment has come at the expense of society. Bezos has become the world's
richest man through the emergence of Amazon as the greatest sweatshop enterprise in history,
where every possible second of labor power is extracted from a brutally exploited
workforce.
The class of billionaires as a whole, having precipitated the global financial collapse of
2008 through reckless speculation and swindling in the sale of derivatives and other obscure
financial "products," was bailed out, first by the Republican Bush, then by the Democrat Obama,
to the tune of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the jobs, living standards and social
conditions for the great mass of working people sharply declined.
As for Donald Trump, the real estate swindler, casino con man and reality television mogul
is a living demonstration of the truth of Balzac's aphorism: "Behind every great fortune is a
great crime."
Trump toyed with running for president on the ultra-right Reform Party ticket in 2000 after
a long stint as a registered Democrat and donor to both capitalist parties. When he decided to
run for president as a Republican in 2016, however, he had shifted drastically to the right.
His candidacy marked the emergence of a distinctly fascistic movement, as he spewed
anti-immigrant prejudice and racism more generally, while making a right-wing populist appeal
to working people, particularly in de-industrialized areas in the Midwest and Appalachia, on
the basis of economic nationalism.
As World Socialist Web Site editorial board Chairman David North explained even
before the 2016 elections:
The Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States did not emerge from an
American version of a Munich beer hall. Donald Trump is a billionaire, who made his money in
Manhattan real estate swindles, the semi-criminal operations of casino gambling, and the
bizarre world of "reality television," which entertains and stupefies its audience by
manufacturing absurd, disgusting and essentially fictional "real life" situations. The
candidacy of Donald Trump could be described as the transfer of the techniques of reality
television to politics.
The main development in the two years since Trump entered the White House is the emergence
of the American working class into major struggles, beginning with the wave of teachers'
strikes in 2018, initiated by the rank and file in defiance of the bureaucratic unions. The
reaction in the American ruling elite is a panic-stricken turn to authoritarian methods of
rule.
The billionaire in the White House is now engaged in a systematic assault on the foundations
of American democracy. He has declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress, which
holds the constitutional "power of the purse," and divert funds from the military and other
federal departments to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
Whether or not he is immediately successful in this effort, it is clear that Trump is
moving towards the establishment of an authoritarian regime, with or without the sanction of
the ballot box. As Cohen observed in his closing statement -- in remarks generally downplayed
by the media and ignored by the Democrats -- he is worried that if Trump loses the 2020
election, "there will never be a peaceful transition of power."
Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They
have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while
portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of
Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet
censorship.
The defense of democratic rights and genuine resistance to Trump's drive toward
authoritarian rule must come through the development of an independent political movement of
the working class, directed against both big business parties, the Democrats as much as the
Republicans, and against the profit system which they both defend.
"... The Puppet show display by Pence & Pompeo to rap Europeans over the knuckles for everything from not exiting the Iran Nuclear deal to not stopping the Nordstream pupeline & trying to contain Hiawei is blowing up in the Trump Administration's faces as these so called Allies or Vassals of the American Empire are refusing to tow the line? ..."
"... A failure for US oligarchy foreign policy is a win for the US and the rest of the world. ..."
The "Exceptional Nation" has now become the "Detestable Nation"!
The Puppet show display
by Pence & Pompeo to rap Europeans over the knuckles for everything from not exiting the
Iran Nuclear deal to not stopping the Nordstream pupeline & trying to contain Hiawei is
blowing up in the Trump Administration's faces as these so called Allies or Vassals of the
American Empire are refusing to tow the line?
Trump has alienated & disgusted it's
Allies, so much that they can now see how deranged, unworkable & destructive is the
Americans Foreign Policy & its bankrupt disfunctional , delusional Policies?
It's
ridiculous, irrational & pathological hatred for Iran has shown that the US is the main
Terrorist Nation on Earth not Iran who has never invaded anyone unlike the hypocritical US
Empire!
Meanwhile in Sochi, the real Diplomacy for peace is taking place with Russia, Iran,
Turkey & Syria having won the War against the US Empire & its cowardly, crony white
helmeted, ragtag bunch of proxy Army misfits made up of Israel, ISIS, SDF & the Kurds now
scurrying out of the Country like rats leaving a sinking ship!
And what was really laughable
about VP Pences speech in Warsaw was the defeating silence to the pauses in that speech
expecting people to clap on demand which never happened?
How embarrassing & really showed
the lack of respect & utter contempt that everyone has for America these days!
Sam F, February 20, 2019 at 12:32 pm
A failure for US oligarchy foreign policy is a win for the US and the rest of the world.
Let's hope we see the end of NATO as an excuse for US bully tyrants to "defend" us with greedy aggression.
Perhaps that will lead to strengthening the UN and isolating it from the economic power of US tyrants.
The UN would be far stronger if it taxed its members instead of begging for support, on pain of embargo by all members, and
monitored for corrupt influence.
Tump can go back and keep his job pleasing the Zionist elite that installed him.
So far as I'm concerned Hillary was the dream candidate for the apartheid Jewish state.
That the Zionists have made a terrific rebound in capturing Trump seems to me to be another
story entirely. At a guess, I'd say the job was done with a combination of flattery, bribery,
and naked force.
I've tuned out the Mueller thing, but suspect it was part of the leverage used to get
control of Trump. Again a guess, but I'd say Trump was totally in bed with the Russians - and
everybody else with whom he thought he might run a scam. But this was "business", as in
making promises and squeezing money out of them. Things like Trump University. With proper
handling the cost of the failures would fall mostly on the "investors". And in the worst
case, there was always the fifth or sixth bankruptcy.
Trump didn't expect to be president - that was a humongous publicity campaign financed by
the Corporate Media. I don't think Pence was expecting anything besides getting some national
exposure which might lead him becoming Senator from Indiana in 2018.
I'm very glad Hillary isn't perched in the White House, but the price of avoiding that has
been higher than I expected. Speaking of the devil, I read some ugly stuff at the 2:00 news
part of Naked Capitalism.
Clinton (2): "EX-CLINTON POLLSTER: Hillary will run if Biden doesn't -- or field is 'too
far left'" [The American Mirror]. "After defending Clinton's credentials as 'one of the
most experienced politicians around,' [Mark] Penn went on to say of the reported recent
confabs between Hillary and declared candidates, "Those meetings are going to be somewhat
awkward because she hasn't declared that she's not definitely running, and she, in fact, at
the same time is looking over the field and I think will make a decision later in the year
whether or not to run herself. Penn said the chances of Hillary running depends on how the
field shapes up. 'If the party looks too far to the left and there's no front runner,
she'll get in,' he said. 'I think if Joe Biden gets in, that probably means she won't run
if he gets in. If he doesn't get in, I think the field will be open for her,' Penn said."
• She's tanned, rested, and ready!
That fits right in with my belief that the corporate Dems would prefer Trump's second term
or Pence's first term to any decent Democrat being elected. I'll be saying this over and over
- while Sander's foreign policy credentials stink to high heaven, the prospect of him being
"decent" in domestic matters isn't too awfully bad.
Mueller [investigation]... suspect it was part of the leverage used to get control
of Trump.
Well, the "Russia meddled" scare-mongering has worked well as a means of reviving
anti-Russian McCarthyism. It even ensnared Wikileaks and Michael Flynn (both of whom were
CIA/Deep State targets).
And, why would the Deep State allow an unvetted person to assume control of the
Presidency? They are too careful for that. In fact, all recent President's have some
connection to CIA: Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama. Felix Slater, an FBI informant worked
for Trump for over a decade while informing on the Russian mob, and most of Trump dubious
Russian oligarch connections are actually more loyal to Israel than Russia.
Trump didn't expect to be president
That's funny, given the fact that he bragged that he would win and that he was the ONLY
populist running for the Republican nomination (out of 19 contenders!). And none of the other
candidates (many of whom are seasoned campaigners) sought to alter their strategy when the
saw Trump pulling ahead?!?!
Oh, and Hillary helped her friend Trump win when she alienated key constituencies
(Sanders progressives, Blacks) and energized Trump's base by calling them
"deploreables".
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Oh, sorry, these things are supposed to be memory-holed. Hope you and MoA readers don't
suffer from too much cognitive dissonance from such facts.
With Trump incoherence, impulsivity and appointment of Pompeo and Bolton it is really unclear who are the good guys and and who
are bad guys.
Color revolution against Trump failed and that's a good sign, the sign of healthy political system. But it might well
be that "The moor has done his duty, the moor can go"
Trump already undermined the credibility of neoliberal MSM and we should be glad to him for that. He also withdrawing troops from
Syria (which were in the country illegally) but only after bombing Assad air forces half-dozen times on false premises.
Looks like he reached some progress in talks with China and Chine will buy more agricultural production from the USA. But
the question to him is: if China already has the capacity to produce all those goods, how he think manufacturing will return to the
USA.
He still is warmongering about Iran. And he initiated the regime change in Venezuela.
On domestic front he positioned himself as a clear neoliberal and bully -- king of "national neoliberalism" instead of national
socialism of the past (what is funny is that many point of NSDAP program of 1920 are now far left to the Democratic Party platform,
to say nothing about Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune ..."
The bad guys wear black hats. We're programmed to see things in black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. From what we are
shown in movies and books from an early age, there is a protagonist and an antagonist.
Clever writers make it a little more complex, with the Boo Radleys and Snapes who are thought to be villains but turn out to be
heroes. But generally, the characters fit largely into extremes: good guys or bad guys with little overlap: Harry Potter versus Voldemort.
But it's those characters on the edge who people can't get enough of. Like Walter White, the cancer patient who starts producing
meth to leave some money behind for his family in the TV show Breaking Bad .
And that's probably because its an often unspoken truth that life is mostly gray, and not so black and white.
But the binary two choice meme has a function. It makes things a hell of a lot easier. And it prevents us from being crippled
by indecision and inaction.
Of course, this is also easily exploited by bad guys
When I hear that the FBI considered attempting to oust Trump from the oval office, I am tempted to think, hey, Trump must not
be such a bad guy.
According to a new book by former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, top FBI brass discussed using the 25th amendment to remove
Trump, even though as the Wall Street Journal explains:
A President exercises his constitutional prerogative to fire the FBI director, and Mr. Comey's associates immediately talked
about deposing him in what would amount to a coup?
The 25th Amendment was passed after JFK's assassination to allow for a transfer of power when a President is "unable" to discharge
his duties. It is intended to be used only after demonstrated evidence of impairment that is witnessed by those closest to the
Commander in Chief. It doesn't exist to settle political differences, or to let scheming bureaucrats imagine they are saving the
country from someone they fear is a Manchurian candidate. The constitutional process for that is impeachment.
So if the
horribly corrupt FBI doesn't like Trump, he must have something to offer. But this is only true in the binary world or pure good
and evil. In the real world, evil often opposes evil, because they are different factions fighting for the same territory.
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but
that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune
We usually end up supporting who we see as the lesser of two evils.
That's sort of like Walter White. He starts off as a timid science geek and devoted father and husband. He is attracted to the
drug industry for apparently noble purposes. And he ends up poisoning a child, causing another child to be murdered, ordering an
innocent assistant killed, and causing the death of his brother-in-law. Ultimately, Walter White admits he didn't become a massive
meth producer for his family. He did it for the thrill, the glory, the power that came with it . We live in a world of Walter Whites,
not Voldemorts.
J.K. Rowling made Voldemort pure evil. But to her credit, she demonstrated how easy it was for him to seize the reigns of power
at the Ministry of Magic, and how all the bureaucrats and ministers simply started serving a new master. Some even rejoiced in their
new authority, relishing the newfound power.
When it comes to Trump versus the FBI, the Wall Street Journal editorial laments, "This is all corrosive to public trust in American
democracy."
So what do we do about it?
Rejoice!
The less trust we put in the political system, the better. All we can do is separate ourselves to the best of our abilities from
far off bureaucrats and politicians.
The problem here is the progressive votes is split between Bernie, Warren, and Tulsi. That means that all three of them
now can be eliminated be invertionaist Dems.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her ..."
"... Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent. ..."
1. Bolton is evil, 2. Pompeo is a liar, 3. Pence is a moralizing buffoon.
I detest them all but who do I hate the least? I'm going to go with Bolton.
Since I believe that Pence is an honest man, it twists my mind how someone can stand on a
stage and seriously believe that other countries have a moral obligation to obey the U.S. in
who they do and don't do business with. How dare you undermine U.S. sanctions he thunders,
and the look on his face, priceless.
At least Bolton embraces the fact that he is simply
exerting power over others without the insufferable moralizing of a Mike Pence.
I watched Trump's Rose Garden session in which he announced that he would sign the
appropriation bill and also declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act.
IMO he will win whatever court challenges are made because his authority to do this is clear in
"black letter" law and the opposition will have to base their plaints on a judgment as to
whether or not there is an emergency. IMO there is nothing in the constitution or law that
makes the judgment or the courts competent to overrule his judgment in this case. If they don't
like the National Emergencies Law, let the Congress repeal it.
On the other hand, Trump also told the world that because of a personal appeal by a woman
from Idlib Province in Syria who came to see him in the Oval Office, he called Putin and argued
him into calling off the preparations for a massive Russo/Syrian/Iranian offensive that would
IMO have recovered Idlib for the SAG.
I am recalling here roughly what he said.
The lady's argument was that she believed that the millions who lived in the province would
be killed or maimed in the process and all the towns destroyed. Her parents lived in the
province. And, after all, she said, there are only 45,000 jihadis in the province. I was not
in the room, but would be willing to bet that she was; well spoken, well dressed, and
reasonably attractive. Trump was persuaded and Idlib remains a cancer in the side of the Syrian
state, the Russians, having listened to Trump, attempted to create a de-militarized zone around
Idlib Province within which the jihadis have consolidated power.
Some years ago I was asked to speak at a two or three day discussion of the Middle East at
Mississippi State University. This is a big school. Attendance was in the thousands. On the
program with me (or I with him) was, then TV personality, (later governor of Ohio) John Kasich.
At a pre-conference dinner, Kasich sought to dominate the table talk and me (his principal
competition) at this conference. There were numerous senior faculty present at table. Kasich
sought to belittle whatever knowledge I might have of the MENA region and of the peoples and
cultures there. In particular he said that I did not understand Islam at all because I said
that the jihadis were among the various forms of Islam, a religion which I foolishly claimed
had no central authority structure and in which the "true Islam" was not to be known except in
the consensus (ijma') of various groups of Muslims.
Having heard him out, I explained to him my background and experience. He grew more and more
sober, clearly unused to opposition. I asked him what the basis was for his opinion that the
various jihadis were not real Muslims at all.
He told us that a number of beauteous Muslim ladies had been brought to see him. He said
they were well spoken, well dressed (some in French couture clothing) and that they smelled
good. This last was said after I asked him about it having run into this phenomenon
before.
These ladies were all at pains to explain to him that the jihadis were outside Islam
because they did not accept the ijma' of the scholars of whatever "school" (mathab) of Sunni
Sharia these ladies adhered to.
The lesson - Beware of well dressed ladies who smell of Chanel #5. pl
Are you suggesting that President Trump could be influenced by an attractive, well spoken
woman with an exotic accent? Maybe the Iranian Mullahs need to change their UN representative
to get off Trump's s#*! list.
Great anecdote Colonel, interesting that Kasich's first instinct was to see you as
"competition" in such a setting. I don't suppose you told him that, despite your evident
ignorance, you were known by the name of a famous warrior poet in several ME countries - or
inquired as to his own sobriquet as in these places? My guess is the women folk of Idlib
province are not in the habit of frequenting the Oval Office, it would be interesting to know
who arranged her visit.
Machiavelli does not seem to have commented on the specific matter of wariness of
beauteous messengers. However, I'd expect his advice on such matters would echo your own, in
the importance of evaluating a message independently of its perfume.
That is very good. Antar thanks you. An Iraqi general once asked me how I came to be called
that. He said, "you are not Black." I said that was true but that I lived with a woman whose
sobriquet was Abla and after so much war my heart was black enough. He said that was true of
them as well.
Actually Abla and I were named by a Palestinian Arabic teacher who wanted his class to have
working names that began with 'ain. He was from Bethlehem and owned a night club in San
Francisco where he was occupied while not teaching Arabic at DLI in Monterey. The name stuck.
He was killed in Kuwait by the Kuwaiti resistance who said he was a collaborator with the
Iraqis. He was a marvelous 'oud player.
On the other side of the coin, I recall reading how HRC, when she was SecState, was convinced
by well-spoken, well-dressed Westernized and Western-educated men from Libya and Syria that
if only the U.S. would overthrow the "brutal tyrants" then ruling those nations, that then
democracy and freedom would reign in those lands.
In particular, she was lobbied by one such Westernized Libyan just before she persuaded BHO
to intervene in Libya, leading to the subsequent chaos.
BTW, for a reminder of who else pushed BHO to intervene in Libya,
see
"Fight of the Valkyries" by Maureen Dowd, 2011-03-23.
Is calling such women stupid about things that matter sexist?
Thinking about how popular the values of Westernized people from the Islamic world are back
in their native lands, there is the illustrative example of
Benazir Bhutto .
While not having the time nor energy at the moment to read much (even more post much), this
statement from DJT just stunned me. And i am not easily stunned.
Some ppl including me thought of this possibility, to be precise that Ivanka and Jared fed
him: You got to save those inocent people there! And he took the bait.
But then again i didnt truely want to believe that this is how the goverment of the
biggest world power works. With all those gazillions of analysts, SIGINT HUMINT etc. at hand,
briefings and what not..
Even more comically and tragic is, that he might just told the truth, and this is truly
what happend.
IMHO this is how the neocons influence him: By presenting selective "information", and
just like the MSM he falls for it. Be it his family or patriachic instincts or what ever the
psychologic motivation:
He admitted that he was influenced by the same MSM methods he claims to fight, and in turn
protecting the biggest gathering of international Jihahist in this century against their sure
defeat.
MAGA = Make AlQaida Great Again! ;)
AFAIK this is how DJT stopped the funding of the FSA, when he was shown the video of the
child the Zenki Jihadists beheaded. So it is not a single decision, but the M.O. of his style
of decision making.
Under all that narcissistic, egomanic and sociopathic behaviour seems to be a human being,
a quite emotional too. Too bad it seems to care more for single female Jihadists
propagandists than for his campaign promise of fighting Jihadists..
Maybe Assads wife should make a undercover visit to DJT? ;)
What is with the "EDIT:Typos" thingy? We are all plain folk here. Basma Asad? A beautiful,
well spoken creature. There is a certain strain of blond Syrian upper class woman who will
just knock your socks off. This what Italians call "the thunderbolt." I went to visit one in
the Maryland suburbs of DC. A relative asked me to go. She was that type. After she decided I
wasn't going to do whatever it was she thought I would want to do she took me out to the
garage where there were several big cats; tiger, leopard, puma, etc. in cages. I asked her
why. She just shrugged and went back in the house.
Dr Rim Al-Bezem is the president of the eastern chapter of the Syrian-American Medical
Society (SAMS), an organization that provides training, medical equipment and medicine for
a country decimated by the war.
From memory, SAMS only ever
worked in the rebel-held areas .
And again from memory, she has been economical with the truth, by ignoring the doctors in
west Aleppo and inflating the number of people in Aleppo. Yet again from memory, I think it
never reached much above 2 million, 1.5 million in the west and 0.5 million in the
east.
"Many of the doctors have left the country because they, too, have families. In Aleppo
alone, there are 35 doctors left to treat the population of 5 million people," she said.
"... It is clear that on immigration, Eastern Europe differs from the rest of the continent -- attitudes represented politically only through the populist right in the west are thoroughly mainstream in the east. ..."
For starters, he talks about demography. Like many countries in Europe, Hungary's birthrates
have plummeted. Orbán has commenced a campaign to raise them, with measures including
generous maternity and paternity leave stipends, subsidies of up to 50 euros a month per child,
tax write-offs, and housing assistance for couples that have three or more children. The
government has also sent out questionnaires asking Hungarians whether they think the solution
to Hungary's demographic crisis is stronger support for families or higher immigration. Katalin
Novak, Orbán's minister of family and youth, explained unabashedly that the purpose of
this was "to send a clear message to Brussels: the renovation of Europe is impossible without
support for families and Hungary wants neither immigration nor a modification of its
population." This sort of frankness from leaders in the wealthier West is inconceivable. At a
press gathering I recently attended, a Macron minister holding a comparable post focused most
of the conversation on the expansion of gay rights.
Of course, the other half of the demography subject is immigration. In an address during the
fall of 2016 that still resonates, Orbán proclaimed that Europe is "in mortal
danger":
The danger is "not attacking us the way wars and natural disasters do mass migration is
a slow stream of water persistently eroding the shores. It is masquerading as a humanitarian
cause, but its true nature is the occupation of territory. And what is gaining territory for
them is losing territory for us. Flocks of obsessed human rights defenders feel the
overwhelming urge to reprimand us . [A]llegedly we are hostile xenophobes but the truth is
that the history of our nation is also one of inclusion, of the intertwining of cultures.
Those who have sought to come here as new family members, as allies, or as displaced persons
fearing for their lives have been let in to make a new home for themselves. But those who
have come here with the intention of changing our country, of shaping our nation in their own
image, have been met with resistance."
Faced with the Merkel Million Man Migration, Orbán ordered Hungary's army to build a
fence.
Slovakia similarly refused to take in a quota of migrants dictated by Brussels and Berlin.
The former president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, wrote a short but excellent book,
Europe All Inclusive , about the migration crisis in which he charged that Europe's
western elites were supporting mass immigration explicitly to smash the remaining power of
nation states so full European unification could be achieved. Poland has likewise refused EU
demands to resettle refugees from the Mideast and North Africa.
It is clear that on immigration, Eastern Europe differs from the rest of the continent
-- attitudes represented politically only through the populist right in the west are thoroughly
mainstream in the east. This difference in political culture is so vast, it can be traced
to many sources. A similar divergence surfaced before, during the Cold War, when Eastern
Europeans stubbornly refused to allow Western European intellectuals to forget or ignore that
communism was a malign and murderous system. Today, Eastern Europeans note that they have been
already been the subjects of utopian projects to remake society according to a progressive
vision -- and they have no desire for a repeat.
Encountering Eastern European resistance to progressive dogma for the first time is a
bracing experience. I first had it during the mid-'70s, in a grad school lecture class at
Columbia. A charming and generally well-liked democratic socialist professor would take
admiring students through various sophisticated Marxist readings, leading inexorably to the
conclusion that the collapse of "late capitalism" was inevitable and to be welcomed. This
semester, there happened to be two Poles taking the class, one of whom was a woman who had been
an imprisoned dissident. They seemed to know their Marx as well as the prof did: they were
smart, they were vocal, and they were having absolutely none of it. It made for an exciting
several months, and for me a memorable demonstration that Eastern Europeans were more or less
immune to the guilt and self-hatred permeating much of the West.
Perhaps we are in for a reprise, when the people of the west learn once again from the east
what is true and essential about their own societies. Of course, there are parallels between
the communists' aspirations and the open borders diversity project. Both are genuinely
revolutionary in their desire to destroy and remake Western societies according to models that
have little viable precedent in human experience. Under this logic, the '60s and '70s can be
seen as a kind of transitional phase, during which Western socialists looked longingly towards
various Third World models -- China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua -- after they gave up on the
Soviet Union and their own proletariats as viable revolutionary agents. Now progressives hope
that social justice will bloom from the political chaos generated by demographic shifts.
Without the voices of Eastern Europe, the West might not have successfully resisted the
first progressive onslaught. Once again, it needs the voices of the east to illuminate its path
to survival.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon:
Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars.
"... Last night, President Trump reserved a few minutes of his State of the Union address to praise his tax reform law, which turned a year old last month. To promote its passage, Mr. Trump and his congressional allies promised Americans that drastically lowered corporate tax rates would bring home large sums of capital that had been stashed overseas and finance a surge of domestic investment. ..."
"... Why would any multinational corporation pay America's 21 percent tax rate when it could pay the new "global minimum" rate of 10.5 percent on profits shifted to tax havens, particularly when there are few restrictions on how money can be moved around a company and its foreign subsidiaries? ..."
"... For starters, the law's repatriation deal did prompt a brief surge in offshore profits returning to the United States. But the total sum returned so far is well below the trillions many proponents predicted, and a large chunk of the returned funds have been used for record-breaking stock buybacks, which don't help workers and generate little real economic activity. ..."
"... Bottom line: the Trump tax cut is a giveaway to corporations that doesn't promote investment here ..."
The Global Con Hidden in Trump's Tax Reform Law, Revealed
Why would any multinational corporation pay the new 21 percent rate when it could use the new
"global minimum" loophole to pay half of that?
By Brad Setser
Last night, President Trump reserved a few minutes of his State of the Union address
to praise his tax reform law, which turned a year old last month. To promote its passage, Mr.
Trump and his congressional allies promised Americans that drastically lowered corporate tax
rates would bring home large sums of capital that had been stashed overseas and finance a
surge of domestic investment.
"For too long, our tax code has incentivized companies to leave our country in search of
lower tax rates," he said, pitching voters in the fall of 2017. "My administration rejects
the offshoring model, and we have embraced a brand-new model. It's called the American
model."
The White House argued they wanted a system that "encourages companies to stay in America,
grow in America, spend in America, and hire in America." Yet the bill he signed into law
includes a sweetheart deal that allows companies that shift their profits abroad to pay tax
at a rate well below the already-reduced corporate income tax -- an incentive shift that
completely contradicts his stated goal.
Why would any multinational corporation pay America's 21 percent tax rate when it
could pay the new "global minimum" rate of 10.5 percent on profits shifted to tax havens,
particularly when there are few restrictions on how money can be moved around a company and
its foreign subsidiaries?
These wonky concerns were largely brushed aside amid the political brawl. But now that a
full year has passed since the tax bill became law, we have hard numbers we can evaluate.
For starters, the law's repatriation deal did prompt a brief surge in offshore profits
returning to the United States. But the total sum returned so far is well below the trillions
many proponents predicted, and a large chunk of the returned funds have been used for
record-breaking stock buybacks, which don't help workers and generate little real economic
activity.
And despite Mr. Trump's proud rhetoric regarding tax reform during his State of the Union
address, there is no wide pattern of companies bringing back jobs or profits from abroad. The
global distribution of corporations' offshore profits -- our best measure of their tax
avoidance gymnastics -- hasn't budged from the prevailing trend.
Well over half the profits that American companies report earning abroad are still booked
in only a few low-tax nations -- places that, of course, are not actually home to the
customers, workers and taxpayers facilitating most of their business. A multinational
corporation can route its global sales through Ireland, pay royalties to its Dutch subsidiary
and then funnel income to its Bermudian subsidiary -- taking advantage of Bermuda's corporate
tax rate of zero.
Where American Profits Hide
[Graph]
No major technology company has jettisoned the finely tuned tax structures that allow a
large share of its global profits to be booked offshore. Nor have major pharmaceutical
companies stopped producing many of their most profitable drugs in Ireland. And Pepsi, to
name just one major manufacturer, still makes the concentrate for its soda in Singapore, also
a haven.
Eliminating the complex series of loopholes that encourage offshoring was a major talking
point in the run-up to the 2017 tax bill, but most of them are still in place. The craftiest
and largest corporations can still legally whittle down their effective tax rate into the
single digits. (In fact, the new law encourages firms to move "tangible assets" -- like
factories -- offshore).
Overall, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amounted to a technocratic sleight of hand -- a scheme
set to shift an even greater share of the federal tax burden onto the shoulders of American
families. According to the Treasury Department's tally for fiscal year 2018, corporate income
tax receipts fell by 31 percent, an unprecedented year-over-year drop in a time of economic
growth (presumably a time when profits and government revenue should rise in tandem).
These damning results, to be sure, don't make for a good defense of what came before the
new law. In theory under the old system, American-based firms still owed the government a cut
of their global profits. In practice, large firms could indefinitely defer paying this tax
until the funds could be repatriated -- usually when granted a tax holiday by a friendly
administration.
Over a generation, this political dance was paired with rules that made it relatively easy
for firms to transfer their most prized intellectual property -- say, the rights to popular
software or the particular mix of ingredients for a hot new drug -- to their offshore
subsidiaries. Taken together, they created a tax nirvana of sorts for multinational
corporations, particularly in intellectual-property-intensive industries like tech and
pharmaceuticals. But it wasn't enough.
For their next trick, the companies worked with their political allies to favorably frame
the 2017 tax debate. When he was the House speaker, Paul Ryan was fond of talking about $3
trillion in "trapped" profits abroad. But those profits weren't actually, physically, sitting
in a few tax havens.
Dwarf Economies, Giant American Profits
[Graph]
They were largely invested in United States bank accounts, securities and bonds issued by
the Treasury or other companies headquartered in the States. As Adam Looney -- a Brookings
Institution fellow and former Treasury Department official -- has explained, companies that
needed to finance a new domestic investment could simply issue a bond effectively backed by
its offshore cash. (For instance, Apple could bring its "trapped" funds onshore by selling a
bond to Pfizer's offshore account, or vice versa.)
Put plainly, they got the best of both worlds: Uncle Sam could tax only a small slice of
their books while they traded with one another based on the size of the entire pie.
The scale of the tax shifting has become so immense that some economists believe curbing
it could raise reported G.D.P. by well over a percentage point -- something Mr. Trump, who's
been absorbed by opportunities to brag about the economy, should notionally welcome.
President Trump's economic advisers and the key architects of the bill on Capitol Hill
must have known their reform wasn't going to end business incentives that hurt American
workers. Honest reform would have meant closing corporate loopholes -- a move they originally
promised to make.
Should the opportunity present itself, perhaps to the next president, there are a couple
of viable options for a fundamental tax overhaul that wouldn't require reinstating the 35
percent corporate tax rate.
One of several possibilities is to return to a system of global taxation without the
deferrals that enabled empty repatriations. That would mean profits sneakily booked tax-free
in Bermuda would be taxed every year at 21 percent. Profits booked in Ireland -- or other
low-tax nations -- would be taxed at the difference between Ireland's rate and America's
rate.
It's an approach that would protect small and midsize American companies while cracking
down on bad corporate actors with enough fancy accountants and lawyers to rig the game to
their advantage. And it would be far better than the fake tax reform passed a year ago.
This is very good from the essential Brad Setser, our leading expert on international
trade and money flows. Bottom line: the Trump tax cut is a giveaway to corporations that
doesn't promote investment here 1/
The Global Con Hidden in Trump's Tax Reform Law, Revealed
Why would any multinational corporation pay the new 21 percent rate when it could use the
new "global minimum" loophole to pay half of that?
2:14 PM - 6 Feb 2019
@Brad_Setser also gets at something I've been trying to explain: corporate cash "overseas"
isn't really a stash of money that can be brought home, it's an accounting fiction that lets
them avoid taxes, with no real consequences for investment 2/
And this chart, showing the predominance of tax avoidance in overseas "investment", is a
classic 3/
"... The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel ..."
"... Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy ..."
"... Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability to minimize the effects of the economic war ..."
"... So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of the West rushed to follow the decision. ..."
"... Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance. ..."
Even before the 2016 US presidential election, this blog supported that Donald Trump is
apure sample of neoliberal barbarism . Many almost laughed at this perception because Trump was being already promoted,
more or less, as the 'terminator' of the neoliberal establishment. And many people, especially in the US, tired from the economic
disasters, the growing inequality and the endless wars, were anxious to believe that this was indeed his special mission.
Right after the elections, we supported that the
US establishment
gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same
establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.
In 2017 , Trump bombed Syria for the first time, resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that
the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the
targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is
prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of the confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, a year later, Trump built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish neocons. And then, he ordered a
second airstrike against Syria, together with his neocolonial friends.
In the middle of all this 'orgy' of pro-establishment moves, Trump offered a controversial withdrawal of US forces from Syria
and Afghanistan to save whatever was possible from his 'anti-interventionist' profile. And it was indeed a highly controversial action
with very little value, considering all these US military bases that are still fully operational in the broader Middle East and beyond.
Not to mention the various ways through which the US intervenes in the area (training proxies, equip them with heavy weapons, supporting
the Saudis and contribute to war crimes in Yemen, etc.)
And then , after this very short break, Trump returned to 'business as usual' to satisfy the neoliberal establishment with a 'glorious'
record. He achieved a 35-day government shutdown, which is the
"longest shutdown in US history"
.
Trump conducted the longest experiment on neoliberals' ultimate goal: abolishing the annoying presence of the state. And this
was just a taste of what Trump is willing to do in order to satisfy all neoliberals' wet dreams.
And now, we have the Venezuela issue. Since Hugo Chavez nationalized PDVSA, the central oil and natural gas company, the US empire
launched a fierce economic war against the country. Yet, while all previous US administrations were trying to replace legitimate
governments with their puppets as much silently as possible through slow-motion coup operations, Trump has no problem to do it in
plain sight.
And perhaps the best proof for that is a statement by one of the most warmongering figures of the neocon/neoliberal cabal, hired
by Trump . As John Bolton cynically and openly
admitted recently,
" It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and
produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. "
Therefore, one should be very naive of course to believe that the Western imperialist gang seriously cares about the Venezuelan
people and especially the poor. Here are three basic reasons behind the open US intervention in Venezuela:
The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel, as well as the
great untapped
natural resources , particularly gold (mostly for the Canadian companies).
Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy, which is mainly funded by
the oil production. The imperialists know that they must interrupt the path of Venezuela to real Socialism by force if necessary.
Neoliberalism must prevail by all means for the benefit of the big banks and corporations.
Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability
to minimize the effects of the economic war. The country may find an alternative to escape the Western sanctions in order to fund
its social programs for the benefit of the people. And, of course, the West will never accept the exploitation of the Venezuelan
resources by the Sino-Russian bloc.
So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of
the West rushed to follow the decision.
This is something we have never seen before. The 'liberal democracies' of the West - only by name - immediately, uncritically
and without hesitation jumped on the same boat with Trump towards this outrageously undemocratic action. They recognized Washington's
puppet as the legitimate president of a third country. A man that was never elected by the Venezuelan people and has very low popularity
in the country. Even worse, the EU parliament
approved this action
, killing any last remnants of democracy in the Union.
Yet, it seems that the US is finding increasingly difficult to force many countries to align with its agenda. Even some European
countries took some distance from the attempted constitutional coup, with Italy even
trying to
veto EU's decision to recognize Guaido.
Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes
the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism
with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and
ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance.
This unprecedented action by the Western neoliberal powers to recognize Guaido is a serious sign that neoliberalism returns to
its roots and slips towards fascism. It appears now that this is the only way to maintain some level of power.
If Trump runs of the defense of neoliberalism platform he will lose. But Trump proved to be a bad, superficial politician,
Republican Obama so to speak, so he may take this advice from his entourage. Trump proved to be a puppet of MIC and
Israel, his tax cuts had shown that he is a regular "trickle down" neoliberal. So he attraction to voters is down
substantially. Now
Polling is unambiguous here. If you define the "center" as a position
somewhere between those of the two parties, when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything,
it's to the left of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.'s defining policy, but two-thirds of voters believe that taxes
on the rich are actually too low, while only 7 percent believe that they're too high. Voters support Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax
on large fortunes by a three-to-one majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been central
to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie Sanders in 2020. ..."
"... Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages. People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot afford to feed their families. ..."
"... As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable. ..."
"... In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom. This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated: ..."
"... All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well. ..."
"... The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen. ..."
Trump Is Right to Be Afraid of Socialism
BY MEAGAN DAY
... I think he's scared," said Ocasio-Cortez of Trump's socialism remarks. "He sees that everything is closing in on him. And
he knows he's losing the battle of public opinion when it comes to the actual substantive proposals that we're advancing to the
public." Given the remarkable popularity of proposals like Bernie's Medicare for All and tuition-free college and Ocasio-Cortez's
70 percent top marginal tax rate, she's probably onto something.
Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly
run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie
Sanders in 2020. That would be a smart move, since Bernie is the most popular politician in America and could very well be
Trump's direct contender in the general election, if he can successfully dodge attacks from the establishment wing of the Democratic
Party in the primary.
Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism
from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President
Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when
they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire
with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages.
People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot
afford to feed their families.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism
for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable.
In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom.
This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically
means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive
reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant
economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated:
All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by
democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means
that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average
working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank
or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy
as well.
For more than four decades, Bernie made these points to relatively small audiences. In 2016, everything changed, and he now
makes them to an audience of millions.
The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring
up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism
was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent
chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist
class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen.
Bernie has been so successful at changing the conversation that the President now feels obligated to regurgitate Cold War nostrums
about socialism and unfreedom to a new generation.
Good, let him. Each apocalyptic admonition is an opportunity for Bernie, and the rest of us socialists, to articulate a different
perspective, one in which freedom and democracy are elusive at present but achievable through a society-wide commitment to economic
and social equality. We will only escape "coercion, domination, and control" when we structure society to prioritize the well-being
of the many over the desires of the greedy few.
Mr. Bill said in reply to anne... February 06, 2019 at 03:29 PM
A lot of the opinion part of what Paul Krugman says, in this article, maybe, doesn't ring quite true, although I don't dispute
the facts.
Poll after poll show that 75% of us agree on 80% of the issues, regardless of which political tribe we identify with.
I tend to think that the real problem is that neither the GOP, which represents the top 1% of the economically comfortable, nor the
Democrats who represent the top 10%, are representative of the majority of Americans.
Frantically trying to slice and dice the electorate into questionably accurate tranches, ignores the elephant in the room, Paul.
Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I
promised to fight for, faster than anyone else. Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off
food stamps. The United States economy is growing almost twice as fast today as when I took
office, and we are considered far and away the hottest economy anywhere in the world.
Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African-American, Hispanic-American
and Asian-American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.
Unemployment for Americans with disabilities has also reached an all-time low. More people are
working now than at any time in our history -- 157 million.
We passed a massive tax cut for working families and doubled the child tax credit.
We virtually ended the estate, or death, tax on small businesses, ranches, and family
farms.
We eliminated the very unpopular Obamacare individual mandate penalty -- and to give
critically ill patients access to life-saving cures, we passed right to try.
My Administration has cut more regulations in a short time than any other administration
during its entire tenure. Companies are coming back to our country in large numbers thanks to
historic reductions in taxes and regulations.
We have unleashed a revolution in American energy -- the United States is now the number one
producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a
net exporter of energy.
After 24 months of rapid progress, our economy is the envy of the world, our military is the
most powerful on earth, and America is winning each and every day. Members of Congress: the
State of our Union is strong. Our country is vibrant and our economy is thriving like never
before.
On Friday, it was announced that we added another 304,000 jobs last month alone -- almost
double what was expected. An economic miracle is taking place in the United States -- and the
only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan
investigations.
If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It
just doesn't work that way!
... ... ...
Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America's crumbling
infrastructure.
I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill -- and I am eager to work
with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including
investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a
necessity.
The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of healthcare
and prescription drugs -- and to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.
Already, as a result of my Administration's efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their
single largest decline in 46 years.
But we must do more. It is unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other
countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong, unfair,
and together we can stop it.
... ... ...
he final part of my agenda is to protect America's National Security.
Over the last 2 years, we have begun to fully rebuild the United States Military -- with
$700 billion last year and $716 billion this year. We are also getting other nations to pay
their fair share. For years, the United States was being treated very unfairly by NATO -- but
now we have secured a $100 billion increase in defense spending from NATO allies.
As part of our military build-up, the United States is developing a state-of-the-art Missile
Defense System.
Under my Administration, we will never apologize for advancing America's interests.
For example, decades ago the United States entered into a treaty with Russia in which we
agreed to limit and reduce our missile capabilities. While we followed the agreement to the
letter, Russia repeatedly violated its terms. That is why I announced that the United States is
officially withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty.
Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can't
-- in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.
As part of a bold new diplomacy, we continue our historic push for peace on the Korean
Peninsula. Our hostages have come home, nuclear testing has stopped, and there has not been a
missile launch in 15 months. If I had not been elected President of the United States, we would
right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea with potentially millions of
people killed. Much work remains to be done, but my relationship with Kim Jong Un is a good
one. And Chairman Kim and I will meet again on February 27 and 28 in Vietnam.
Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of
Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido.
... ... ...
Our approach is based on principled realism -- not discredited theories that have failed for
decades to yield progress. For this reason, my Administration recognized the true capital of
Israel -- and proudly opened the American Embassy in Jerusalem.
Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years. In
Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000
Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East.
As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless
wars.
When I took office, ISIS controlled more than 20,000 square miles in Iraq and Syria. Today,
we have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty
killers.
Now, as we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our
brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.
I have also accelerated our negotiations to reach a political settlement in Afghanistan. Our
troops have fought with unmatched valor -- and thanks to their bravery, we are now able to
pursue a political solution to this long and bloody conflict.
In Afghanistan, my Administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan
groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to
reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. We do not know whether we will
achieve an agreement -- but we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at
least try for peace.
... ... ...
My Administration has acted decisively to confront the world's leading state sponsor of
terror: the radical regime in Iran.
To ensure this corrupt dictatorship never acquires nuclear weapons, I withdrew the United
States from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. And last fall, we put in place the toughest
sanctions ever imposed on a country.
Concerning
the partial shutdown and and the border barriers 1 - The banks, credit unions and any
other financial institutions that can lend money are missing a chance to build a lot of good
will in this situation. Good will is an item that any good business plan must take into account
even of it is impossible to quantify on paper. Good will leads to more customers. Businesses
want to acquire more customers. The 800k federal employees now on furlough have legislated
assurance that their back pay will be quickly forthcoming when the pause ends. Sooo! Make them
no interest loans in the amount of their postponed pay. You will not be sorry if you do that. I
don't know if that could be extended to contract employees since the contract that includes
their services may not insure back pay.
2 - The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a number of
sections of the border. Pelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the
"immorality" and uselessness of physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if
they want the present border barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever
they want and anywhere they want. California is the destination of choice of these economic
migrants. If the border barriers are taken down, there will be IMO a mass migration into what
is now the United States and especially into California from Latin American and then inevitably
from all over the world. Ask the Democrats, every day if they want the existing border barriers
taken down, Ask them! pl
The current fight over "the wall" and funding for that wall is pure politics on both sides.
We are under a partial government shutdown for the sake of a symbol. Some kind of border
barrier has been in existence since the 90s and the "Secure Border Act" of 2006 called for
close to 700 miles of double fence barriers. Both Republican and Democratic legislatures and
presidencies have maintained and added to this fencing as well as doubling the size of the
CBP. According to a December 2016 GAO report on securing the SW border, the CBP spent $2.4
billion between 2007 and 2015 to deploy tactical infrastructure (TI) - fencing, gates, roads,
bridges, lighting and drainage infrastructure distributed along the entire SW border area.
That includes 654 miles of fencing and 5,000 miles of roads.
A total of $1.7 billion was appropriated in FY17 and FY18 for new and replacement barriers
and fences. Most of those funds have been obligated to the Corp of Engineers and much of that
has been awarded to contractors. Only a small percentage (6%) has been paid out for completed
contracts. The following projects account for close to half of those funds:
- In New Mexico to replace 20 miles of fencing with bollard wall for $73 million. Contract
was awarded in February 2018. Construction started in April 2018 and was completed in
September 2018.
- In the Rio Grande Valley to build 8 miles of 18 foot bollard wall and replace existing
levee wall for $167 million to begin in February 2019.
- In Arizona to build/replace 32 miles of "primary pedestrian wall" for $324 million to
begin in April 2019.
- Near San Diego to replace 14 miles of 8-10 foot metal wall/fence with 18-30 foot tall
bollard wall system for $287 million to begin in July 2019.
Trump's current demand for $5.7 billion covers an additional 243 miles of fencing mostly
in the Rio Grande Valley. It'll probably be 2020 before a single bollard is set from that
$5.7 billion and several years after that to issue the contracts and complete the
construction. Given the shortcoming in the present border fences, that $5.7 billion would be
better spent on replacing the present barriers in the most needed areas rather constructing
new fence in less vulnerable areas. Just to maintain and replace what we have should require
close to a billion dollars a year. I say again, this current battle over $5.7 billion for
"the wall" is political posturing by both sides.
The more important demand made by Trump was the $800 million to address the humanitarian
crisis on the border. These funds would provide for improved care/processing of
refugees/asylum seekers, 2,750 more border agents and 75 more immigration judges. In my
opinion, that would be a wise expense. I think there ought to be ten times that number of new
border agents/officers to better address the refugee problem (humanitarian crisis) which will
probably remain for many years. Climate change is making drought, hurricanes, floods and
mudslides the new normal in Central America. The farming economy in this region, which
includes southern Mexico is collapsing. Local governments are dysfunctional and impotent.
These people are going to migrate or die in place.
If you want to declare a national emergency, we could use eminent domain to condemn and
buy a lot of farmland at cost from corporate agribusinesses and start a "40 acres and a mule"
program for refugee farm families and any native American family who desire a new start.
Have to agree. Trump only asked for $1.6 billion for his wall in his 2019 budget...and got
it. He then decided to have a fight, one that he was loath to have when the Republicans held
the majority in the House.
IMO Pelosi and co have also decided this is a good place to have a Waterloo. This isn't a
struggle for a wall it's a struggle for dominance. They await a tide of public opinion to
decide it.
They should shut down the whole regime. The first things to be shut down should be the myriad
of bases occupying foreign soil, particularly the bases that support the destabilization of
middle eastern countries.
Reply • Share › Twitter Facebook
I am on the left and I don't have a problem with the wall. That said, if you really want to
reduce illegal immigration exit controls would be more effective (and much more cost
effective). I went through a whole lot of trouble to get a work visa to work legally in
Poland in the late 90s - and I wouldn't have bothered if Poland didn't have exit controls.
Almost every country in the world has exit controls ... except for Canada and the US.
Oh cut it out. The wall is bullshit. If Trump was actually serious about illegal immigration
he'd be pushing E-Verify for all US businesses to determine the eligibility of employees. But
the GOP business lobby would never allow that so we get dog and pony shows like this so that
Trump can act like he really means business.
Well, at last you have made a logical point. E-verify should be made mandatory. You would
probably loose a lot of friends if it were. BTW, your many insulting comments today have
caused me after many years to ban you.
With regard to #1 I'm not holding my breath. Fundamental to the financial sector's business
model is opportunistic predation. As Michael Hudson relentlessly documents in his recently
published and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze
Age Finance to the Jubilee Year , it has been this way since money was invented in the
ancient Near East over five thousand years ago. In today's world few banksters can be
expected to forego invoking the fine print terms regarding the late fees and interest rate
hikes, especially considering the fact the careers of the CEOs and CFOs of publicly traded
companies live or die by the next quarterly earnings report.
https://amzn.to/2TfN2ht
Sadly Hudson's important book is getting little traction. He could only get this published on
a print-to-order basis in spite of the fact he has about a dozen prior books to his credit.
As a PtO book it will not be stocked by chain book stores.
They would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an
open border.
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and
more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will
go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck goober
They would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an
open border.
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and
more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will
go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck goober (white male)Trump voters, anyway?
As Philip Giraldi points out in a post a The Unz Review today, the Democratic establishment
isn't opposed to walls per se. It depends on who's building it and for what purpose.
Pelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the immorality and uselessness of
physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if they want the present border
barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever they want and anywhere
they want The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a
number of sections of the border.
In honor of Sen. Chuck 'Shomer', I vote that we call our border barrier a fence ,
just as Israel does:
Sir: While not directly on point, I knuckled under and signed up with Disqus simply to say
how much I have appreciated this committee of correspondence over the years. Seeing your post
recently about conversing with Glubb Pasha was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's
back.
IMO, we should sell coastal California to Mexico for $100 billion. Then use that money to
build a wall from Oregon to Brownsville, TX. Solves two problems in one fell swoop.
It sure does seem like the lenders are missing an excellent opportunity for a nearly risk
free public relations campaign as well as sales opportunities. Get these furloughed workers
in the door and give them a furlough loan and then get them interested in home loans, auto
loans...whatever they're qualified for. Should be a no-brainer.
Trump is our chief executive charged with the day to day running of the government and the
proverbial "making the trains run on time" for government functions. All these functions work
for him, not the legislative branch. His partial shutdown of the government reminds me of the
classic film Blazing Saddles where the black sheriff, played by Cleavon Little, takes himself
hostage by holding a gun to his own head to hold off a mob angry at having a black appointed
sheriff for their town. It worked in the film. Let's hope it does not work in Washington.
Fred, just finished the book you recommended "A Disease in the Public Mind - Why We Fought
the Civil War" by Thomas Flemming. The most balanced and fair nonfiction historical book I
have read on this subject.
Also depressing because History is repeating itself. Not rhyming but repeating itself. The
modern day abolitionist is convinced of their morale superiority over the deplorables. Just
look at the Fake News regarding the Catholic School boys. One abolitionist said on Twitter
that he wish they were dead along with their parents.
I hate the agenda of the Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party but I hate these modern
day abolitionist more since they desire to kill people just because they don't agree with
their transgender, open borders anarchy, and taxes on the little guy for a Climate Change
problem that doesn't exist. The Yellow Vest movement is a push back against this madness.
Instead of talking Medicare for All, jobs for everyone, prosperity, taking care of your
countryman the political narrative is on bizarre subjects due to the Elite knowing
Globalization is destroying huge sections of Western Civilization. The Yellow Vest have
destroyed 60% of the Speed Cameras deployed to catch the little guy going 5 m.p.h. over the
speed limit or running a red light that is timed to get you. It has nothing to do with safety
and everything to do with raising money off the individuals who are already struggling to
survive.
For the top 26 billionaires in the world to have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion
people in the world is barbaric. Globalization has led to drastic income inequality and the
fuse is burning.
Glad you read the book. I agree when you say " The modern day abolitionist is convinced of
their morale superiority over the deplorables." I wrote an early piece about that existential
angst of this newest generation. (Hard to believe it has already been two years.)
https://turcopolier.typepad...
I think this generation is waking up to having 'been played' by the politicians. What is
being missed in this latest effort to control the narrative is 1) Anti-Semitism in the
Women's march which led many groups, inluding the DNC, to withdraw support. 2) A turnout
that's roughly 90% lower than two years ago and a far, far cry from what was promoted. Others
in random order: Unempolyment is way down. The stock market is up almost 10% since the
shutdown began. Turmp is directing that the armed forces leave Syria (Afghanistan is probably
next) and North Korea is making further move gestures towards actual denuclearization.
What will be interesting to see, in the long run, is if the Democrats can keep the Hispanic
vote. Being godless sodomites, the new age abolitionists are making war on Catholics and, it
just so happens, that Hispanics, by and large, are serious about their Catholicism.
I don't see it. California proves otherwise. Texas and Georgia have become competitive
because of illegal immigrants having American born kids. The abolitionist say demography is
destiny and I tend to agree. Shows how racist they are. And how much they hate white people.
I see the Republican Party becoming noncompetitive to extinct over the next 20 years. And
the Democrat Party separating into 2 parties. The Progressive Wing versus the Moderate Wing.
Of course it could just all burned down before then and I wouldn't be surprised. I plan to
read your book next and have no doubt I will enjoy it. I've read the free excerpts you
provided and enjoyed them.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if future white generations in America do not emigrate to
Russia. I hate to be pessimistic but the monkey brain of man is incurable and hate runs
rampant. The modern day white abolitionist will be sideline to the trailer park but they are
too stupid to see it.
We need a new party in America that is for all colors of citizens and an economic populist
platform along with a social justice system that is vibrant.
The Democrat Party is the most vile/racist/bigoted party in the world right now. This
modern abolitionist attitude that killed many innocent Iraqi's due to no fault of their own
and believes they can dictate to countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Russia on how to
live because they are gender neutral is going to come back and destroy them. Either through a
home grown movement such as the Yellow Vest or worse to all of our detriment.
Sir, It may already be happening. An NPR/PBS/Marist January poll (that's not Fox/Breitbart)
shows approval of the performance of Trump among Hispanics rising from 31% to 50% since the
same poll was performed just prior to the shutdown. I can't figure out if Trump is a 10th
level Jedi master or if it's a case of the one eyed man being king in the land of the blind.
Trump says give me X number of $$s for my border wall (thought balloon over his head says "so
I can get re-elected") or I shut down the gov't. What's to keep him from doing it again if
the Dems cave this time?
On a side note: it's pretty appalling that you and your mostly Cuckoo bird commenters
think this is the way the republic should be run. So sad what happened to this blog.
We have Democrats like Sandy Ocasio-Cortez demanding the abolition of ICE. Is that one of
so-called improvements to border security the Democrats are seeking with popular backing?
If left to their devices, the Democrats would happily do away with the border altogether.
Don't take my word for it. Take the words of the two-time failed Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton. She gave a paid, private speech in Brazil where she claimed, "My
dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the
future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and
opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." That's all fine and dandy, I'm sure, but
oddly she didn't make that proclamation publicly on the campaign trail.
You are so full of shit. Dems want borders and they want border security based on real
experience, not a mnemonic device dreamed up by Roger Stone to focus candidate Trump on
immigration issues.
I think you are putting words in Pelosi's and the democrats mouths. I have heard of none of
them espousing getting rid of the border barriers. I believe they view a wall as a dumb idea
but are for other improvements for border security. This, I believe, is what the majority of
the populace want.
Pelosi and any number of other leading Dems have said that border barriers are immoral. The
logical conclusion from those statements is that ALL border barriers are immoral. If that is
their position then they should advocate removal of existing barriers. If they do not, then
they are politically self serving liars.
Tell that to the angry ranchers along the southern Texas borders who think trump's wall is a
political stunt that will ruin them economically.
There is no illegal alien southern border crisis in 2019 -- and the migrant caravan that
had so many republicans freaked out ultimately wound up in Tijuana, across the wall from San
Diego. Because that's where migrant families wind up, at official points of entry so they can
apply for asylum.
Sir;
The problem with the idea of banks building 'good will' is that the financial sector, by and
large, has moved on from old fashioned business models to an 'enrich the insiders at everyone
else's expense' model.
My local bank that I use has signs in the lobby directing workers discommoded by the shutdown
to apply at the small loan desk. I do not know what incentives are on offer, but my
unpleasant experience with the bank once before does not give me much hope of the bank acting
altruistically.
William K Black, who headed part of the Federal response to the 'Savings and Loan' crisis in
the 1980's has called this trend the building of a "criminogenic environment."
As for the wall fiasco, I would ask Chuck and Nancy; "Who do you consider as being
Americans?" Then tell them to serve that group, no one else. The last time I looked, no one
had abolished the Nation State.
Thank you for your indulgence.
But that is exactly the problem; global corporations and their lobbyists are doing their
utmost to abolish the Nation State. Nation states are a PITA, from the Globalist POV. They
make regulations, have borders impeding the rampant denuding of talent pools and worst of all
occasionally erect trade barriers to favor their domestic industries. All of this is harmful
to the corporate profits of a global business. What we are witnessing in the US and elsewhere
is the push back against this drive to maximize profits at the cost of huge sections of
national populations.
Trump may be a billionaire businessman with worldwide interests, but real estate is
different. It employs largely local labor and is not vulnerable to 'protectionist' government
policies in the same way. This is key to understanding how a billionaire like Trump can think
and act so differently to the Davos club and billionaires like Bezos.
Totally agree with you. What I can't understand about these politicians from the democratic
party or for that matter the main stream media is if we are so internationalized then why all
the this drum beating about Russia Russia since we a re all a part of the nice international
group of people. Don't they have as much stake who governs in this international brotherhood?
Then that is what they should say, rather than the prattle they are currently issuing.
Apparently, unlike me, you completed the mind reading class in high school.
My mind reading comment was actually addressed to Stuart Wood for his remark about Pelosi and
company that despite their words to the contrary, "I believe they view a wall as a dumb
idea but are for other improvements for border security."
"... A Trump wall or barrier will cost far more than believed and be likely unfinished, with large gaps like the Maginot Line. Some better way of blocking the border must be found. If not, we may end up having to wall and garrison the Canadian border as well. ..."
`Good fences make good neighbors,' wrote American poet Robert Frost. But not according to
President Donald Trump whose proposed Great Wall is supposed to protect the nation from hordes
of rabid, murderous, drug crazed rapists and unwhites from south of the border.
I'm a life-long student of military architecture, with a particular passion for modern
fortification, chief among which is France's own Great Wall, the magnificent and unfairly
reviled Maginot Line.
Given the heated debate in America over Trump's proposed barrier along the Mexican border,
it's worth looking back to the Maginot Line. It was supposed to have been France's savior after
the bloodbath of World War I.
Proposed by Deputy André Maginot in the 1920's, the Line was supposed to cover key
parts of France's frontiers with German and Italy. Due to the terrible losses of the Great War,
France did not have enough soldiers to properly defend its long frontiers. So it made sense to
erect fortifications to compensate for manpower weakness and to block surprise attacks from
next door enemy forces.
The first large Maginot fort was built in the 1920's north of Nice to protect the Cote
d'Azur from possible Italian attacks. Mussolini was demanding France return the Riviera coast
to its former Italian rulers. Work on the principal Line along the German and Luxembourg
borders began soon after. Phase one covered 260 miles from near the Rhine to Longuyon, a rail
junction south of the Belgian border.
The Line consisted of hundreds of steel and concrete machine gun and anti-tank casemates
with interlocking flanking fire. They were surrounded by upright rails designed to halt tanks
and dense belts of interwoven barbed wire covered by machine guns. Artillery casemates with
75mm, 81mm and 135mm guns covered the fort's fronts and sides.
Within and behind the Maginot Line were based an army of specialized fortress troops and
hundreds of field artillery guns. The era's most advanced electronic communications systems
meshed the defenses together. The big forts were mostly buried 90 feet underground, proof from
any projectiles of the era.
But the problem was that a wall or barrier is only effective so long as there are adequate
troops to man it.
In the spring of 1940, France had deployed nearly a third of its field army behind the
Maginot Line. But then the Germans staged a brilliant breakthrough north of the Line across the
supposedly impenetrable Ardennes forest region. In 1938, a French parliamentarian named Perrier
(from the French water family) had toured the Ardennes area and warned the military that it was
very vulnerable to a German breakthrough. The generals scoffed at 'this civilian' and ignored
Perrier's warning.
Sure enough, the German armored and infantry assault came right through this Ardennes weak
point near Sedan, forcing a rapid retreat by French and British forces in the region that ended
up at Dunkerque.
ORDER IT NOW
As outflanked Allied forces pulled back from the frontier, they exposed the northern flank
of the Maginot Line. The French high command, fearing their armies around the Line would be
encircled, ordered the interval forces to retreat towards the highlands of central France. The
Line was thus denuded of its troops and artillery. These units, who were armed and trained for
static defense, had to make their way cross country on foot. Most were captured en route by
advancing German forces.
In spring 1940 the Line was unfinished with large gaps and open flanks due to budgetary
constraints caused by the 1930's depression. The Germans drove through them, wisely avoiding
most of big forts, and attacked the Line from the rear. Ironically, in 1944/45, German troops
ended up defending the Maginot Forts from the advancing US Army.
The Line worked as planned, protecting vulnerable areas. But it was never extended to the
Channel due to Belgium's high water table and reluctance to fortify behind the French ally. The
Belgians believed their powerful forts near Liege would delay the Germans until the French Army
could intervene. They were wrong.
The French public ascribed almost magical powers to the Line. It would keep them
invulnerable they believed. Building the fortifications became a national works project during
the Depression, rather like the US WPA labor program. But Adolf Hitler vowed he would go around
the Line and chop it up. He did.
A Trump wall or barrier will cost far more than believed and be likely unfinished, with
large gaps like the Maginot Line. Some better way of blocking the border must be found. If not,
we may end up having to wall and garrison the Canadian border as well.
Sir, you make an interesting point, but the comparison is not valid.
In the Maginot line case, France was being attacked by other COUNTRIES, i.e. govt. of
other countries, with tanks and soldiers.
But, the US is being attacked by individuals, these criminal alien invaders. The Mexican
govt. is not trying to invade us with troops and tanks; only the individuals with nothing but
a big mouth.
This is a horrible analogy and the author knows it. He is correct, Trump's border wall would
not withstand an attack by thousands of German troops with tanks. There is no mention of
walls in Israel that no illegal immigrant can cross, nor the South Korean DMZ. Border
security makes sense and is a tiny fraction of the huge budget our Department of Defense
spends to protect the borders of our allies. Opponents are just naive or covert open borders
globalists.
We don't needs a wall (or high barriers) along 90% of the border because those areas are
too far from road access on Mexican side, nor do we need them along 99% of the Canadian
border. One can visit the border or just look at youtube and see that we really need a first
class barrier along 10% of the Mexican border. This will deter chaos in the easily accessible
areas by replacing an assortment of old fences wobbly that even moms with kids can hop
over.
I challenge Mr Margolis to cite just one incident where an illegal immigrant penetrated the
Maginot Line. Otherwise, he should apologize for wasting our time with this horrible article.
If he wants to discuss alternatives, like requiring e-verify, let's hear them.
How about self-funding border security. We all pay a TSA fee for every flight for
security. Why not charge $10 to cross the border by foot, or $20 per vehicle. Many American
bridges have hefty fees to cross, why not the border?
No wall is strong enough to protect against desperate people who flee from extreme violence
and poverty; yet these people are NOT an invading army but broken families; single mothers
with small kids who only seek peace and security for their children.
The problem of mass migration is not new; but the US leadership had always dealt with it
with foresight which is lacking in the Trump Administration. America wouldn't have the
problem of mass migration had the US fulfilled its own role as the world Superpower –
so, dealing with the Latin America as the neighbours who need help to restore themselves to
functioning states as opposed to walling them in their desperation.
Back in 1994, the Peso Crisis would have paralyzed Mexico as a functioning state but Bill
Clinton administration had recognized that the US must help Mexican government from total
collapse which would have resulted to flood of poor migrants to the southern borders of the
USA – as such, under the leadership of president Bill Clinton, the US, Canada and IMF
had structured a bailout loan-package to help the Mexican government to keep its economy
afloat, that has not only prevented the mass migration of poor Mexicans workers to the
southern borders of the USA but also helped the US exports to Mexico, so, helped the American
economy as well.
We need similar approach to the rest of the Latin America, we need to help these countries
to sustain and restore themselves to functioning states with relative security for families;
because no wall is strong enough to protect against total desperation.
The wall will not be effective because illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America
constitutes 5% or less of all immigration, see Ron Unz's recent article on the subject. The
real problem is legal immigration: anchor babies, diversity lottery visa, H1-B visa, chain
immigration, etc. The real problem is US immigration law, not lack of a physical barrier to
illegal immigration. If a wall worked 100% of the time (it won't) you still would have 20
times the numbers in *legal immigration* that would continue to fail to be addressed. The
Wall is a sop tossed to the masses by pandering politicians who don't have the will to
address the overarching problem of legal immigration. General George Patton summed up the
Maginot line pretty well, and it applies to the Wall: "Fixed fortifications are a monument to
the stupidity of man."
@Giuseppe The wall will be effective: at proving that America is actually capable of
stopping immigration flow. Can't do something as simple and straightforward as building the
wall, can't enforce immigration law.
The key point is that the Germans went around the Maginot Line: The wall itself worked.
My chateau is near Sedan; lovely wooded hilly place, and one would be forgiven for
thinking an armoured assault through the Ardennes would surely fail, so why waste resources
there? I hear the same sort of blather about parts of the US southern border.
This is a horrible analogy and the author knows it.
Yep.
There is no mention of walls in Israel that no illegal immigrant can cross, nor the
South Korean DMZ.
Yep. Especially the former.
All Trump has to do, re the wall is implement Israeli solution . Gander, goose.
As for the illegal immigration, also simple: JAIL the business owners who employ them;
including one member of a household where an illegal is employed.
As for legal immigration, well one step at the time.
All this bullshit about this topic is truly funny. Funny how retards get hooked on it. Not
people with agendas, oh they know what they are doing. But an average Joe getting so excited
about the topic.
No wonder we are where we are.
I guess that's one of the usual "gullibility" games TPTBs play with the "deplorables". And
win, obviously.
So Mexicans are going to go by boat caravans to Canada, which is going to let that happen,
and then the caravans will cross the U.S.-Canadian border?
As far as Nazis in tanks coming in from Mexico, that's O.K. with me. The more Nazi
soldiers, the better. Just keeping out the hordes of unskilled poor is enough.
I challenge Mr Margolis to cite just one incident where an illegal immigrant penetrated
the Maginot Line
Right.
Even keeping the problematic, apples-to-oranges migration-to-military analogy, consider
this letter-to-editor in a Maryland local newspaper published
Jan. 14, 2019:
The Maginot Line worked; it forced the Germans to attack elsewhere. Defeat could have
been prevented, but the French failed to fully understand what a successful deterrent their
wall was. France built the Maginot Line on the border between France and Germany from
Switzerland to Belgium.
For political reasons (they didn't want to "offend" King Leopold) they stopped at
Belgium instead of extending it to the North Sea. The French relied on the Dyle River and
the Ardennes in Belgium to stop the Germans. Not extending the wall to the North Sea was
the Maginot Line's Achilles Heel and caused the French defeat.
At the outbreak of war France's border was protected by the impregnable Maginot Line.
Belgium, demonstrating "The Triumph of Hope over experience," had declared itself neutral
and forbade the extension of the Line along its border. This meant that an attack on France
would come via Belgium.
The Allied plan, Plan D, was to advance into Belgium and there, because of overall
superiority, defeat the Germans. [Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha, Jewish British Secretary of
State for War], far from happy with this Plan, wanted the original defence system
strengthened. This was to be done by building 240 pillboxes (small forts).
The Army told him it would take 3 weeks to construct a pillbox. Belisha ascertained that
it would take 3 days. Accordingly he brought to France a team of Civil Engineers to do
this. Unfortunately the Army resented them and gave minimal co-operation.
Belisha now visited France, and attended a meeting of senior officers, which included
the commander of the British force, Lord Gort.
A shocked Belisha found that the 1st item on the agenda was "Over which shoulder should
a soldier carry his steel helmet when it was not on his head?" He also found that only 2
pillboxes had been constructed.
On his return he reported the situation to the Army Council, and informed the Prime
Minister who said that if he wanted to sack Lord Gort he would support him. Belisha refused
to do this. Instead he sent General Packenham Walsh to convey to Lord Gort the Army
Council's disquiet at the state of his defences.
In doing this Belisha had committed a breach of etiquette. An officer can only be
reprimanded by a senior. Packenham Walsh was junior to Lord Gort.
This faux pas increased the already deep hostility to Belisha to a blinding rage. Lord
Gort referred to him as Belli; His Chief of Staff General Sir Henry Pownell now referred to
him as a "Shallow brained, charlatan, political Jew boy". Michael Foot, later to become
leader of the Labour party thought of him as "a shit". Chips Chanon a prominent socialite
referred to him as "An Oily Jew".
An army song went:
"Onward Christian Soldiers,
You have nothing to fear
Israel Hore-Belisha will lead you from the rear,
Clothed by Monty Burton
Fed on Lyons Pies
Die for Jewish freedom
As a Briton always dies.
Other officers were referring to him as Horeb Elisha.
Aware of this viscous attitude the Chief of the Imperial General Staff visited France.
On his return he supported the Armies attitude, and reported to the King who called in the
Prime minister. On January 4th 1940 Belisha was sacked.
On May 10th the Germans attacked through Belgium, and the British Army following plan D
advanced to combat the enemy. They were then completely out flanked
But the problem was that a wall or barrier is only effective so long as there are adequate
troops to man it.
True, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the Allies to stop the
German invasion. By the way something, which part of the US's southern border is playing
Belgium in this rather dubious comparison?
@Rational The Kaiser didn't use 1,000 volts, he used 2,000 volts for his electric fence:
The Hun used a stand alone 2,000 volt power generation plant for their fence. Widespread
electric power in the USA means we could use 1:2 step down power transformers for an
electrified fence.
Did the Kaiser's fence work as planned?
"As Germany invaded neutral Belgium, Belgians began to cross the border to the Netherlands
en masse. In 1914 one million Belgian refugees were already in the Netherlands, but
throughout the war, refugees kept coming and tried to cross the border. Many wanted to escape
German occupation, others wanted to join their relatives who had already fled, and some
wanted to take part in the war and chose this detour to join the forces on the allied
front.
"Construction began in the spring of 1915 and consisted of over 200 km (125 mi) of
2,000-volt wire with a height ranging from 1.5 to about 3 m (5 to about 10 ft) spanning the
length of the Dutch-Belgian border from Aix-la-Chapelle to the River Scheldt. Within
100–500 m (110–550 yd) of the wire, anyone who was not able to officially explain
their presence was summarily executed.
"The number of victims is estimated to range between 2,000 and 3,000 people. Local
newspapers in the Southern Netherlands carried almost daily reports about people who were
'lightninged to death'.
"The wire also separated families and friends as the Dutch–Belgian border where
Dutch and Flemings (Dutch-speaking Belgians), despite living in different states, often
intermarried or otherwise socialized with each other. Funeral processions used to walk to the
fence and halt there, to give relatives and friends on the other side the opportunity to pray
and say farewell.[3]
@Gordo' Actually I agree a wall is not needed, it is willpower that is needed.
Without that a wall is useless, with it a wall is superfluous '
The wall has become a symbol -- as walls tend to be.
It's now secondary whether it actually stops anyone. If we build it, we have decided to
retake control of our borders. If we don't, we have abdicated that control.
The demand of President Donald Trump
that congress should appropriate money to build a wall securing the nation's southern border has resulted in
the longest federal government shutdown in history with no end in sight. There is considerable opposition to
the wall based on two quite different perceptions of border security. The generally "progressive" view is
that there is no border threat at all, that the thousands of migrants heading for the U.S. can be
assimilated and indeed should be allowed entry because of U.S. government policies in Central America that
have created the ruined states that the would-be immigrants have been fleeing.
There is certainly some truth to that
argument, though it suggests that the United States should essentially abandon sovereignty over its own
territory, which most Americans would reject. The alternative viewpoint, which has a much broader bipartisan
constituency, consists of those who do feel that border security is a national priority but are nevertheless
critical of building a wall, which will be expensive, possibly ineffective and environmentally damaging.
They prefer other options, to include increased spending on the border guards, more aggressive enforcement
against existing illegals and severe punishment of businesses in the U.S. that hire anyone not possessing
legal documentation. Some also have argued in favor of a national ID issued only to citizens or legal
permanent residents that would have to be produced by anyone seeking employment or government services.
Whether the wall will ever be built is
questionable, but one thing that is certain is that there is more than enough hypocrisy regarding it to go
around. Democratic Presidents including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama when campaigning have called for
better border security, as have Democratic Congressional leaders who are now smelling blood and attacking
Trump for seeking to do what they have long at least theoretically sought.
Apart from that, many of the Democrats
who are currently criticizing the southern border wall on moral grounds have failed to apply the same
standard to another infamous wall, that which is being built by Israel. Israel's "separation wall" is
arguably being constructed at least in part using "aid" and charitable money provided by Washington while
also being enabled politically by the U.S. government's acquiescence to the Israeli violations of
international law. And if the moral argument for not having a wall to aid suffering refugees has any
meaning, it would be many times more so applied to the Israeli wall, which is an instrument in the
maintenance of apartheid in areas under Israeli control while also making permanent the stateless status of
the more than one million Palestinian refugees, far more in number than the would-be immigrants marching
through Mexico.
The Israeli wall is at many points larger
and more intimidating than that planned by Trump, and it is also designed to physically and economically
devastate the Palestinian population adjacent to it. Israel's wall is undeniably far more damaging than
anything being considered for placement along the U.S.-Mexican border as it operates as both a security
measure and a tool for confiscating more Arab land by including inside the barrier illegal West Bank
settlements.
There are both physical similarities and
differences relating to the two walls. Judging from prototypes, Trump currently appears to favor
prefabricated mostly metal sections with barbed wire coils on top that would be high and intimidating enough
to deter climbing over. The sections would be set in foundations sufficiently deep to deter most tunneling
and there would be sensors at intervals to alert guards to other attempts to penetrate the barrier. Israel's
wall varies in terms of structural material, including large concrete blocks 28 feet high in some areas
while other less populated stretches that are considered low security make do with multiple lines of barbed
wire and sensors. It is interesting to note that some Israeli companies have apparently expressed interest
in building the Mexico wall and, as one of the many perks Israel receives from congress includes the right
to bid on U.S. government contracts, they might well wind up as a contractors or subcontractors if the
barrier is ever actually built.
As noted above, the principal difference
between the U.S. wall and that of Israel is that the American version is all on U.S. land and is engineered
to more or less run in a straight line along the border. The Israeli version is nearly 90% built on
Palestinian land and, as it is designed to create facts on the West Bank, it does not run in a straight
line, instead closing off some areas to the Palestinians by surrounding Arab villages. It therefore keeps
people in while also keeping people out, so it is not strictly speaking a security barrier. Indeed, some
Israeli security experts have stated their belief that the wall has been only
a minor asset
in preventing violence directed by Palestinians against Israelis.
If the Israeli wall had followed the
Green Line that separated Israel proper from Palestinian land it would be only half the estimated 440 miles
long that it will now be upon completion. The extra miles are accounted for
by the deep cuts
of as much as 11 miles into the West Bank, isolating about 9% of it and completely
enclosing 25,000 Palestinian Arabs from areas nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority. One
often cited victim
of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, with a population of 45,000,
which is enclosed on all sides by a wall that in some sections measures more than 25 feet high. Qalqilyah is
only accessible through an Israeli controlled military checkpoint on the main road from the east and a
tunnel on the south side that links the town to the adjacent village of Habla.
The wall is therefore only in part a
security measure while also being a major element in the Israeli plan to gradually acquire as much of the
West Bank as possible – perhaps all of it – for Israeli settlers. It is a form of collective punishment
based on religion to make life difficult for local people and eventually drive them from their homes.
it is difficult to overstate the
humanitarian impact of the Barrier. The route inside the West Bank severs communities, people's access to
services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities. In addition, plans for the Barrier's exact
route and crossing points through it are often not fully revealed until days before construction
commences. This has led to considerable anxiety amongst Palestinians about how their future lives will be
impacted The land between the Barrier and the Green Line constitutes some of the most fertile in the
West Bank. It is currently the home for 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns."
"The fence/wall, in its present
configuration, violates Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law Since the summer of
2002 the Israeli army has been destroying large areas of Palestinian agricultural land, as well as other
properties, to make way for a fence/wall which it is building in the West Bank. In addition to the large
areas of particularly fertile Palestinian farmland that have been destroyed, other larger areas have been
cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence/wall. The fence/wall is not being built between
Israel and the Occupied Territories but mostly (close to 90%) inside the West Bank, turning Palestinian
towns and villages into isolated enclaves, cutting off communities and families from each other,
separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care
facilities and other essential services. This in order to facilitate passage between Israel and more than
50 illegal Israeli settlements located in the West Bank.
"
Of course, the situation has become far
worse for Palestinians since the two reports dating from 2004 and 2005. Israel has accelerated its
settlement construction and the wall has expanded and shifted to accommodate those changes, making life
impossible for the indigenous population.
Any pushback from the United States has
been rare to nonexistent, with successive administrations only occasionally mentioning that the settlements
themselves are "troubling" or a "complication" vis-à-vis a peace settlement. The first direct criticism of
the wall itself took place in 2003, when the Bush administration briefly considered reducing loan guarantees
to discourage its construction. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell
remarked
"A nation is within its rights to put up a fence if it sees the need for one. However, in the
case of the Israeli fence, we are concerned when the fence crosses over onto the land of others."
On May 25, 2005, Bush
repeated his concerns
, noting that "I think the wall is a problem. And I discussed this with Ariel
Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking
through the West Bank." In a letter to Sharon he stated that it "should be a security rather than political
barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent and therefore not prejudice any final status issues
including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact
on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities."
Congress is, of course, Israeli occupied
territory so its response was directed against Powell and Bush in support of anything Israel chose to do.
Then Senator Joe Lieberman
complained
"The administration's threat to cut aid to Israel unless it stops construction of a security
fence is a heavy-handed tactic. The Israeli people have the right to defend themselves from terrorism, and a
security fence may be necessary to achieve this."
In 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton
declared her support
for the wall by claiming that the Palestinian Authority had failed to fight
terrorism. "This is not against the Palestinian people. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian
people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism." Senator
Charles Schumer, also from New York,
added
"As long as the Palestinians send terrorists onto school buses and to nightclubs to blow up
people, Israel has no choice but to build the Security Wall."
So, for many in Washington a legal and
relatively apolitical wall by the United States to protect its border is a horrible prospect while the
Israeli version built on someone else's land with the intention to damage the local Arab population as much
as possible is perfectly fine. The reality is that America's Establishment, which is dominated by veneration
of Israel for a number of reasons, is completely hypocritical, more prepared to criticize actions taken by
the United States even when those actions are justified than they are to condemn Israeli actions that amount
to crimes against humanity. That is the reality and it is playing out in front of us right now.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is
Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation
that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is
[email protected]
.
> Most have been breached in one manner or another, sabotaged, or gone around.
That's an extremely naïve position. The function of the wall is not to block the
access, but to slow it down and raise the cost of crossing for illegal immigrants.
As such it has some value. Also those neoliberal Dems are eager to finance foreign
wars and programs like F35 without any hesitation.
What a bunch of fools. As Tucker Carlson aptly said
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to
sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like they're playing roulette and cackling like
mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally unaware that
any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves
majestic new titles and raising their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and
desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the
ship. It would be nice to know. What was written as an allegory is starting to feel
like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the
waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to
know, and they don't want you to tell them. Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they
continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the
Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
I've grown very sceptical over the years about the whole issue of asylum. To me, the idea
that an individual can cross a border illegally without a visa, or without even a passport,
and then suddenly become quasi legal be declaring that they wish to seek asylum is a bit of a
farce. The situation becomes even more farcical when failed asylum seekers still aren't
deported. As for humanitarian and ethical obligations, I don't really buy into that either
because the demographics of the world are such that the West is at risk of losing its very
identity if it feels "obliged" to accept everyone seeking asylum and/or work from the world's
more troubled regions. I see the admission of refugees as a generous gesture, not as an
obligation.
While Tucker uses logic and facts to make his arguments, Cenk uses feelings to
support his. If anyone is still a follower of Cenk after this video, then Tucker is right, the
level of delusion in society is staggering.
Chunk really is a disingenuous slime ball. He brings up food as evidence of our
"multiculturalism", it's such a moronic example. The fundamentals of culture that Tucker was
speaking of include our beliefs enshrined in the constitution, freedom of speech, our
egalitarianism, capitalism, the English language, ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit, all of the
god-given rights we believe in, self defense, etc. It's very uniquely American and to have
millions upon millions of Hondurans or Mexicans or whatever flood in, not assimilate, and
change the language and the freedoms/god-given rights we believe in, that will displace OUR
culture with theirs.... and clearly our culture is superior, if it wasn't then they'd be the
one's with a rich country that we'd want to move to. Who gives a fuck if we like to eat tacos
or pasta you greasy slime ball. Basically if Glob of Grease was right then there would be no
such thing as assimilation.
At the risk of sounding misogynistic I have to say listening to a liberal is like listening to
a woman. No matter how wrong they are in their mind they're right. No matter how much logic
& common sense you throw their way it's never enough for them to understand. That's what it
be like watching these "debates". This is why a lot of the left when it comes to men are
considered BETA. They have the skewed mind like that of a female, men appeal more to logic than
emotional rhetoric like what Cenk was speaking from. This is why civilizations of the past have
all gone the way of the dodo bird. Because they'll allow themselves to become so diverse to the
point of collapse. It's funny too because all of the countries they beg us to allow in are some
of the most segregated countries on the planet, such as Asia.
One of the most sought-after visa programs in the U.S., the H-1B, could see some significant
changes in 2019, according
to President Trump , including a potential path to citizenship for recipients of the
non-immigrant visa.
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire graduate-level workers in specialty occupations, like IT,
finance, accounting, architecture, engineering, science and medicine. Any job that requires
workers to have at least a bachelor's degree falls under the H-1B for specialty
occupations.
Each year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allots about 85,000 of the
H-1B visas -- 65,000 for applicants with a bachelor's degree or equivalent, and 20,000 for
those with a master's degree or higher.
As of April 2017, when Trump signed an executive order -- "Buy American and Hire American"
-- it's become more difficult for U.S. companies to hire people via H-1B. It directs the
Department of Homeland Security to only grant the visas to the "most-skilled or highest-paid
beneficiaries."
Here's a look at the American companies (and industries) that benefited the most from the
program in 2017.
Cognizant: The IT services business had a whopping 3,194 H-1B initial petitions approved in
2017, the most of any U.S. company by almost 600.
Amazon: In 2017, the e-commerce behemoth hired 2,515 employees via
the H-1B visa program, according to data compiled by the
National Foundation for American Policy . That was about a 78 percent increase from 2016,
or 1,099 more employees.
Microsoft: Microsoft hired 1,479 workers through H-1B in 2017, the second most of U.S.
companies -- an increase in 334 employees from the year prior, or close to 29 percent.
IBM: In 2017, IBM employed about 1,231 workers through the H-1B visa program.
Intel: The California-based company employed 1,230 workers through H-1B in 2017, 200 more
workers -- or a 19 percent increase -- compared to 2016.
Google: The search engine giant had 1,213 H-1B initial petitions approved for fiscal year
2017, a 31 percent increase of about 289 from 2016.
"US agents have fired tear gas over the border into Mexico at migrants trying to enter the
country illegally.
Around 150 Central Americans tried to make the crossing near the town of Tijuana to the
south of California on New Year's Day.
One US official described the migrants as a "violent mob".
It comes as the US federal government remains shut down as President Donald Trump and
Congress argue over funding for his proposed border wall." BBC
------------
The BBC does not seem to know that the US voluntarily admits over one million legal
IMMIGRANTS per year. These people are automatically on a track to full citizenship after five
years residence if they behave themselves, pay their taxes, do not commit criminal acts, etc.
They can accelerate that process if they join the US armed forces and serve honorably.
The people now seeking to force their way across the border seem to think that they are
justified in crashing across the US border with Mexico without regard to US law. To willingly
cross the US border illegally is a misdemeanor crime. The US government has a duty under the
constitution to defend the borders of the US against foreign invasion. How are foreign people
trying to crash through the border not an invasion? Tear gas? Yes, it makes you cry and choke.
The alternative is force escalating to deadly force.
The US listens to petitions for asylum from conditions that threaten life. The US does not
recognize petitions for asylum based on poor conditions of local economy or crime in countries
of origin. If the US did accept such petitions, most of the population of the planet would be
eligible for asylum in the US.
The argument is raised that the US should make Central America an earthly paradise, a
veritable Nebraska in which Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans would be content to abide.
Well, pilgrims, as I have explained here several times, the US has been trying to do that in
Latin America ever since the Kennedy Administration with minimal success. Do these little
countries wish to surrender their sovereignty to the US so that we might perform our magic of
enrichment and creation of actual democracy upon them? I think they do not. They approach our
borders waving the various flags of their wretched countries even while asking for ASYLUM from
those countries, countries that cannot run their own affairs well enough to make people want to
stay home and live the good life Latino style.
Make no mistake. If these migrants, who think nothing of using little children as human
shields, force surrender of control of immigration, there will be a tidal wave coming behind
them. pl
"... an old-school Christian democracy, rooted in European traditions ..."
"... Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human rights standards. ..."
"... at least 300,000 refugees each year ..."
"... surge funding, ..."
"... raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU's relatively small budget. ..."
"... To finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later, ..."
It is no secret that neoliberalism relentlessly pursues a globalized, borderless world where labor, products, and services obey
the hidden hand of the free market. What is less often mentioned, however, is that this system is far more concerned with
promoting the well-being of corporations and cowboy capitalists than assisting the average person on the street. Indeed, many of
the world's most powerful companies today have
mutated
into
"
stateless superpowers
," while consumers are forced to endure crippling austerity
measures amid
plummeting
standards
of living. The year 2018 could be seen as the tipping point when the grass-roots movement against these dire conditions took off.
Since 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants into Germany and the EU,
a groundswell of animosity has been steadily building against the European Union, perhaps best exemplified by the Brexit
movement. Quite simply, many people are growing weary of the globalist
argument
that
Europe needs migrants and austerity measures to keep the wheels of the economy spinning. At the very least, luring migrants with
cash
incentives
to move to Germany and
elsewhere
in
the EU appears incredibly shortsighted.
Indeed, if the globalist George Soros wants to lend his
Midas
touch
to ameliorating the migrant's plight, why does he think that relocating them to European countries is the solution? As
is becoming increasingly apparent in places like
Sweden
and
France, efforts to assimilate people from vastly different cultures, religions and backgrounds is an extremely tricky venture,
the success of which is far from guaranteed.
One worrying consequence of Europe's season of open borders has been the rise of far-right political movements. In fact, some of
the harshest criticism of the 'Merkel plan' originated in
Hungary
,
where its gutsy president, Viktor Orban, hopes to build "
an old-school Christian democracy,
rooted in European traditions
." Orban is simply responding to the democratic will of his people, who are fiercely
conservative, yet the EU parliament voted to
punish
him
regardless. The move shows that Brussels, aside from being adverse to democratic principles, has very few tools for addressing
the rise of far-right sentiment that its own misguided policies created.
Here it is necessary to mention once again that bugbear of the political right, Mr. Soros, who has received no political mandate
from European voters, yet who campaigns relentlessly on behalf of globalist initiatives through his Open Society Foundations (OSF)
(That campaign just got some serious clout after Soros
injected
$18bn
dollars of his own money into OSF, making it one of the most influential NGOs in the world).
With no small amount of impudence, Soros has condemned EU countries – namely his native Hungary – for attempting to protect their
territories by constructing border barriers and fences, which he believes violate the human rights of migrants (rarely if ever
does the philanthropist speak about the "human rights" of the native population). In the
words
of
the maestro of mayhem himself: "
Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building
border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human
rights standards.
"
Through a leaked
network
of
compromised EU parliamentarians who do his bidding, Soros says the EU should spend $30 billion euros ($33bln) to accommodate "
at
least 300,000 refugees each year
." How will the EU pay for the resettling of migrants from the Middle East? Soros has an
answer for that as well. He calls it "
surge funding,
" which entails "
raising
a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU's relatively small budget.
"
Any guesses who will be forced to pay down the debt on this high-risk venture? If you guessed George Soros, guess again. The
already heavily taxed people of Europe will be forced to shoulder that heavy burden. "
To
finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later,
" Soros admits. That comment is very interesting in
light of the recent French protests, which were
triggered
by
Emmanuel Macron's plan to impose a new fuel tax. Was the French leader, a former investment banker, attempting to get back some
of the funds being used to support the influx of new arrivals into his country? The question seems like a valid one, and goes far
at explaining the ongoing unrest.
At this point, it is worth remembering what triggered the exodus of migrants into Europe in the first place. A large part of the
answer comes down to unlawful NATO operations on the ground of sovereign states. Since 2003, the 29-member military bloc, under
the direct command of Washington, has
conducted
illicit
military operations in various places around the globe, including in Iraq, Libya and Syria. These actions, which could be best
described as globalism on steroids, have opened a Pandora's Box of global scourges, including famine, terrorism and grinding
poverty. Is this what the Western states mean by 'humanitarian activism'? If the major EU countries really want to flout their
humanitarian credentials, they could have started by demanding the cessation of regime-change operations throughout the Middle
East and North Africa, which created such inhumane conditions for millions of innocent people.
This failure on the part of Western capitals to speak out against belligerent US foreign policy helps to explain why a number of
other European governments are experiencing major shakeups. Sebastian Kurz, 32,
won
over
the hearts of Austrian voters by promising to tackle unchecked immigration. In super-tolerant Sweden, which has
accepted
more
migrants per capita than any other EU state, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats party
garnered
17.6
percent of the vote in September elections – up from 12.9 percent in the previous election. And even Angela Merkel, who is seen
by many people as the de facto leader of the European Union, is watching her political star crash and burn mostly due to her
bungling of the migrant crisis. In October, after her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a stinging setback in Bavaria
elections, which saw CDU voters abandon ship for the anti-immigrant AfD and the Greens, Merkel
announced
she
would resign in 2021 after her current term expires.
Meanwhile, back in the US, the government of President Donald Trump has been shut down as the Democrats refuse to grant the
American leader the funds to build a wall on the Mexican border – despite the fact that he essentially made it to the White House
on precisely that promise. Personally, I find it very hard to believe that any political party that does not support a strong and
viable border can continue to be taken seriously at the polls for very long. Yet that is the very strategy that the Democrats
have chosen. But I digress.
I am all alone (poor me) in the White House waiting for the Democrats to come back and make a deal on
desperately needed Border Security. At some point the Democrats not wanting to make a deal will cost our
Country more money than the Border Wall we are all talking about. Crazy!
The lesson that Western governments should have learned over the last year from these developments is that there exists a
definite red line that the globalists cross at risk not only to the social order, but to their own political fortunes. Eventually
the people will demand solutions to their problems – many of which were caused by reckless neoliberal programs and austerity
measures. This collective sense of desperation may open the door to any number of right-wing politicians only too happy to meet
the demand.
Better to provide fair working conditions for the people while maintaining strong borders than have to face the wrath of the
street or some political charlatan later. Whether or not Western leaders will change their neoliberal ways as a populist storm
front approaches remains to be seen, but I for one am not betting on it.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
@niceland
Your friends are not "right wing". The left/right paradigm is long dead. Your friends are
globalists, whether they realize it or not. Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit
of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital. Investing in migration/immigration
lowers the long term costs and increases long term profit. The profit (money capital) is then
moved to a place where it best serves its owner.
I agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad
enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively
forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the
immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with
existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that
image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily
Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and
dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read
much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour
Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
The world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?
Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]
Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious
place. " -- November 22, 2018.
2007:
" The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we're civilized. In truth, it's a cruel world and people are ruthless.
They act nice to your face, but underneath they're out to kill you." Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald
Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 71.
"Life is not easy. The world is a vicious, brutal place. It's a place where people are looking to kill you, if not
physically, then mentally. In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill. People are looking to put you
down, especially if you are on top. When I watched Westerns as a kid, I noticed the cowboys were always trying to kill the fastest
gun. As a kid, I never understood it. Why would anyone want to go after the fastest gun?
"This is the way it is in real life. Everyone wants to kill the fastest gun. In real estate, I am the fastest gun, and everyone
wants to kill me. You have to know how to defend yourself. People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport. Even your
friends are out to get you!" Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 139.
2018:
"Well, not all people. But it's a vicious place. The world is a vicious place. You know, the lions and tigers, they
hunt for food, we hunt for sport. So, it can be a very vicious place. You turn on the television and you look at what's happening."
Interview with John Barton, Golf Digest , October 13, 2014.
" This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal
with somebody and it's like making a deal with– that table." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15,
2018.
"This is a r– this is a vicious place. Washington DC is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the– the bad mouthing,
the speaking behind your back. –but – you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS
60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pm
The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization
finally collapses.
ilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am
Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.
The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for
by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.
The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .
An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".
"I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,"
Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political
figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the
Americas.
"I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by
leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must
send a very clear message – 'we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and
support ' – because if we don't deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil
the body politic."
Hillary still can't admit to herself that she lost the election because she was a horrible
candidate and people refused to vote for her.
Clinton urged forces opposed to rightwing populism in Europe and the US not to neglect the
concerns about race and i dentity issues that she says were behind her losing key votes in
2016. She accused Trump of exploiting the issue in the election contest – and in
office.
"The use of immigrants as a political device and as a symbol of government gone wrong, of
attacks on one's heritage, one's identity, one's national unity has been very much exploited
by the current administration here," she said.
"There are solutions to migration that do not require clamping down on the press, on your
political opponents and trying to suborn the judiciary, or seeking financial and political
help from Russia to support your political parties and movements."
Let's recap what Obama's coup in
Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine
might have something to do with the rise of " populists on the right " that is
spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama
regime began planning
for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside
the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist,
or nazi, political parties , Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the
Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party,
or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call
instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will
be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy
organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media
misrepresented as 'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but
still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said
he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup
there).
"... Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism. ..."
"... Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world. ..."
"... "We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold." ..."
"... The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult. ..."
"... Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question. ..."
"... In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. ..."
Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments
as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history
for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.
Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks
the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.
She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her
last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final
straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative
fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition
partners.
Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the
dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain
for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors,
Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal
in the postwar world.
One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated
her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey
to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed
her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within
the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have
left them for the AfD.
Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question
of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has
"utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society)
and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were
rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.
For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject.
Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to
be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with
those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.
"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later,
she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male
asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at
the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as
"Merkel the Bold."
Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, TheNew York Times
reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed
that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always
the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement
whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end
of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.
The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's
socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of
sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European
criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics),
she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim
world might prove difficult.
Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants
during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.
In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself.
Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came
in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.
In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become
more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.
Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars
.
Trump represents himself and expects the little people (IE, everyone except him and his
children) to exist only for him, the spoiled daddy-created globalist so-called billionaire
who doesn't have a clue WTF he's doing as POTUS besides infotaining and enflaming his racist
base, plus giving into the GOP party line on all substantive issues with the result being
more of the same as Barry-O, only worse.
Personally, I enjoy him from an infotainment perspective. We are all only infotaining
ourselves to death anyway, so Trump's just added comedic grist to enliven our time in hospice
care.
Did you expect or hope for another in the globalist class, maybe as slick as Barry-O,
who appealed to the edumacated coastal elites in his incredibly pompous and phony
addresses?
I expected a globalist (either Trump or Hillary) but hoped for Bernie.
Trump is not antithesis. This is where you are most mistaken. If he were the truth (as you
state), there would be stronger social security, Medicare and Medicaid for his base, no tax
cuts favouring corporations, LLCs and the very rich.
There would be newly created infrastructure and improved healthcare.
The trade war would already be won and the wealth equality gap would be well on the road
to closure.
The Pittsburgh attack was conveniently timed to distract US media from another murderous
onslaught by Israel on Gaza. The IDF targets included a Gaza hospital.
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists
have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against
criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would
include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were
coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)
Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point
because he was taken alive, but who knows.
Posted by: Pft | Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39 Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
If I understood correctly his attack was against the Jewish organisation that brings
immigrants. Because he sees that as the enemy action.
I left the United States
because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in
New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to
being without the normal help she gets from the Danish
system. We...
(more)
Loading
I left the United States
because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in
New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to
being without the normal help she gets from the Danish
system. We made the move a few years ago, and right
away our lives started to improve dramatically.
Now I am working in IT,
making a great money, with private health insurance.
Yes I pay high taxes, but the benefits outweigh the
costs. The other things is that the Danish people
trust in the government and trust in each other. There
is no need for #metoo or blacklivesmatter, because the
people already treat each other with respect.
While I now enjoy an easier
life in Denmark, I sit back and watch the country I
fiercely love continue to fall to pieces because of
divisive rhetoric and the corporate greed buying out
our government.
Trump is just a symptom of
the problem. If people could live in the US as they
did 50 years ago, when a single person could take care
of their entire family, and an education didn't cost
so much, there would be no need for this revolution.
But wages have been stagnant since the 70's and the
wealth has shifted upwards from the middle class to
the top .001 percent. This has been decades in the
making. You can't blame Obama or Trump for this.
Meanwhile, I sit in Denmark
watching conservatives blame liberalism, immigrants,
poor people, and socialism, while Democrats blame
rednecks, crony capitalism, and republican greed.
Everything is now "fake news". Whether it be CNN or
FOX, no one knows who to trust anymore. Everything has
become a conspiracy. Our own president doesn't even
trust his own FBI or CIA. And he pushes conspiracy
theories to mobilize his base. I am glad to be away
from all that, and living in a much healthier
environment, where people aren't constantly attacking
one another.
Maybe if the US can get it's
healthcare and education systems together, I would
consider moving back one day. But it would also be
nice if people learned to trust one another, and trust
in the system again. Until then, I prefer to be around
emotionally intelligent people, who are objective, and
don't fall for every piece of propaganda. Not much of
that happening in America these days. The left has
gone off the deep end playing identity politics and
focusing way too much on implementing government
mandated Social Justice. Meanwhile the conservatives
are using any propaganda and lying necessary to push
their corporate backed agenda. This is all at the cost
of our environment, our free trade agreements, peace
treaties, and our European allies. Despite how much I
love my country, I breaks my heart to say, I don't see
myself returning any time soon I'm afraid.
"... Salam's case is that America's legal immigration system needs be reformed on lines roughly similar to what the Trump administration now and others before it have long advocated: changing the rules to place a greater emphasis on the economic skills of immigrants while deemphasizing the role played by family "reunification" would ensure both that new immigrants are an economic plus to the economy and, more importantly, that they are more likely to integrate into the American cultural mainstream. ..."
"... First of all, Salam reminds us, an alarming number of recent immigrants and their families are poor. This does not mean that almost all of them have not improved their economic status by migration: they have. ..."
"... Salam explains that under the current system, most visas are doled out according to family ties -- not skills or education. And the larger the number of immigrants is from a given country, the lower their average earnings and educational outcomes will be in the U.S. Conversely, the harder it is for a given group to enter the United States, the more likely it is that immigrants will be drawn from the top of their country's pecking order. ..."
Why Not a Merit-Based Immigration System?Reihan Salam's latest book makes the
case for an overhaul along Trumpian lines.
It's hard to imagine a more needed contribution to America's immigration debate than Reihan
Salam's civil, sober, and penetrating Melting Pot or Civil War? At a moment when the
major dueling discourses revolve around lurid depictions of immigrant crime by one side, and
appeals to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and accusations of racism by the other,
Salam's data-driven argument about the future consequences of today's immigration choices could
not be more timely.
While Salam is the child of middle-class professionals from Bangladesh who settled in New
York at a time when there were virtually no Bengali speakers in the city (there are now tens of
thousands), apart from a few personal anecdotes, his book could have been written by an author
of any ethnicity. Yet in our increasingly racialized debate, an argument made by a "son of
immigrants" (as the book's subtitle announces) may be less likely to face summary dismissal
from the centrist liberals and moderates who are its most important audience.
Salam's case is that America's legal immigration system needs be reformed on lines roughly
similar to what the Trump administration now and others before it have long advocated: changing
the rules to place a greater emphasis on the economic skills of immigrants while deemphasizing
the role played by family "reunification" would ensure both that new immigrants are an economic
plus to the economy and, more importantly, that they are more likely to integrate into the
American cultural mainstream. This would put the U.S. more in line with the generally
politically popular systems in place in Canada and Australia. The proposal is tempered, or
balanced, by measures to shore up the condition of the American working poor and an amnesty
giving long-term resident illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, as well as ambitious
measures to enhance economic development in the Third World.
But the meat of Melting Pot or Civil War? is not in the proposal but in the getting
to it -- a route which passes through numerous nuggets gleaned from contemporary research and a
depressing if persuasive analysis of the consequences if America stays on its present
course.
First of all, Salam reminds us, an alarming number of recent immigrants and their families
are poor. This does not mean that almost all of them have not improved their economic status by
migration: they have. A low-skilled job in the United States pays several times better than
such work in many countries, so low-skilled migration is, without a doubt, a benefit to
low-skilled migrants. Recent immigrants grateful for the opportunity to live in America may
accept living in poverty, though Salam is right to remind us of the miserable conditions,
redolent of the teeming tenements of the early 20th century, in which their lives often unfold.
He makes the subtle point that part of the current appeal of America's major cities to upper
middle-class professionals is the presence of a politically docile service class of low-skilled
immigrants, many of them undocumented.
But the families such immigrants form tend to be poor as well: today's immigrants face
headwinds to upward mobility that the storied Ellis Island generations did not. There was much
more need in 1900 for unskilled labor than there is now, and no substantive gap then existed in
education level between the immigrants and the general American population. The data Salam
deploys is not overly dramatic but decisive nonetheless: children of immigrants now make up 30
percent of all low-income children (where they are 24 percent of the whole); roughly half of
immigrant families have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line; nearly a third of
immigrant children grow up in families headed by someone without a high school diploma; the
average Mexican immigrant has 9.4 years of schooling, rising to 12 in the second generation but
flatlining after that.
As the gap between the earnings of American college graduates and others has grown in the
past two generations, this means that the social problem of the intergenerational transmission
of poverty is being intensified by the ever continuing flow of poor, unskilled immigrants, both
legal and illegal. And while such immigrants may well be politically quiescent, their children
are unlikely to be.
These somber facts are balanced, and in many ways veiled, by the immigrant success stories
which Americans rightly celebrate. But while it may be unkind to say so, immigrants don't
arrive as blank slates, mysteriously sorted out upon reaching these shores so that some become
doctors and software entrepreneurs.
As Salam makes clear, successful immigrants tend to come from relatively rich and urbanized
societies. The parents of Google founder Sergey Brin were accomplished scholars. An astounding
45 percent of immigrants from India -- who make up the latest version of a high-achieving
"model minority" -- are Brahmins, members of the tiny Indian hereditary upper caste. Indians
who come here tend to be "triple selected": most enter the country by way of high-skilled
worker visas, which means they are products of India's highly competitive education system,
which serves only a fraction of India's population. Similarly, Chinese immigrants tend to come
from that country's college-educated elite.
Salam explains that under the current system, most visas are doled out according to family
ties -- not skills or education. And the larger the number of immigrants is from a given
country, the lower their average earnings and educational outcomes will be in the U.S.
Conversely, the harder it is for a given group to enter the United States, the more likely it
is that immigrants will be drawn from the top of their country's pecking order.
One might conceive of this as a stable system -- after all, there are many jobs for
low-skilled immigrants. But of course immigrants have children, at rates far higher than the
native born, and the children of lower-skilled immigrants make up a continually growing share
of Americans at or near the poverty level. "The children of elite immigrants make their way
into America's elite, where they add a much needed dash of superficial diversity, enough to
make us forget their inconvenient working class counterparts." The result, of which there is
already ample evidence among the Millennial cohort of immigrant children, is a growing
population which has grown up in poverty, isn't doing especially well in income or education,
and perceives the American dream cynically, as a kind of whites-only sham. This divide will
influence our politics for the foreseeable future. The question is how much.
♦♦♦
While much of Salam's analysis is a deep dive into statistics of intergenerational poverty,
educational outcomes, and the growing achievement gap, he doesn't shy from the ominous
implications of the racialization of the immigration debate. There is ample evidence that
college-educated Americans of all ethnicities marry one another at reasonable and growing
rates, producing a fair number of mixed-race people who feel themselves part of the cultural
mainstream. As scholars have long reminded us, "white" is a broad and fungible category in
American history, and there is a fair prospect that the college-educated and middle classes
will intermarry enough to produce a 21st-century version of the storied melting pot.
But that isn't the case with poorer immigrants, even as their children learn English.
Current family unification statutes encourage poor, non-white immigrant communities to
continually replenish their new arrivals. Thus there are two competing processes going on --
amalgamation, in which more educated immigrant families are joining the middle-class
mainstream, intermarrying with whites and with one another, and racialization, in which a new
immigrant group finds itself ghettoized and cut out of the mainstream. This latter phenomenon
is most pronounced in some Mexican-American communities, which are demographically the largest
immigrant groups, but exists in many immigrant communities.
It is in this subset, for example, where ISIS has found recruits, and where -- on a less
dramatic level -- the Marxist Left is able to make inroads. As America's demography grows less
white, the political salience of radical immigrants of color is likely to grow. While Salam
exercises great restraint describing the phenomenon, his foreboding is unmistakable: "The
danger, as I see it, is that as the logic of the melting pot fails to take hold, and as more
newcomers are incorporated into disadvantaged groups, the level of interethnic tension will
skyrocket, and we'll look back wistfully on the halcyon politics of the Trump years." Or again,
"Imagine an America in which wealthy whites and Asians wall themselves off from the rest of
society and low wage immigrants and their offspring constitute a new underclass."
Of course it is not merely racial minority immigrants who are tempted by political
radicalism. The current extremist white backlash is widely noted by scholars and journalists.
But among the liberal establishment it is viewed not as problem to be alleviated but a social
development to be crushed. Salam observes immigration scholars who are scrupulous about
reporting the ways immigration is making America less united, threatening social cohesion,
"leading to greater divisions and tensions," while never considering reducing or reforming
immigration (with greater emphasis on skills) as a possible answer to the problems. They hope
-- against considerable social science evidence that political instability is endemic to
multicultural societies -- that greater diversity will somehow bury ethnic conflict. This Salam
calls the Backlash Paradox: while mass immigration contributes to bigotry and polarization, the
only acceptable option among elites is to double down and hope the storm passes, as slowing the
pace of immigration is considered a "callow surrender to bigotry."
I have focused on the social and political elements, but Salam's argument also relies a
great deal on economics, much of it focused on economic choices molded by a relatively
high-skilled or low-skilled labor force. His major point is that labor shortages spur
technological innovation, while loose labor markets discourage it. Labor scarcity, Salam
observes, has been the historical secret to American prosperity, spurring one labor-saving
innovation after another. A high-immigration economy, with a completely elastic number of
workers willing to work for a minimum wage or less, is an economy under a completely different
calculus. There is no question we should prefer the first.
♦♦♦
I have only minor caveats with this outstanding book. It might be a necessary concession to
the immigrationist lobby to maintain the raw number of immigrants as high as it is at present,
but it seems likely that lowering it to, say, half a million a year, roughly the number urged
by the Clinton administration's task force on immigration, would break the fever more quickly
and lead to far more rapid assimilation of recent immigrants.
I find Salam's earnest plea for the United States to dramatically raise its spending to
accelerate economic development in the Third World well intended, but likely futile. An answer
which comes to mind is one that diplomat George F. Kennan suggested a quarter of a century ago,
that the single greatest benefit the United States can deliver to the world's poor is to
maintain itself as a relatively high civilization able to inspire by example, and provide help
and insight to others seeking answers to their problems.
And though it is a subject in itself, I wish Salam had directly addressed the new leftist
ideology built around the fighting of "white privilege" -- which now includes under its rubric
everything from getting rid of standardized tests to delegitimizing police departments, railing
against the First Amendment to ripping down statues of long-admired white Americans. This
largely white-led phenomenon does far more to intensify nativist dread about being reduced to
minority status than any racist agitation leveled against immigrants of color, however
lamentable the latter might be.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon:
Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .
Dr. Hart's book is invaluable because it highlights some of the basic truths about America
that modern-day histories simply conceal. For example, he writes: "America is much younger than
most European
nations . It did not exist at all prior to 1600 AD but was created
in the ' colonial era .'"
Dr. Hart provides a basic history of America's development, including highlighting specific
incidents that ultimately proved critical to the future of the polity. One of the more
interesting was the Zenger
trial, a
colonial case in which a journalist criticized the local governor
and was charged with libel. A grand jury refused to indict Zenger, accepting his defense that
the things he printed were true. Thanks to this case, Americans can claim truth as an absolute
defense in libel cases, something
our British cousins lack .
A highlight of Dr. Hart's history is his careful attention to demographic issues. For
example, he scoffs at the claim sometimes heard within the
dimmer quarters of the
American Conservative Movement that the Constitution was a "miracle." Instead, Dr. Hart
shows that the authors of America's governing document shared linguistic, cultural, racial, and
experiential factors that
allowed them to work together. (Contemporary American statesmen possess no such unanimity.)
Dr. Hart is also not blind to the Constitution's faults, especially its failure to designate
how and who has the power to interpret it -- specifically, not necessarily the Kritarchs on the Supreme Court.
Dr. Hart is also clearsighted regarding immigration. He does not accept the now de
rigueur analysis that immigration from widely disparate regions was always a feature of
American life. "Before 1849,
immigrants to the Untied States came mostly from the Protestant
regions of northwest Europe, including Holland , Sweden, Norway , Germany and Great
Britain," he observes. He also provides an honest assessment of the difficulties Irish immigration
presented for 19 th century America and argues that despite speaking English, "they
assimilated very slowly."
Dr. Hart argues the "Golden Age" of the United States extended from 1865 to 1991. "During
that interval the United States stood out for its wealth, for its military might, and for its
unprecedented set of practical inventions and scientific discoveries," he argues. Indeed, one
of the best parts of the book is when Dr. Hart recounts the numerous inventions and scientific
advances America has given to the world.
However, Dr. Hart's most invaluable contribution is in detailing what he sees as the
symptoms of America's decline after the Cold War. America's indebtedness, relatively poor military
performance , loss of Constitutional liberties, and collapse of artistic standards are all
covered. Two other issues highly relevant to immigration patriots are what Dr. Hart calls
"political problems" and "loss of confidence and national pride."
Dr. Hart details how Democratic politicians have diligently opposed any efforts to
implement common-sense voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Media bias is another major
political problem, one an increasing number of Americans are awakening to. Finally, Dr. Hart
identifies the "increase in racial hostilities" as both a symptom and a cause of America's
increasing political problems. "Black hostility towards whites is constantly being stirred up
by 'race hustlers' such as
Al Sharpton , who deny any good faith on the part of whites," he writes. "Many people deny
that any progress has been made in the status and treatment of black Americans -- a blatant
untruth which increases black suspicions and hostilities."
Similarly, the decline in national pride is partially a product of how the charge of
"racism" has delegitimized our entire national history. "According to many of these critics,
our Constitution was produced by a group of 'Dead White European Males' (DWEMs, for short) who
do not deserve any respect," he writes. As a result of internalizing this poisonous attack on
America's heritage, some advocate Open Borders as a kind of historical reparations of
punishment for a "racist" country.
Dr. Hart writes:
One result of these attitudes is that many Americans find it unreasonable for the United
States to defend its borders. (After all, since we stole the country from the Indians, we
have no real claim on our land.) Sometimes these views lead to people suggesting that
non-citizens should be permitted to vote in American elections. In any disagreement or
conflict between the United States and a foreign group, many of these critics tend to blame
America first. Many of these critics do not even pretend to be patriotic.
Dr. Hart identifies a host of causes to explain the emergence of these symptoms. Though they
are too many to cover here, two very much worth mentioning are
Dr. Hart points out that for all the talk about white racism, the vast majority of
interracial crime is committed by blacks against whites. Hatred of whites is not only
mainstream but cultivated by the Main Stream Media, the education system, and even some
Democratic politicians -- a coalition that Dr. Hart judges is too powerful to break.
Similarly, Dr. Hart details the disastrous consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act and
explicitly calls for its repeal, but he is pessimistic about the prospects for doing so.
The most explosive part of the book is its concluding chapter, in which Dr. Hart discusses
the various scenarios by which the United States could "fall," either by breaking up, being
extinguished, or losing its political independence and being subsumed into a larger polity. All
of these terrible scenarios have vastly increased in likelihood because of the destabilizing
and destructive effects of mass immigration.
The "fall" of the United States may even occur without most people even noticing it at the
time. "Without any foreign conquest, and without any sharp break, the USA might be transformed
into a multinational state without any loyalty to our English origin," he writes. "In fact,
such a process may already be in process."
During his discussion of causes for American decline, Dr. Hart identifies the most important
"by far" as the "loss of pride and confidence." He blames this on the relentless hate campaign
waged against "our ancestors" by educators and the Main Stream Media, leading to a situation in
which Americans feel "ashamed of their country." In other words, Dr. Hart is really talking
about a loss of identity.
With his history of the United States, and his frank discussion of the issues endangering
its existence, Dr. Hart has performed a valuable service for Americans seeking to reclaim their
national identity. For anyone curious about their country's past and concerned about its
future, The Rise And
Fall Of The United States (full disclosure: A VDARE book -- who else would
publish it?) is well worth purchasing.
If/when America does break apart, it will not be a result of conventional war. The
attack/upheaval will come from within.
Ironically, the trillions spent by Washington on our global MIC will not, in the end,
protect the American people from what is now our greatest threat: internal treason against
Historic America and its core people.
Ironically, instead of returning home to protect US borders when the cold war ended,
American troops were dispersed around the world to fight phantom threats and protect
non-essential foreign entities and extra-national interests.
This ongoing waste of US resources abroad continues to serve the interests of globalists,
militarists, and Zionists. Meanwhile, our domestic security, our Main Street economy, and the
continuity of white, European-derived culture and people inside America gets short shrift.
This glaring disconnect may be our nation's undoing.
The 'proposition nation' concept was a fraud from the start since it ignores the vital
significance of race, culture, language, and IQ.
The engine for America's coming implosion is demographic: uninterrupted, illegal,
non-white immigration by Third World refugees. Hostile elites who now dominate America are
also key. They refuse to acknowledge the perils of 'diversity'. Many want America changed,
irreversibly so.
Meanwhile, white identity and white cohesion have been demonized in our schools as well as
by our dominant mass media. This campaign has undermined white identity, white cohesion and
white interests in general.
Numerous, politically-correct expressions of anti-white hatred are now in wide
circulation. These hate-terms are, ironically, protected from criticism even though they are
applied selectively to target whites. Those few who contest these double-standards (including
Pres. Trump) are routinely defamed by comparisons to 'Hitler' or references to the KKK. The
basic translation comes down to this: Shut up.
This unhealthy and insidious paradigm is here by design. It is used to not only justify
anti-white animus, but to legitimize anti-white violence whenever and wherever whites try to
assemble and express their grievances and/or aspirations. This very sinister double-standard
has taken deep root. It is nurtured by biased reporting and coverage. It has spawned
'antifa'.
Modern speech rules and penalties favor privileged 'minorities' just as they cleary
disfavor and penalize white advocacy.
Among the popular terms that lend support to anti-white bigotry are: 'racist', 'nativist',
'white supremacy', 'Islamophobia', and 'anti-Semitism'.
These shame-inducing memes have 1) contaminated the American mind and 2) empowered our
race-conscious adversaries. They must be deconstructed and deligimized if we are to protect
our interests and preserve America's demographic core.
Resistance, cohesion and self-defense are not fascistic sentiments. They are legitimate
expressions of democratic self-determination.
"... "I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc." ..."
The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut
down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row
in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing
funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.
"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes
for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery,
Catch & Release etc."
I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for
Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc.
and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our
Country!
"... "I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc." ..."
The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut
down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row
in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing
funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.
"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes
for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery,
Catch & Release etc."
I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for
Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc.
and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our
Country!
"... By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga . ..."
"... Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports . ..."
"... The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries. ..."
"... The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues: ..."
"... I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants. ..."
"... In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus. ..."
"... If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction. ..."
"... "Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force." ..."
"... never export their way out of poverty and misery ..."
By Enrico Verga,
a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he
concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His
articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many
other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga .
International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force:
profit.
In recent times, the Western middle class (by which I mean in particular industrial workers
and office employees) has lost a large number of jobs and has seen its buying power fall. It
isn't true that migrants are the source of all evil in the world. However, under current
conditions, they become a locus for the exasperation of the population at twenty years of
pro-globalization politics. They are tragically placed in the role of the straw that breaks the
camel's back.
Western businesses have slipped jobs overseas to countries with low labor costs, while the
middle class has been pushed into debt in order to try to keep up. The Glass-Steagall law and
other brakes on American banks were abolished by a cheerleader for globalization, Bill Clinton,
and these banks subsequently lost all restraints in their enthusiasm to lend. The cherry on top
of the sundae was the real estate bubble and ensuing crash of 2008.
A damning picture of the results of 20 years of globalization is provided by
Forbes , capitalism's magazine par excellence. Already in 2016, the surprise victory of
Trump led to questions about whether the blond candidate's win was due in part to the straits
of the American middle class, impoverished as a result of the pro-globalization politics of
figures like Clinton and Obama.
Further support for this thesis is furnished by the
New York Times , describing the collapse of the stars-and-stripes middle class. Its
analysis is buttressed by lengthy research from the very mainstream
Pew Center , which agrees that the American middle class is vanishing.
And Europe? Although the European middle class has been squeezed less than its American
counterpart, for us as well the picture doesn't look good. See for example the
analysis of the Brookings Institute , which discusses not only the flagging economic
fortunes of the European middle class, but also the fear of prosperity collapsing that
currently grips Europe.
Migrants and the Shock Doctrine
What do economic migrants have to do with any of this?
Far be it from me to criticize large corporations, but clearly they – and their
managers and stockholders – benefit from higher margins. Profits (revenue minus costs and
expenses) can be maximized by reducing expenses. To this end, the costs of acquiring goods
(metals, agricultural products, energy, etc.) and services (labor) need to fall steadily.
In the quest to lower the cost of labor, the most desirable scenario is a sort of blank
slate: to erase ongoing arrangements with workers and start over from zero, building a new
"happy and productive" economy. This operation can be understood as a sort of "shock
doctrine."
The term "economic shock therapy" is based on an analogy with electroshock therapy for
mental patients. One important analysis of it comes from Naomi Klein , who became
famous explaining in 2000 the system of fashion production through subsidiaries that don't
adhere to the safety rules taken so seriously in Western countries (some of you may recall the
scandal of
Benetton and Rana Plaza , where more than a thousand workers at a Bangladesh factory
producing Benetton (and other) clothes were crushed under a collapsing building).
Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations
freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest)
labor force. Sometimes relocating from one nation to another is not possible, but if you can
bring the job market of other countries here in the form of a low-cost mass of people competing
for employment, then why bother?
The Doctrine in Practice
Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany
successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of
this achievement is the exploitation of workers
from the former East, as Reuters reports .
The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has
allowed many European businesses to
shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker
is much lower (
by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries.
The migrant phenomenon is a perfect counterpoint to a threadbare middle class, given its
role as a success story within the narrative of globalization.
Economic migrants are eager to obtain wealth on the level of the Western middle class
– and this is of course a legitimate desire. However, to climb the social ladder, they
are willing to do anything: from accepting low albeit legal salaries to picking tomatoes
illegally (
as Alessandro Gassman, son of the famous actor, reminded us ).
The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization,
while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a
journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi
continues:
This mirage has fallen under the blows it has received from the most serious economic
crisis since the Second World War. Foreign trade, easy credit (with the American real estate
bubble of 2008 as a direct consequence), peace missions in Libya (carried out by
pro-globalization French and English actors, with one motive being in my opinion the
diversion of energy resources away from [the Italian] ENI) were supposed to have created a
miracle; they have in reality created a climate of global instability.
Italy is of course not untouched by this phenomenon. It's easy enough to give an
explanation for the Five Stars getting votes from part of the southern electorate that is
financially in trouble and might hope for some sort of subsidy, but the North? The choice of
voting center right (with a majority leaning toward Lega) can be explained in only one way
– the herd (the middle class) has tried to rise up.
I asked him, "So in your opinion, is globalization in stasis? Or is it radically
changing?" He replied:
I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen
recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself
forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an
influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just
think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic
migrants.
This is an important element in the success of Lega: it is a force that has managed to
understand clearly the exhaustion of the impoverished middle class, and that has proposed a
way out, or has at least elaborated a vision opposing the rose-colored glasses of
globalization.
In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on
which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily
focus.
What Conflicts Are Most Relevant Today?
At the same time, if we observe, for example in Italy, the positions taken by the
(pro-globalization?) Left, it becomes easier to understand why the middle class and also many
blue collar workers are abandoning it. Examples range from the unfortunate declarations of
deputy Lia Quartapelle on
the need to support the Muslim Brotherhood to the explanations of the former president of
the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, on how the status of economic migrant should be seen as a model for the
lifestyle of all Italians . These remarks were perhaps uttered lightly (Quartapelle
subsequently took her post down and explained that she had made a mistake), but they are
symptomatic of a certain sort of pro-globalization cultural "Left" that finds talking to
potential voters less interesting than other matters.
From Italy to America (where
Hillary Clinton was rejected after promoting major international trade arrangements that
she claimed would benefit middle-class American workers) to the UK (where Brexit has been taken as a sort of
exhaust valve), the middle class no longer seems to be snoring.
We are currently seeing a political conflict between globalist and nationalist forces.
Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection
for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at
controlling international trade.
If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side
has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new
direction.
Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns
of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to
globalization.
If the distinction between globalism and nationalism is in practice trumping other
differences, then we should not let ourselves be distracted by bright and shiny objects, and
keep our focus on what really matters.
From the Forbes link:
"The first downside of international trade that even proponents of freer trade must
acknowledge is that while the country as a whole gains some people do lose."
More accurate to say a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage gain.
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP. Yes, GDP goes up – but
that word that can never be uttered by American corporate media – DISTRIBUTION –
that essentially ALL gains in GDP have gone to the very top. AND THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL
DECISION, not like the waves of the ocean or natural selection. There is plenty that could be
done about it – BUT it STARTS with WANTING to do something effective about it .
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP.
Fresno Dan,
You have identified one of my pet peeves about economists and their fellow traveler
politicians. They hide behind platitudes, and the former are more obnoxious about that.
Economists will tell people that they just don't understand all that complexity, and that in
the name of efficiency, etc, free trade and the long slide toward neo-liberal hell must
continue.
I think the assertion that all economic gains have gone to the very top is not accurate.
According to 'Unintended Consequences' by Ed Conard, the 'composition of the work force has
shifted to demographics with lower incomes' between 1980 and 2005. If you held the workforce
of 1980 steady through 2005, wages would be up 30% in real terms, not including benefits.
I think the author has highlighted some home truths in the article. I once remember
several years ago just trying to raise the issue of immigration* and its impact on workers on
an Irish so-called socialist forum. Either I met silence or received a reply along the lines:
'that when socialists rule the EU we'll establish continental wide standards that will ensure
fairness for everyone'. Fairy dust stuff. I'm not anti immigrant in any degree but it seems
unwise not to understand and mitigate the negative aspects of policies on all workers. Those
chickens are coming home to roost by creating the type of political parties (new or
established) that now control the EU and many world economies.
During the same period many younger middle and upper middle class Irish extolled the
virtues, quite openly, of immigration as way of lowering the power and wages of existing
Irish workers so that the costs of building homes, labour intensive services and the like
would be concretely reduced; and that was supposed to be a good thing for the material well
being of these middle and upper middle classes. Sod manual labour.
One part of the working class was quite happy to thrown another part of the working class
under the bus and the Left**, such as it was and is, was content to let it happen. Then
established Leftist parties often facilitated the rightward economic process via a host of
policies, often against their own stated policies in election manifestos. The Left appeared
deceitful. The Irish Labour party is barely alive and subsisting on die-hard traditionalists
for their support by those who can somehow ignore the deceit of their party. Surreaslist
stuff from so-called working class parties,
And now the middle-middle classes are ailing and we're supposed to take notice. Hmmm. Yet,
as a Leftist, myself, it is incumbent upon us to address the situation and assist all
workers, whatever their own perceived status.
*I'm an immigrant in the UK currently, though that is about to change next year.
** Whether the "Left", such as the Irish Labour Party, was just confused or bamboozled
matters not a jot. After the financial crises that became an economic crisis, they zealously
implemented austerity policies that predominantly cleared the way for a right wing political
landscape to dominate throughout Europe. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who
called themselves Leftists secretly believed that only right wing, neo-liberal economic
policies were correct. And I suppose, being a bit cynical, that a few politicos were paid
handsomely for their services.
I think its easy to see why the more middle class elements of the left wing parties never
saw immigration as a problem – but harder to see why the Trade Unions also bought into
this. Partly I think it was a laudable and genuine attempt to ensure they didn't buy into
racism – when you look at much trade union history, its not always pleasant reading
when you see how nakedly racist some early trade union activists were, especially in the US.
But I think there was also a process whereby Unions increasingly represented relatively
protected trades and professions, while they lost ground in more vulnerable sectors, such as
in construction.
I think there was also an underestimation of the 'balancing' effect within Europe. I think
a lot of activists understimated the poverty in parts of Europe, and so didn't see the
expansion of the EU into eastern Europe as resulting in the same sort of labour arbitrage
thats occurred between the west and Asia. I remember the discussions over the enlargement of
the EU to cover eastern Europe and I recall that there seemed to be an inbuilt assumption
(certainly in the left), that rising general prosperity would ensure there would be no real
migration impact on local jobs. This proved to be entirely untrue.
Incidentally, in my constituency (Dublin Central) in past elections the local Labour party
was as guilty as any of pandering to the frequent racism encountered on the doorsteps in
working class areas. But it didn't do them much good. Interestingly, SF was the only party
who would consistently refuse to pander (At least in Dublin), making the distinction between
nationalist and internationalist minded left wingers even more confusing.
Yes, one has to praise the fact that the Unions didn't pander to racism – but that's
about all the (insert expletive of choice) did correctly.
Your other points, as ever, are relevant and valid but (and I must but) I tend to think
that parties like Labour were too far "breezy" about the repercussions about labour
arbitrage. But that's water under the bridge now.
Speaking about SF and the North West in general, they have aggressively canvassed recent
immigrants and have not tolerated racism among their ranks. Their simple reasoning was that
is unthinkable that SF could tolerate such behaviour amongst themselves when they has waged a
campaign against such attitudes and practices in the six counties. (SF are no saints, often
fumble the ball badly, and are certainly not the end-all-be-all, but this is something they
get right).
It has to be understood that much of immigration is occurring because of war, famine,
collapsing societies (mostly due to massive wealth inequality and corrupt governments).
Immigration is not the cause of the economic issues in the EU, it's a symptom (or a feature
if you're on top). If you don't correct the causes – neo-liberalism, kleptocracy,
rigged game – what ever you want to call it, then you too will become an immigrant in
your own country (and it will be a third world country by the time the crooks on top are
done).
Don't get caught up in the blame the other poor people game. It's a means to get the
powerless to fight among themselves. They are not in charge, they are victims just like
you.
Having spent a lot of time in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and Iraq I have to
say that rampant overpopulation plays a big part. Anyone who can get out is getting out. It
makes sense. And with modern communications they all know how life is in Europe or the US in
contrast to the grinding horror that surrounds them.
But Conan tells me that Haiti is a tropical paradise! (my brother too spent a lot of time
in Afghanistan and Iraq working with the locals during his deployments)
"Twitter liberalism" is doing itself by not recognizing that much of the developing world
IS a corrupt cesspool.
Instead of railing against Trump, the Twitter-sphere needs to rail against the bipartisan
policies that drive corruption, and economic dislocations and political dislocations. and
rail against religious fundamentalism that hinders family planning.
But if you actually do that, rail against bipartisan neoliberal policies on social media
and IRL, the conservatives are far less hostile than the die-hard Dems. This is especially
true now, with all the frothing at the mouth and bloodlust about Russia. Its raised their
"it's ALL *YOUR* FAULT"-ism by at least an order of magnitude.
Actually, that's been true since the 18th C., at least for the US. TV may make it more
vivid, and Europe has changed places, but most Americans have immigrant ancestors, most often
from Europe.
However, it does seem that the policy of the EU, especially under the influence of Mutti
Merkel, signalled a free-for-all immigration stance over the last several years, completely
ignoring the plight of existing workers (many of whom would be recent immigrants themselves
and the children of immigrants). That the so-called Left either sat idly by or jumped on
Mutti's band wagon didn't do them any favours with working people. Every country or customs
union has and needs to regulate its borders. It also makes some sense to monitor labour
markets when unfavourable conditions appear.
It appears that only the wealthy are largely reaping the rewards of the globalist
direction trade has taken. These issues need to be addressed by the emerging Left political
parties in the West. Failure to address these issues must, I would contend, play into the
hands of the more right wing parties whose job is to often enrich the local rich.
But, bottom line, your are correct workers do not come out well when blaming other workers
for economies that have been intentionally created to produce favourable conditions for the
few over the many.
It's a blade with two sides.
There are push factors like the wars and poor countries. However neither of these causes can
be fixed. Not possible. Europe can gnash their teeth all they want, not even when they did
the unthinkable and put the US under sanctions for their warcrimes would the US ever stop.
First there would be color revolutions in western europe.
As important as the push factors are the pull ones. 90% or so of all refugees 2015 went to
Germany. Some were sent to other countries by the EU, these too immediately moved to Germany
and didn't stay where they were assigned. So the EU has to clean up their act and would need
to put the last 10 or so US presidents and administrations before a judge in Den Haag for
continued war crimes and crimes against humanity (please let me my dreams). The EU would also
need to clean up their one sided trade treaties with Africa and generally reign in their own
corporations. All that is however not enough by far and at most only half the battle. Even
when the EU itself all did these things, the poverty would remain and therefore the biggest
push factor. Humans always migrate to the place where the economy is better.
The pull factors is however at least as big. The first thing to do is for Germany to fix
their laws to be in sync with the other EU countries. At this point, Germany is utterly
alone, at most some countries simply don't speak out against german policy since they want
concessions in other areas. Main one here is France with their proposed EU and Euro reforms
but not alone by far.
Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic
migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.
Socialism in one country is a Stalinist theory, and falling back upon it in fear of
international capital is not only regressive but (assuming we aren't intentionally ignoring
history) relective of a defensive mentality.
In other words, this kind of thinking is the thinking of the whipped dog cringing before
the next blow.
Or perhaps they want to regulate and control the power of capital in their country. Which
is an entirely impossible proposition considering that capital can flee any jurisdiction and
cross any border. After all, transnational capital flows which were leveraged to the hilt in
speculative assets played an oversized role in generating the financial crisis and subsequent
crash.
It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a Stalinist though.
And why would we care whether it's a "Stalinist" theory? For that matter, although worker
ownership would solve some of these problems, we needn't be talking about socialism, but
rather about more functional capitalism.
Quite a leap in that last sentence; you haven't actually established anything of the
sort.
Personally, I believe capitalism needs to go away, but for it, or any other economic
system, to work, we would need a fair, equal, just, enforced rule of law that
everyone would be under, wouldn't we?
Right now the blessed of our various nations do not want this, so they make so that one
set is unfair, unequal, unjust, harshly enforced on most of their country's population while
they get the gentle rules.
For a society to function long term, it needs to have a fair and just set of rules that
everyone understands and follow, although the rules don't have to equal; people will tolerate
different levels of punishments and strictness of the rules. The less that is the case the
more dysfunctional, and usually the more repressive it is. See the Western Roman Empire, the
fall of just about every Chinese dynasty, the Russian Empire, heck even the American War of
Independence, and the American Civil War. In example, people either actively worked to
destroy the system or did not care to support it.
Thank you for the article, a pretty lucid analysis of the recent electoral results in
Italy and trends elsewhere. Although I would have liked to read something about people voting
the way they do because they are xenophobe fascist baby-eating pedophile racist Putin
friends. Just for fun.
Funny how the author's company promotes "Daily international job vacancies in UNDP, FAO,
UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the other Governative Organization, Non Governative Organization,
Multinationals Corporations. Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development."
Precisely the sort of jobs that infuriates the impoverishing middle classes.
As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders defended not only border security, but also national
sovereignty. Asked about expanded immigration, Sanders flipped the question into a critique
of open-borders libertarianism: "That's a Koch brothers proposal which says essentially there
is no United States."
Unfortunately the ethnic division of the campaign and Hillary's attack seems to have led him
to change his mind.
That's probably due to the fact that just about everybody can't seem to differentiate
between immigration and mass migration. The latter issue is a matter of distributing the pain
of a collapsing order. state failure, and climate change while the former is simply engaging
in the comfortable rhetoric of politics dominated by the American middle class.
1 people vote they like. im not updated if the voters eat babies but i'll check and let u
know.
2 My company is not dream job. It is a for free ( and not making a penny) daily bulleting
that using a fre soft (paper.li) collect international qualified job offers for whoever is
willing to work in these sector.
i'm not pro or contro migrants. i actually only reported simple fact collating differents
point :)
Economic migrants seek prosperity and are justified in doing so, yet they can also be
seen as pawns in an international strategy that destroys the negotiating leverage of
workers. The resulting contradictions potentially render conventional political
classifications obsolete.
This appears on the homepage, but not here.
In any case, the 10% also seek prosperity. They are said to be the enablers of the 1%.
Until the left alters its thinking to reflect the crucial information presented in this
video, information more clearly and comprehensively spelled out in "Reclaiming the State" by
Mitchell and Fazi, resurgent rightwing nationalism will be the only outlet for those who
reject global neoliberalism's race to the bottom. It's that simple and sad.
To paint this as two pro-globalisation (within which you place the left) and
pro-nationalism is simplistic and repositions the false dichotomy of left vs right with
something just as useless. We should instead seek to speak to the complexities of the modern
political spectrum. This is an example of poor journalism and analysis and shouldn't have
been posted here, sorry Yves.
Thanks for your opinion. Check the format of this place: articles selected for information
or provoking thoughts, in support of a general position of driving toward betterment of the
general welfare, writ large.
The political economy is at least as complex as the Krebs or citric acid cycle that
biology students and scientists try to master. There are so many moving parts and
intersecting and competing interests that in the few words that the format can accommodate,
regarding each link, it's a little unkind to expect some master work of explication and
rhetorical closure every time.
The Krebs cycle is basically driven by the homeostatic thrust, bred of billions of years
of refinement, to maintain the healthy functioning and prolong life of the organism. There's
a perceivable axis to all the many parts of respiration, digestion, energy flows and such,
all inter-related with a clear organizing principle at the level of the organism. On the
record, it's hardly clear that at the level of the political economy, and all the many parts
that make it up, there is sufficient cohesion around a set of organizing principles that
parallel the drive, at the society and species level, to regulate and promote the energy
flows and interactions that would keep things healthy and prolong the life of the larger
entity. Or that their is not maybe a death wish built into the "cultural DNA" of most of the
human population.
Looks a lot to me that we actually have been invested (in both the financial and military
senses of the word) by a bunch of different cancer processes, wild and unregulated
proliferation of ecnomic and political tumor tissues that have invaded and undermined the
healthy organs of the body politic. Not so clear what the treatments might be, or the
prognosis. It is a little hopeful, continuing the biological analogy, that the equivalents of
inflammation and immune system processes appear to be overcoming the sneaky tricks that
cancer genes and cells employ to evade being identified and rendered innocuous.
Yes, "invested in a bunch of cancer processes" is a good description of allowing excessive
levels of predatory wealth. Thus you end up with a bunch of Jay Gould hyper capitalists whose
guiding principle is: I can always pay one half of the working class to kill the other half.
Divide and conquer rules.
It's mostly simply wrong. This doesn't describe the political views of almost anyone near
power anywhere as far as I can tell:
"Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want
protection for work and workers, "
Most of the nationalist forces are on the right and give @#$# all for workers rights.
Really they may be anti-immigrant but they are absolutely anti-worker.
The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists to
distract the workers from their essential unity as fellow wage slaves. Some make more wages,
some make less wages but they all have their surplus value, the money left over after they
have enough to take care of themselves, taken by the capitalist and used for his ends even
though he may not have worked in the value creation process at all.
Economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home
country to somewhere else by the capitalist system. While the article does mention capitalist
shock doctrine methods for establishing imperialism and correctly notes that economic
migrants are victims, it then goes on to try to lay a weak and insidious argument against
them. The author goes on citing multiple different cases of worker wages being driven lower
or stagnating, many of these cases have differing and sometimes complex reasons for why this
happened. But migrants and globalization are to blame he says and that our struggle is
nationalism vs globalism. He refuses to see what is staring him in the face, workers produce
surplus value for society, more workers produce more surplus value. If society finds itself
wealthier with more workers then why do workers wage fall or stagnate? He does note correctly
that this is due to the workers now having a weaker bargaining position with the capitalist,
but he seems to conclude from this without stating outrightly that we should then reject the
economic migrants because of this.
However, we could instead conclude that if more workers produce more surplus value but yet
their wages fall because the capitalist takes a larger share of the overall pot, that the
problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to
exploit workers everywhere. Plus the workers bargaining position only weakens with a greater
number of them if they are all just bargaining for themselves, but if they were to bargain
togather collectively then there bargaining position has actually only grown even
stronger.
Also he falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists, instead of correctly
noting that the democratic party represents capitalist interests from a centrist position and
not the left. The strength of global capitalism can only be fought by a global coalition of
the working class. The struggle of Mexican and American workers are interrelated to each
other and the same goes for that of European and Middle Eastern workers. The time has come
for the left to raise the rallying cry of its great and glorious past.
You claim, as if it were obvious, that "economic migrants are members of the working class
who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system."
Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?
If the borders of the US were abruptly left completely open, a huge number of people would
enter the country tomorrow, for economic reasons. Would they all have been "driven" here, or
would they have some choice in the matter?
When you say, "he refuses to say what is staring him in the face, that [ ] more workers
produce more surplus value," you are not only taking a gratuitously pedantic tone, you are
actually not making a coherent critique. If economic migrants move from one country to
another, the total pool of workers in the world has not increased; while according to your
logic, if all the workers in the world were to move to Rhode Island, Rhode Island would
suddenly be swimming in the richness of surplus value.
When you say, "we could instead conclude that [..] the problem is not more workers but
instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere," you are
straw-manning the author but also making a purely rhetorical argument. If you think the
capitalist system can be replaced with a better one within the near future, then you can work
toward that; but in the meanwhile, nations, assuming that they will continue to exist, will
either have open borders or something short of that, and these decisions do affect
the lives of workers.
When you say he "falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists," the false
equivalence is coming from you. The article barely touches on the Democratic Party, and
instead draws most of its examples from Europe, especially Italy. In Italy, the public
figures he mentions call themselves part of the sinistra and are generally referred
to that way. You might perhaps feel that they are not entitled to that name (and in fact, the
article sometimes places "left" in quotation marks), but you should at least read the article
and look them up before discussing the matter.
From the article: "Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly
uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict
with the commitment to globalization."
To Be Fair, Verga clearly is skeptical about those claims to be "on the Left," as he
should be. Nonetheless, his initial mention of Democratic exemplars of globalization triggers
American reflexes.
Something before this failed to post; was rejected as a double post.
In brief: corporate globalization is a conservative, Republican policy that Bill Clinton
imposed on the Dems, where it has since become doctrine, since it pays. It's ultimately the
reason I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and in a sense the reason there IS a Green Party in the
US.
The author points to stagnant middle class income in USA and Western Europe but fail to
look the big picture. Middle class income has increased sharply in the past decades in Asia
and Eastern Europe. Overall the gain huge, even though life is tougher in richer
countries.
Overall the gain huge, even thought life is tougher in richer countries.
Please accept my apologies for saying this. I don't mean to offend. I just have to point
out something.
Many in the Democratic Party, as well as the left, are pointing to other countries and
peoples as well as the American 9.9% and saying things are great, why are you complaining?
With the not so hidden implications, sometimes openly stated that those who do are losers and
deplorables.
Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth. As an American, I do not really care about the middle classes in Asia and Eastern
Europe. Bleep the big picture. The huge gains comes with a commensurate increase in homeless
in the United States, and a falling standard of living for most the of the population,
especially in the "wealthy" states, like my state of California. Most of us are using
fingernails to stay alive and homed. If those gains had not been caused by the losses, I
would be very please to see them. As it is, I have to live under President Trump and worry
about surviving. Heck, worry about the rest of my family doing so.
"Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth."
+10,000
I mean I actually do care somewhat about the people of the world, but we here in "rich
countries" are being driven to homelessness at this point and told the goddamn lie that we
live in a rich country, rather than the truth that we live in a plutocracy with levels of
inequality approaching truly 3rd world. We are literally killing ourselves because we have to
live in this plutocracy and our one existence itself is not even worth it anymore in this
economic system (and we are lacking even a few of the positives of many other 3rd world
countries). And those that aren't killing ourselves still can't find work, and even if we do,
it doesn't pay enough to meet the most basic necessities.
1. It is unfortunate that Verga raises the rising cost of material inputs but fails to
meaningfully address the issue. One of the drivers of migration, as mentioned in Comments
above, is the population volcano currently erupting. Labor is cheap and globalization
possible in large part because the world population has grown from 2 Billion to over 7
Billion in the past 60-odd years. This slow-growing mountain of human beings has created
stresses on material inputs which are having a negative impact on the benefits derived from
declining labor costs. This becomes a death-spiral as capital seeks to balance the rising
cost of raw materials and agricultural products by driving down the cost of labor ever
further.
2. Verga touches on the interplay of Nationalism and Racism in the responses of political
parties and institutions in Italy and elsewhere. Voters appear to be abandoning Left and
left-ish parties because the Left have been unable to come up with a definintion of national
sovereignty that protects worker rights largely due to the importance of anti-racism in
current Left-wing thought. Working people were briefly bought-off with cheap consumer goods
and easy credit, but they now realize that low-wage migrant and off-shore workers mean that
even these goodies are now out of reach. The only political alternative currently on offer is
a brand of Nationalism defined by Racism -- which becomes acceptable to voters when the
alternative is Third-World levels of poverty for those outside the 1% and their 9%
enablers.
I don't see any simple solutions. Things may get very ugly.
I certainly see that policies tampering down free trade, both of capital and labor, can
benefit workers within a particular country. However, especially in the context of said
policies in "Western" countries, this can tend towards a, protect the working class within
the borders, leave those outside of it in impoverished squalor. Which doesn't mesh well with
the leftist goal of global class consciousness. Much like the racially segregated labor
policies of yesteryear, it's playing a zero-sum game with the working class while the
ownership class gets the "rising tide lifts all boats" treatment.
So how do we protect workers within the sovereign, while not doing so at the cost of the
workers outside of it? Schwieckart has an interesting idea, that tariffs on imports are used
to fund non-profits/higher education/cooperatives in the country of export. However, I think
we'd need something a bit more fine-tuned than that.
It has always baffled me that governments enable this global musical chairs game with the
labor market. Nearly all Western governments allow tax dodging by those who benefit the most
from their Navies, Armies, Patents, and Customs enforcement systems. However, it is the
working class that carries the brunt of that cost while corporations off-shore their
profits.
A simple-minded fix might be to start taxing foreign profits commensurate with the cost of
enabling those overseas profits.
Interesting that a corporation is a person just like us mortals when it is to their
advantage, but unlike us humans, they can legally escape taxation on much of their income
whereas a human being who is a US citizen cannot. A human citizen is generally taxed by the
US on all income regardless of its source. OTOH, corporations (among other means) routinely
transfer intellectual property to a non tax jurisdiction and then pay artificial payments to
that entity for the rights to use such property. It is a scam akin to a human creating a tax
deduction by transferring money from one pocket to another. Yes, proper taxation of
corporations is a simple-minded fix which is absolutely not simple to legislate. Nice try
though. Something else to ponder: Taxation without representation was said to be a major
factor in our war of independence from Britain. Today no one seems to be concerned that we
have evolved into representation without taxation. Doesn't see right to me.
"Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational
corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable
(i.e. cheapest) labor force."
FWIW I don't think it's productive to talk about things like immigration in (or to) the US
in terms of just the here – as in what should/could we be doing here
to fix the problem. It's just as much if not more about the there . If we
view the global economic order as an enriched center feeding off a developing periphery, then
fixing the periphery should be first aim. #Wall or #NoBorders are largely incendiary
extremes. Ending Original Sin and creating some
sort of supranational
IOU/credit system (not controlled by World Bank or IMF!) will end the economic imbalance
and allow countries who will never export their way out of poverty and misery a way
to become equal first world nation states. With this equality, there will be less economic
migration, less peripheral poverty and potentially less political unrest. It's a gargantuan
task to be sure, but with rising Socialist sentiment here and abroad, I'd like to think we
are at least moving in the right direction.
If the rich were properly taxed then social tensions would be greatly reduced and if the
revenue raised were used to help the poorest in society much distress could be
alleviated.
I worry that debate on migration/globalisation is being encouraged to distract attention
from this issue.
I may indeed have taken a gratuitously pedantic tone and could have chosen a better one,
for that i apologise. I do however believe that much of my critique still stands, I will try
to go through your points one by one.
"Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?"
Not all but many are, especially the ones that most people are complaining about. Many of
them are being driven from their home countries not simply for a better life but so they can
have something approaching a life at all. While to fully prove this point would require an
analysis of all the different migrants and their home country conditions, I do feel that if
we are talking about Syrian refugees, migrants from Africa risking their lives crossing the
Mediteranian sea, or CentralAmerican refugees than yes i do think these people to an extent
have had their agency taken from them by global events. For Syrians, by being caught in an
imperialist power struggle which while the civil war may not have been caused by it, it
certainly has been prolonged because of it. Not too mention America played a very significant
role in creating the conditions for ISIS, and western European powers don't have completely
clean hands either due to their long history of brutal imperialism in the mideast. Africa of
course also has an extensive past of colonization and suffers from a present of colonization
and exploitation as well. For Central Americans there is of course the voracious american
drug market as well as our politicians consistent appetite for its criminalisation to blame.
There is also of course global climate change. Many of these contributing conditions are not
being dealt with and so i believe that the migrations we have witnessed these last few years
are only the first ining of perhaps even greater migrations to come. How we deal with it now,
could determine whether our era is defined by mass deaths or something better. So to the
extent that i believe many of these migrants have agency is similiar to how a person climbing
onto the roof of there house to escape a flood does.
If the borders of the US were left completely open then, yes, there would most likely be a
rush of people at first but over time they would migrate back and forth according to their
needs, through the opening of the border they would gain agency. People often think that a
country not permitting its citizens to leave is wrong and immoral, but if most countries
close their borders to the people of a country going through great suffering, then it seems
to me that is essentially the same even if the rhetoric may be different. The likeliness of
this is high if the rich countries close there borders, since if the rich countries like the
US and Italy feel they can not take them in, then its doubtful countries on the way that are
much poorer will be able to either.
At the begining of your article you stated that "International commerce, jobs, and
economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit." This is the capitalist system,
which is a system built upon the accumulation of capital, which are profits invested in
instruments of labor, aka machines and various labor enhancements. Now Rhode island is quite
small so there are geographical limitations of course, but if that was not an issue then yes.
Wage workers in the capitalist system produce more value than they consume, if this was not
the case they would not be hired or be hired for long. So if Rhode Island did not have the
geographical limitations that it does, then with more workers the overall pot of valuable
products and services would increase per capita in relation to the population. If the workers
are divided and not unified into cohesive and responsive institutions to fight for there
right share of the overall pie, which I believe should be all of it, then most of the gain to
society will go to the capitalist as increased profits. So it is not the migrant workers who
take from the native but instead actually the capitalist who exploits and trys to magnify
there difference. So if the capitalist system through imperialism helped to contribute to the
underlying conditions driving mass migration, and then it exploits there gratitude and
willingness to work for less than native workers, than I believe it follows that they will
wish to drive native anger towards the migrants with the ultimate goal of allowing them to
exploit the migrant workers at an even more severe level. This could be true within the
country, such as the US right now where the overarching result of anti-immigrant policies has
been to not get rid of them but to drive there exploitation more into the shadows, or through
mass deportations back to their home country followed by investments to exploit their
desperation at super low wages that will then compete with the rich country workers, it is
also possible they will all just die and everyone will look away. Either way the result will
still be lower wages for rich country workers, it seems to me the only way out of the impass
is for the native workers to realize their unity with migrant workers as exploited workers
and instead of directing that energy of hostility at each other instead focus it upon the
real root which is the capitalists themselves. Without the capitalists, more workers, held
withing certain geographic limitations of course, would in fact only enrich each other.
So while nations may indeed continue to exist for awhile, the long term benefit of native
workers is better served by making common cause with migrants against their mutual oppressors
then allowing themselves to be stirred up against them. Making this argument to workers is
much harder, but its the most beneficial if it can be made successfully.
This last point i do agree i may have been unfair to you, historically I believe the left
generally referred to anarchists, socialists and communists. So I often dislike the way
modern commentators use the left to refer to anything from a center right democrat like
Hillary Clinton all the way to the most hard core communist, it can make understanding
political subtleties difficult since anarchists, socialists and communists have radically
different politics than liberals, much more so than can be expressed along a linear line. But
as you point out you used quotes which i admit i did not notice, and of course one must
generally use the jargon of the times in order to be understood.
Overall i think my main critique was that it seemed that throughout your article you were
referencing different negative symptoms of capitalism but was instead taking that evidence
for the negatives of globalism. I may come from a more radical tradition than you may be used
to, but i would consider globalism to be an inherent aspect of capitalism. Capitalism in its
algorithmic quest for ever increasing profits generally will not allow its self to be bound
for long by people, nations, or even the physical and environmental limitations of the earth.
While one country may be able to restrict it for a time unless it is overcome completely it
will eventually reach out globally again. The only way to stop it is a prolonged struggle of
the international working class cooperating with each other against capitalism in all its
exploitive forms. I would also say that what we are seeing is not so much globalism vs
nationalism but instead a rearrangement of the competing imperial powers, Russia, China, US,
Germany and perhaps the evolution of multiple competing imperialisms similiar in nature to
pre- world war times but that may have to wait for later.
A great deal of your article did indeed deal with Italy which I did not address but I felt
that your arguments surrounding migrants was essentially of a subtle right wing nature and it
needed to be balanced by a socialist counter narrative. I am very glad that you took the time
to respond to my critique I know that putting analysis out there can be very difficult and i
am thankful for your response which has allowed me to better express and understand my
viewpoint. Once again I apoligise if I used some overly aggressive language and i hope your
able to get something out of my response as well.
I appreciate the more reflective tone of this reply. I believe there are still some
misreadings of the article, which I will try to clarify.
For one thing, I am not the author of the article! Enrico Verga is the author. I merely
translated the article. Enrico is Italian, however, and so for time zone reasons will be
unable to respond to your comments for a while. I am happy to write a bit on this in the
meantime.
You make two arguments.
The first is that many or most migrants are fleeing desperate circumstances. The article
speaks however consistently of "economic migrants" – there are some overlapping issues
with refugees, but also significant differences. Clearly there are many people who are
economically comfortable in their home countries and who would still jump at a chance to get
US citizenship if they could (look up EB-5 fraud for one example). Saying this does not imply
some sort of subtle critique of such people, but they are not a myth.
I actually found your second argument more thought-provoking. As I understand you, you are
suggesting something like the following. You support completely open borders. You acknowledge
that this would lead at first to massive shifts in population, but in the long run you say
things would stabilize. You acknowledge that this will lead to "lower wages for rich country
workers," but say that we should focus on the fact that it is only within the capitalist
system that this causality holds. You also suggest that it would probably lead, under current
conditions, to workers having their anger misdirected at migrants and therefore supporting
more reactionary policies.
Given that the shift to immediate open borders would, by this analysis, be highly
detrimental to causes you support, why do you favor it? Your reasons appear to be (1) it's
the right thing to do and we should just do it, (2) yes, workers might react in the way
described, but they should not feel that way, and maybe we can convince them not to feel that
way, (3) things will work themselves out in the long run.
I am a bit surprised at the straightforwardly idealistic tone of (1) and (2). As for (3),
as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. He meant by this that phenomena that might
in theory equilibrate over a very long time can lead to significant chaos in the short run;
this chaos can meanwhile disrupt calculations about the "long term" and spawn other
significant negative consequences.
Anyone who is open to the idea of radically new economic arrangements faces the question
of how best to get there. You are perhaps suggesting that letting global capital
reign supreme, unhindered by the rules and restrictions of nation-states, will in the long
run allow workers to understand their oppression more clearly and so increase their openness
to uniting against it. If so, I am skeptical.
I will finally point out that a part of the tone of your response seems directed at the
impression that Enrico dislikes migrants, or wants other people to resent them. I see nothing
in the article that would suggest this, and there are on the other hand several passages in
which Enrico encourages the reader to empathize with migrants. When you suggest that his
arguments are "essentially of a subtle right wing nature," you are maybe reacting to this
misreading; in any case, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, since this phrase is so
analytically imprecise that it could mean all sorts of things. Please try to engage with the
article with arguments, not with vague epithets.
There is a bit of a dissonance here. Human rights has been persistently used by
neoliberals to destabilize other regions for their own ends for decades now with little
protest. And when the standard playbook of coups and stirring up trouble does not work its
war and total destruction as we have seen recently in Iraq, Libya and Syria for completely
fabricated reasons.
Since increased migration is the obvious first consequence when entire countries are
decimated and in disarray one would expect the countries doing the destruction to accept the
consequences of their actions but instead we have the same political forces who advocate
intervention on 'human rights grounds' now demonizing migrants and advocating openly racist
policies.
One can understand one mistake but 3 mistakes in a row! And apparently we are not capable
of learning. The bloodlust continues unabated for Iran. This will destabilize an already
destabilized region and cause even more migration to Europe. There seems to be a fundamental
contradiction here, that the citizens of countries that execute these actions and who who
protest about migrants must confront.
Maybe they should pay trillions of dollars of reparations for these intervention so these
countries can be rebuilt and made secure again so migrants can return to their homes. Maybe
the UN can introduce a new fund with any country considering destabilizing another country,
for instance Iran, to first deposit a trillion dollars upfront to deal with the human
fallout. Or maybe casually destabilizing and devastating entire countries, killing millions
of people and putting millions more in disarray should be considered crimes against humanity
and prosecuted so they are not repeated.
"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions
to emigrate is overlooked is wars.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial
wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness
of the trade union and solidarity movements.
We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to
the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.
Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration
The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood,
housing and communities and undermining there security.
As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries
would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.
Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor
to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.
Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the
West.
Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the
Gulf states and Iran.
Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship
and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of
Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed
toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.
The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee
across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant
parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class
turned anti-immigrant.
Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and
the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.
Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and
civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.
Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America
US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua,
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 –
2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by
spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists
were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.
The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.
US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama
and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and
wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants
to the US.
The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage
maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US
'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military
aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.
The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human
rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or
across the border.
US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health
insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.
Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants
into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.
Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living
standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.
Conclusion
Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran
President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington
and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.
The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international
law.
To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client
terrorists.
ORDER IT NOW
Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets
and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led
to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion
of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.
The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the
midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather
than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace
and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout
the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among
popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical
social democracy.
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually
crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They
see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the
game, even if they don't really like the rules.
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors.
They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own
purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and
pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to
free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their
ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is
normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of
depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL
goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably)
just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the
Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a
religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no
part of it is accidental.
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et
al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup
designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into
the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to
discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of
his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any
description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational
debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to
Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they
see.
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"?
It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the
first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly
Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop
up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the
aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the
imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London
and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local
labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam
traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in
it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to
mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the
day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in
considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently
anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration
across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking
about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make
generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then
wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now
given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of
Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A
gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an
embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your
forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that
hurts.
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise.
Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a
retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on
things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How
extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with
someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping
statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's
annoying.
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even
the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants
while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to
undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the
various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids
a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration
because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political
gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at
all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew
little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the
USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return
to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations
everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently,
in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient
reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers
them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is
how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings,
necessarily
perceives life.
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever
answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a
semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare
of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't
COMPLETELY stupid.
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade
zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be
open borders."
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign
peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."
His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.
This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of
this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his
vision and the power of his rhetoric.
In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to
be removed. There, Cobden thundered:
"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world
as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the
antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal
peace."
Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the
Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been
embraced.
The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding
Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such
manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military
supplies."
In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to
endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the
means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."
This was wisdom born of experience.
At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence.
They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the
necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among
Americans.
Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while
selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but
could not produce.
America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with
JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.
By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun.
U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a
million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of
the country.
Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base
and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no
greater loss.
The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.
We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.
We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the
political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising
across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the
admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.
Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally
imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and
occupy their homelands.
Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?
The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of
free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage
the heart.
Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for
pluralism and diversity?
Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?
On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest
socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and
Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.
Patriotism trumps ideology.
In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born
in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank,
Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.
We are present now at the end of all that.
And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.
To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and
champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence
and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.
it's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate
description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views
than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically,
that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when
evaluating Pres Trump:
1. He has spent most of his life supporting the murder of children.
2. He supports a national healthcare policy
3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.
4. He ha absolutely little or n o knowledge about scripture or its intent in practice.
5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of
leadership
6. He can't reconcile historical criticism from deciphering a realistic image of the
country.
7. He thinks that the country has disadvantaged whites and the previous executive that
indication.
8. He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.
9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack)
10. His willingness to ignore – Israel-US problematic relationship.
11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary
policy.
12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals
or openly does the same -- DACA.
Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's
better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him. But that vote is not unconditional or
inconsiderate of where this executive and my conservative principles part company. On a
personal note -- someone who does not grasp celibacy in theory and practice -- is probably
not going to have a conservative bone in his core. There's one aspect of Pres. trump that
makes me leary -- but I will bite my tongue. What I have noted is on the record.
The fact that he says things that amount to standing up to democrats and liberals is one
thing, but what he engages in as to policy in many respects may not be that far off from
their own. Laugh -- he does think someone should stand up for people of faith -- that's a
relief.
Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially
Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and
attitude. Presidential decorum is a big deal to many.
It wasn' t Trump who back pedaled on DACA. He issued the executive order that would
rescind it. But in accord with Marbury vs Madison 1804, just 2 low level judges, one in
Hawaii and one in Brooklyn NYC overturned the executive order.
The DoJ appealed it went to the Supreme court last week. The Supreme Court refused to hear
it.
So the rulings of just 2 low level judges prevailed over the executive order of an elected
president.
It wasn't Trump who back pedaled. It was our ridiculous judicial supremacy legal system
that ruled that the DACAs can stay. It's nothing new, it's been that way since 1804.
Only 2 presidents defied a Supreme Court ruling: Jackson in his order to expell Indians
and Lincon's Suspending haveas corpus for the 4 years of the civil war.
Face it, this country has been ruled by judges from the beginnning.
Abortion? If it were not for abortion the black criminal affirmative action neighborhood
and school destroying demographic would be at least 25 percent of the population instead of
12 percent.
No city or school has been able to withstand more than about a 10 percent black
population. 25 percent is totally destructive.
The anti homosexual thing is in the Jewish part of the Bible, not the Christian part. I
for one can't understand why so called Christians are so obsessed with the sex rape polygamy
lie cheat steal and massacre Jewish part of the Bible.
The 2 parts are total opposites. One is kill slay massacre lie cheat and steal. The other
is be good and generous sexually chaste virtuous and avoid war and massacring a defeated
enemy.
Don't blame Trump for losing on DACA. Blame our judicial supremacy system of
government
He backpedaled on DACA by not rescinding it on his first day in office like he promised.
He did so by creating a deadline and asking Congress do fix it rather than just take it apart
like he promised.
This district court judges do not have the power to tell a President that he must maintain
a clearly unconstitutional program that was created with nothing but the stroke of the
President's pen. He can and should simply ignore the lower courts ruling and force the
Supreme Court to get off their butts and reign in these lower courts that think they have the
power to make law.
The only reason the courts think they have this power is because everybody defers to them.
It is one thing for the court to rule that some law is unconstitutional but quite another for
courts to determine how those laws are implemented and what powers the executive has –
even when they have nothing to do with those enumerated in the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution expected men, with all their lust for power, to jealously
guard their power and in so doing make it hard for any one part of the governmnt to get too
strong. However, now we have cowards in Congress ceding their power to the President so they
don't have to make tough decisions that they will be hels accountable for on election day and
we have weak Presidents hiding behind ridiculous rulings from unelected judges.
The betrayal has absolutely with a court ruling. His offered compromise is the issue and make
no mistake that was no compromise.
I could get in to some other choices the Pres could have chosen on the law created by DHS.
But we'd be having a discussion issues pertaining the use of government agencies to in effect
make laws without Congressional approval or the consent by the executive. Clearly with the
DACA memo, it's clear that its existence rests on the discretion of the executive's
enforcement of the law.
But as with most people, I get the excuse but the courts made me do it or wouldn't let me
do it. government. He could have issues his memo for his current DHS head to amend the
document, period. But I am dipping my toe where it need not be dipped to remain where I came
in -- this president caved as he has on several issues. His supposed deal is exemplary of his
choice to lob missiles and send troops into Syria.
He gets convinced he is being a "good guy". His hand ringing about a situation he himself
created is further indication of his willingness to betray principles come as to why people
like myself voted for him.
I have gone to bat for this executive even at the expense of my own moral codes for the
sake of fairness. No. His offerings were a betrayal with or without the cover of a court
ruling.
"Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say
that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from
Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.
" I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump
replied while Acosta continued to interject.
" Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts
of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump
looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:
Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the
president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again
when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan
Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.
"It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see
in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign
government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."
Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a
January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of
another reporter:
Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her
that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."
Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.
Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.
"I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference
between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot
say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is
false."
"... In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species. ..."
"... So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality. ..."
"... Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal ..."
"... A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that ..."
"... Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas. ..."
"... A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , ..."
"... incredible amount ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: ..."
"... ( also available in Kindle ) and ..."
"... Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even for the wealthy? ..."
Item-wise, the biggest heading there is the second one, "Interior Enforcement." That's very
welcome.
Of course we need improved border security so that people don't enter our country without
permission. That comes under the first heading. An equally pressing problem, though, is the
millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and
public services, who should not be here.
The President's proposals on interior enforcement cover all bases: Sanctuary
cities , visa
overstays , law-enforcement
resources , compulsory E-Verify , more
deportations , improved visa security.
This is a major, wonderful improvement in national policy, when you consider that less than
a year ago the
White House and
Justice Department were run by committed open-borders
fanatics. I thank the President and his staff for having put so much work into such a
detailed proposal for restoring American sovereignty and the rights of American workers and
taxpayers.
That said, here come the quibbles.
That third heading, "Merit-Based Immigration System," with just four items, needs work.
Setting aside improvements on visa controls under the other headings, this is really the only
part of the proposal that covers legal immigration. In my opinion, it does so imperfectly.
There's some good meat in there, mind. Three of the four items -- numbers one, three, and
four -- got a fist-pump from me:
cutting down chain
migration by limiting it to spouse and dependent children; eliminating the Diversity
Visa Lottery ; and limiting the number of refugees admitted, assuming this means severely
cutting back on the numbers, preferably all the way to
zero.
Good stuff. Item two, however, is a problem. Quote:
Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent
residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support
themselves financially.
sounds OK, bringing in talented, well-educated, well-socialized people, rather than
what the late Lee
Kuan Yew referred to as " fruit-pickers ." Forgive
me if I have a rather jaundiced view of this merit-based approach.
For most of my adult life I made a living as a computer programmer. I spent four years
doing this in the U.S.A. through the mid-1970s. Then I came back in the late 1980s and
worked at the same trade here through the 1990s. (Pictured right–my actual H-1B visa ) That gave me two
clear snapshots twenty years apart, of this particular corner of skilled middle-class
employment in America.
In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of
foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized ,
thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American
programmers are an endangered species.
So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been
handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than
Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other
five percent is sentimentality.
On so-called "merit-based immigration," therefore, you can count me a cynic. I have no doubt
that American firms could recruit all the computer programmers they need from among our legacy
population. They used to do so, forty years ago. Then they discovered how to game the
immigration system for cheaper labor.
A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by
employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was
restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass
of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy
Americans. How would that contribute to social harmony?
With coming up to a third of a
billion people, the U.S.A. has all the talent, all the merit , it needs. You might
make a case for a handful of certified geniuses like Einstein or worthy dissidents like
Solzhenitsyn, but those cases aside, there is no reason at all to have guest-worker programs.
They should all be shut down.
Some of these cheap-labor rackets don't even need congressional action to shut them down; it
can be done by regulatory change via executive order. The scandalous OPT-visa scam, for
example, which brings in cheap workers under the guise of student visas.
Here is John Miano writing about the OPT program last month, quote:
Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the
entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training
program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By
comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas.
Because there is no reporting on how long guestworkers stay in the country, we do not know
the total number of workers in each category. Nonetheless, the number of approvals for work
on student visas has grown by 62 percent over the past four years so their numbers will soon
dwarf those on H-1B visas.
End quote. (And a cheery wave of acknowledgement to John Miano here from one of the
other seventeen people in the U.S.A. that knows the correct placement of the hyphen in
"H-1B.")
Our legal immigration system is addled with these scams. Don't even get me started
on
the EB-5 investor's visa . It all needs sweeping away.
So for preference I would rewrite that third heading to include, yes, items one, three, and
four -- cutting down chain migration, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery, and ending refugee
settlement for anyone of less stature than Solzhenitsyn; but then, I'd replace item two with
the following:
End all guest-worker programs, with exceptions only for the highest levels of
talent and accomplishment, limit one hundred visas per annum .
So much for my amendments to the President's October 8th proposals. There is, though, one
glaring omission from that 70-item list. The proposal has no mention at all of birthright
citizenship.
Yes, yes, I know: some constitutional authorities argue that birthright citizenship is
implied in the
Fourteenth Amendment , although it is certain that the framers of that Amendment did not
have foreign tourists or illegal entrants in mind. Other scholars think Congress could
legislate against it.
The only way to find out is to have Congress legislate. If the courts strike down the
legislation as unconstitutional, let's then frame a constitutional amendment and put it to the
people.
Getting rid of birthright citizenship might end up a long and difficult process. We might
ultimately fail. The only way to find out is to get the process started . Failure to
mention this in the President's proposal is a very glaring omission.
I agree with ending birthright citizenship. But Trump should wait until he can put at
least one more strict constitutionalist in the supreme court. There will be a court
challenge, and we need judges who can understand that if the 14th Amendment didn't give
automatic citizenship to American Indians it doesn't give automatic citizenship to children
of Mexican citizens who jumped our border.
John's article, it seems to me, ignores the elephant in the room: the DACA colonists.
Trump is offering this proposal, more or less, in return for some sort of semi-permanent
regularization of their status. Bad trade, in my opinion. Ending DACA and sending those
illegals back where they belong will have more real effect on illegal and legal
immigration/colonization than all sorts of proposals to be implemented in the future, which
can and will be changed by subsequent Administrations and Congresses.
Trump would also be able to drive a much harder bargain with Congress (like maybe a
moratorium on any immigration) if he had kept his campaign promise, ended DACA the afternoon
of January 20, 2017, and busloads of DACA colonists were being sent south of the Rio
Grande.
The best hope for immigration patriots is that the Democrats are so wedded to Open Borders
that the entire proposal dies and Trump, in disgust, reenacts Ike's Operation Wetback.
Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me
later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans
refuse to do are run out the country, then what?
Right, prior to 1965, Americans didn't exist. They had all starved to death because, as
everyone knows, no Americans will work to produce food and, even if they did, once Tyson
chicken plants stop making 50 percent on capital they just shut down.
If there were no Somalis in Minnesota, even Warren Buffett couldn't afford grapes.
Illegal immigrants picking American produce is a false economy.
Illegal immigrants are subsidized by the taxpayer in terms of public health, education,
housing, and welfare.
If businesses didn't have access to cheap and subsidized illegal alien labor, they would
be compelled to resort to more farm automation to reduce cost.
Cheap illegal alien labor delays the inevitable use of newer farm automation
technologies.
Many Americans would likely prefer a machine touch their food rather than a illegal alien
with strange hygiene practices.
In addition, anti-American Democrats and neocons prefer certain kinds of illegal aliens
because they bolster their diversity scheme.
@Realist "Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs
Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?"
Eliminate welfare...then you'll have plenty of workers. Unfortunately, that train left the
station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy,
over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform
manual labor for anyone, including themselves.
@Randal Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not
being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working
classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store
items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants
doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on
it.
The "jobs Americans/Brits/etc won't do" myth is a deliberate distortion of reality that
ignores the laws of supply and demand. There are no jobs Americans etc won't do, only jobs
for which the employers are not prepared to pay wages high enough to make them worthwhile for
Americans etc to do.
Now of course it is more complicated than that. There are jobs that would not be
economically viable if the required wages were to be paid, and there are marginal
contributions to job creation by immigrant populations, but those aspects are in reality far
less significant than the bosses seeking cheap labour want people to think they are.
As a broad summary, a situation in which labour is tight, jobs are easy to come by and
staff hard to hold on to is infinitely better for the ordinary working people of any nation
than one in which there is a huge pool of excess labour, and therefore wages are low and
employees disposable.
You'd think anyone purporting to be on the "left", in the sense of supporting working
class people would understand that basic reality, but far too many on the left have been
indoctrinated in radical leftist anti-racist and internationalist dogmas that make them
functional stooges for big business and its mass immigration program.
Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being
continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes
will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items,
especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing
the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on
it.
There might be some truth in this. When I was a student in England in the 60′s I
spent every summer working on farms, picking hops, apples, pears, potatoes and made some
money and had a lot of fun too and became an expert farm tractor operator.
No reason why US students and high school seniors should not pick up a lot of the slack.
Young people like camping in the countryside and sleeping rough, plus lots of
opportunity to meet others, have sex, smoke weed, drink beer, or whatever. If you get a free
vacation plus a nice check at the end, that makes the relatively low wages worthwhile. It is
not always a question of how much you are paid, but how much you can save.
We can fix the EB-5 visa scam. My suggestion: charge would-be "investors" $1 million to
enter the US. This $1 is not refundable under any circumstance. It is paid when the
"investor's" visa is approved. If the "investor" is convicted of a felony, he is deported. He
may bring no one with him. No wife, no child, no aunt, no uncle. Unless he pays $1 million
for that person.
We will get a few thousand Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes a year under this
program
As to fixing the H-1B visa program, we charge employer users of the program say $25,000
per year per employee. We require the employers to inform all employees that if any is asked
to train a replacement, he should inform the DOJ immediately. The DOJ investigates and if
true, charges managerial employees who asked that a replacement be trained with fraud.
As to birthright citizenship: I say make it a five-year felony to have a child while in
the US illegally. Make it a condition of getting a tourist visa that one not be pregnant. If
the tourist visa lasts say 60 days and the woman has a child while in the US, she gets
charged with fraud.
None of these suggestions requires a constitutional amendment.
In the United States middle class prosperity reached its apogee in 1965 – before the
disastrous (and eminently foreseeable) wage-lowering consequence of the Hart-Celler Open
Immigration Act's massive admission of foreigners increased the supply of labor which began
to lower middle class prosperity and to shrink and eradicate the middle class.
It was in 1965 that ordinary Americans, enjoying maximum employment because employers were
forced to compete for Americans' talents and labor, wielded their peak purchasing
power . Since 1970 wages have remained stagnant, and since 1965 the purchasing power of
ordinary Americans has gone into steep decline.
It is long past time to halt Perpetual Mass Immigration into the United States, to end
birthright citizenship, and to deport all illegal aliens – if, that is, our leaders
genuinely care about and represent us ordinary Americans instead of continuing their
legislative, policy, and judicial enrichment of the 1-percenter campaign donor/rentier class
of transnational Globali$t Open Border$ E$tabli$hment $ellout$.
Re the birthright citizenship argument, that is not settled law in that SCOTUS has never
ruled on the question of whether a child born in the US is thereby a citizen if the parents
are illegally present. Way back in 1897, SCOTUS did resolve the issue of whether a child born
to alien parents who were legally present was thereby a citizen. That case is U.S. vs Wong
Kim Ark 169 US 649. SCOTUS ruled in favor of citizenship. If that was a justiciable issue how
much more so is it when the parents are illegally present?
My thinking is that the result would be the same but, at least, the question would be
settled. I cannot see justices returning a toddler to Beijing or worse. They would never have
invitations to cocktail parties again for the shame heaped upon them for such uncaring
conduct. Today, the title of citizen is conferred simply by bureaucratic rule, not by
judicial order.
Arguments Against Fourteenth Amendment Anchor Baby Interpretation
J. Paige Straley
Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.
The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:
Article 30
Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. "
A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican
citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time
and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary
source, the parents' citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the
child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the
birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an
American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of
citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment
jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary
jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen
at birth.
[MORE]
There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies.
Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a
reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican
citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in
the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are
counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides
widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far
as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil
relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly,
all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal
citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.
Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)
The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent
for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of
commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a
concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray,
Justice for the majority in this decision.
"[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the
time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and
residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in
any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his
birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution." (Italics added.)
For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have " permanent domicile and
residence " But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of
deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in
the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone
would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright
citizenship.
If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or
if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not ". . .carrying on business. .
.", and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright
citizenship
If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies.
Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so
is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal
aliens.
Part three. Birth Tourism
Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife's
pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the
child. This practice is called "birth tourism." WKA provides two tests for birthright
citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit
answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a "birth
tourism" child to be granted birthright citizenship.
@Carroll Price Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without
welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never
hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including
themselves. Then let them starve to death. The Pilgrims nipped that dumb ass idea (welfare)
in the bud
An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and
working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be
here.
Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with
foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than
off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast,
grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even
for the wealthy?
Let alone relatively poor people (like myself) and those on fixed incomes? What
un-thinking Americans want, is having their cake and eating it too. Well, in the real world,
things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented
workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the
country, then what? Please look up;History; United States; pre mid-twentieth century. I'm
pretty sure Americans were eating chicken, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce, etc. prior to
that period. I don't think their diet consisted of venison and tree bark.
But since I wasn't there, maybe I'm wrong and that is actually what they were eating.
I know some people born in the 1920′s; I'll check with them and let you know what they
say.
Trump deflated and sold all his election promises. He is essentially a neocon now. why he will be
different on immigration?
Notable quotes:
"... Trump Interrupted 6 Times in Poland With a Chant You Might Have Thought Would Only Be Heard in the USA ..."
"... Independent Journal Review, ..."
"... Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend Western Civilization. ..."
"... Trump's speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto ..."
"... 'Kate's Law' battle shifts to the Senate, testing Dems ..."
"... As Trump's Coach, Senator Cotton Provides Policy to Match Rhetoric ..."
"... 'These deaths were preventable': Trump urges Senate to pass 'Kate's Law,' ..."
"... Immigration bills face Senate hurdle ..."
"... San Antonio Express-News, ..."
"... Trump's 'face-lift' tweet overshadows week to push immigration, energy policies ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... How The Democrats Lost Their Way On Immigration ..."
"... What's the point of an anti-immigrant left ..."
"... Trump is winning the immigration debate ..."
"... In my opinion, even more important than to attack the hostile, mostly liberal media is for Trump to distance himself not just form the Neocon wing of the Republican party, but also to keep a healthy distance from and even attack Ayn Rand fanboys like Paul Ryan and other lackeys of the Koch Brothers ..."
"... No, Donald Trump hasn't really read "Atlas Shrugged." Sad! But he's surrounding himself with Ayn Rand superfans ..."
"... IMO, Trump's deeds rarely match the words written for him by his speechwriter(s). There's been little progress on our Southern border wall and his administration only marginally decreased refugees to 50K for 2018. I want zero or only white refugees from S. Africa – not racial, cultural and religious aliens from the third world. ..."
"... That remains to be seen as Trump has drifted towards the center on immigration since his inauguration. He kept DACA in place and hasn't uttered one negative word on the presumption of birthright citizenship or implored Congress to pass legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment only applied to descendants of blacks slaves and not every person who sneaks across the border and drops an anchor baby or two or eight. The same applies to visa holders and "maternity tourists". ..."
"... Poland and the CIA – what memories, what a work over! Lech Walesa and Solidarność. No wonder they cheer Trump, but they might as well be cheering any US President and that's the point. ..."
"... There is no real opposition to Trump. He's a walking clown, pay attention if you must. But the mainstream media includes Kirkpatrick as much as it does The Atlantic and Vox and Fox and CNN. Super national corporations delivering control over your lives. When they tell you who, what and when you should foam at mouth you'll obey – 'those damn other guys!' ..."
Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during
his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend
Western Civilization. Not surprisingly, the hysterically and openly anti-white, anti-Trump Main
Stream Media screamed that the president had delivered an "Alt Right manifesto". [
Trump's speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto, by Sarah Wildman,
Vox, July 6, 2017]
Nothing of the sort of course: Trump
merely delivered the kinds
of patriotic platitudes which every other generation in history would have taken for granted. However,
with many Western nations
under de facto occupation by a hostile elite, such common sense comments are revolutionary. More
importantly, President Trump
finally seems to be going on the attack in the last week , championing the kinds of populist
policies which put him in office.
The House Republicans finally seem to be taking some action on the immigration issue, recently
passing both
Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act . The former increases penalties on criminal
aliens who attempt to reenter our country and latter cuts funding to cities which refuse to imply
with federal immigration laws. Two dozen House Democrats voted for "Kate's Law" and Senate Democrats
in red states, a number of whom are facing re-election in 2018, will be under pressure to support
the legislation in the Senate. [
'Kate's Law' battle shifts to the Senate, testing Dems, by Jordain Carney
and Rafael Bernal, The Hill, July 3, 2017]
The increasing willingness of the President's team to seek the advice of Senator Tom Cotton, who
seems to have succeeded Jeff Sessions as the greatest immigration patriot in the upper chamber, is
also an encouraging sign [
As Trump's Coach, Senator Cotton Provides Policy to Match Rhetoric, by Maggie
Haberman and Matt Flegenheimer, New York Times, June 8, 2017]. Most importantly, Trump himself
is taking the strategic offensive, championing his success on these issues. [
'These deaths were preventable': Trump urges Senate to pass 'Kate's Law,'Fox Insider,
July 1, 2017]
Of course, the real question is what the Republican Senate Leadership will do. Everything depends
on whether Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is willing to put the bills up for a vote and pressure
the caucus to vote for them. [
Immigration bills face Senate hurdle, by Bill Lambrecht, San Antonio Express-News,
July 5, 2017]
And here, again, it's really not even about McConnell but about Trump's own will. While Trump's
fight with the MSM is amusing and important, ultimately, he needs to put pressure on the leaders
of his own party. The battles with CNN and Mika Brzezinski risks distracting from the real policy
accomplishments the president poised to secure in the coming weeks [
Trump's 'face-lift' tweet overshadows week to push immigration, energy policies
, by Alex Pappas, Washington Examiner, June 30, 2017]. As leader of the party, he can
set the priority and challenge McConnell to put his weight behind the immigration bills.
If Trump indeed has the "will" to go through with it, there are the faint outlines how to achieve
the political realignment necessary for the United States of America to survive in any meaningful
sense. For the first time in many years, there are real splits on the intellectual Left on immigration.
Peter Beinart recently admitted in The Atlantic, "A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned
immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today,"
citing the legacy of Barbara Jordan among others . While Beinart is far from a born-again immigration
patriot, he admitted restrictionists have valid concerns that progressives should heed:
Liberals must take seriously Americans' yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass
immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans
that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept
many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Of course, Leftist Enforcer
Dylan Matthews , [ Email him
] whose entire oeuvre can be summarized as a
hysterical insistence on the moral necessity of
white genocide , blasted Beinart on the grounds that Open Borders is what defines the
West. "Beinart doesn't actually seem to care about promoting mass immigration," Matthews sneers.
"And that's the one answer to this dilemma that's completely unacceptable". [
What's the point of an anti-immigrant left, Vox, July 2, 2017]
To whom? Matthews decrees:
[A]ny center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just
for people born in the US but for everyone it means treating people born outside the US as equals.
But of course, this renders American
citizenship essentially pointless. Indeed being an "American" (which would simply mean owning
a certain kind of passport) would be an active disadvantage, as you would simply exist to be tax-farmed
for the benefit of
an ever growing number of hostile and hapless Third Worlders .
Few Americans would sign up for this. So, as even
Rich Lowry [
Email him
] now admits, Donald Trump is "winning" on immigration simply by mentioning the issue and breaking
apart the Democratic coalition.
Trump probably wouldn't have won without running so directly into the teeth of the elite consensus.
According to a
study published by Public Religion Research Institute and the
Atlantic of white working-class voters, it was anxiety about culture change and support for
deporting undocumented immigrants that correlated with voting for Trump, not loss of economic
or social standing. Likewise, a Democracy Fund Voter Study Group
report found Hillary Clinton cratered among populist voters who had supported Barack Obama,
with the issue of immigration looming large.[Links added by VDARE.com]
• 100 Words When Bush jr was in Vilnius he was also cheered, by 30.000 carefully selected Lithuanians.
If Warschau did the same, I do not know.
However, Poles still seem afraid of Russia, and they resist the Muslim immigration Brussels tries
to force on them.
The crash of the Polish aircraft with nearly the whole Polish establishment on board on its way
to Katyn still is blamed on Russia, while it was Polish stupidity, and too much liquor.
So maybe this was a spontaneous crowd.
This paper by Dutton and van der Linden (2014) might be interesting to you:
Who are the "Clever Sillies"? The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever
silly originators and those who follow them
[...] European Romantic nationalism could be seen as problematic from a Jewish perspective.
Both thinkers may have been motivated by the good of their group.
[...]
neo-liberal "Chicago School"-style economics, also known as "Freshwater" economics, promoted
by Milton Friedman
[...]
Western mind seducer and manipulator, "Objectivist" Ayn Rand
[...] The Refutation of Libertarianism
[...] But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist
societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before
the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.
In my opinion, even more important than to attack the hostile, mostly liberal media is
for Trump to distance himself not just form the Neocon wing of the Republican party, but
also to keep a healthy distance from and even attack Ayn Rand fanboys like Paul Ryan and other
lackeys of the Koch Brothers :
Fountainhead of bad ideas: Ayn Rand's fanboys take the reins of power
No, Donald Trump hasn't really read "Atlas Shrugged." Sad! But he's surrounding himself
with Ayn Rand superfans
"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free
universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate
studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil
wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life
for all Libyans.
We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not
allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously
reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we
might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"
Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly
controlled and restricted."
Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues
during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the
will to defend Western Civilization.
IMO, Trump's deeds rarely match the words written for him by his speechwriter(s). There's
been little progress on our Southern border wall and his administration only marginally decreased
refugees to 50K for 2018. I want zero or only white refugees from S. Africa – not racial, cultural
and religious aliens from the third world.
The increasing willingness of the President's team to seek the advice of Senator Tom Cotton,
who seems to have succeeded Jeff Sessions as the greatest immigration patriot in the upper
chamber,
Cotton has a proposed immigration bill that reduces legal immigration from 1.1 million to 700K.
It also takes aim at some chain migration mechanisms which is a positive step, but overall immigration
still overwhelmingly favors the third world. Some "immigration patriot".
Even if this miraculously passes this does nothing to arrest the pro-third world demographic
trends that ensures white go from majority to plurality by 2040 and America is still on a path
to become Brazil Norte.
The House Republicans have proven they will go along with a Trump immigration agenda, provided
the president leads the way.
That remains to be seen as Trump has drifted towards the center on immigration since his
inauguration. He kept DACA in place and hasn't uttered one negative word on the presumption of
birthright citizenship or implored Congress to pass legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment
only applied to descendants of blacks slaves and not every person who sneaks across the border
and drops an anchor baby or two or eight. The same applies to visa holders and "maternity tourists".
• 200 Words Poland and the CIA – what memories, what a work over! Lech Walesa and Solidarność.
No wonder they cheer Trump, but they might as well be cheering any US President and that's the
point.
Americans are long worked over – they are led to believe in some fictional mass of opposition
"that hates white people so they oppose Trump" and the standard false equivalence of a "main stream
media" that isn't themselves to begin with! The so-called left are the dancing partners who play
their part in this fraud – put up targets so the other team can shoot at them, that isn't left,
and that isn't right.
There is no real opposition to Trump. He's a walking clown, pay attention if you must.
But the mainstream media includes Kirkpatrick as much as it does The Atlantic and Vox and Fox
and CNN. Super national corporations delivering control over your lives. When they tell you who,
what and when you should foam at mouth you'll obey – 'those damn other guys!'
The unelected mob with their clowns on podiums doesn't concern themselves with borders, security
and punishment the way their controlled minions are programmed to. These are there weapons – they'll
publish every op-ed online if need be for you to cheer on the use of these weapons. Wear your
weblinks like Solidarnosc buttons. You love Lockheed and you hate the others.
Neoliberalism like Bolshevism sacrifices nations on the altar of globalism.
Notable quotes:
"... You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. ..."
"... Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish, Bavarians, the Catalans–they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates who, like any and all groups, self-identify. ..."
"... This identification is the direct result of indoctrination from our Founding Fathers. ..."
"... The idea that "diversity is strength", in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert. ..."
"... Americans eat like pigs. US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even aiding Al-Qaida in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane. We are told we must support Israel or Sodomia because it has the biggest homo 'pride' parade. ..."
"... America is a culture in decay, it is a huge piece of land with lots of resources and ruled by outside forces from within. ..."
"... Pat seems to imply that if the original ancestry had been maintained, America would not have the problems it now faces. He singlehandedly lays out the blame for the decline of American Republic/democracy at the feet of non-white foreigners. Let us follow this line of reasoning and see where it leads us. ..."
In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks
of "one people." The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins,
"We the people "
And who were these "people"?
In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as "one united people descended from the same ancestors,
speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government,
very similar in their manners and customs "
If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one
nation and one people?
We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not
speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess
the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons,
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.
Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today's elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength.
But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?
After the attempted massacre of Republican Congressmen at that ball field in Alexandria, Fareed
Zakaria wrote: "The political polarization that is ripping this country apart" is about "identity
gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (and) social class." He might have added - religion,
morality, culture and history.
Zakaria seems to be tracing the disintegration of our society to that very diversity that its
elites proclaim to be its greatest attribute: "If the core issues are about identity, culture and
religion then compromise seems immoral. American politics is becoming more like Middle Eastern
politics, where there is no middle ground between being Sunni or Shiite."
Among the issues on which we Americans are at war with one another - abortion, homosexuality,
same-sex marriage, white cops, black crime, Confederate monuments, LGBT rights, affirmative action.
Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among
the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind's
most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation
of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?
Is America really "God's Country"? Or was Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, justified
when, after 9/11, he denounced calls of "God Bless America!" with the curse "God Damn America!"?
With its silence, the congregation seemed to assent.
In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance many of us recited daily at the end of noon recess in the schoolyard
was amended to read, "one nation, under God, indivisible."
Are we still one nation under God? At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack
Obama, a motion to put "God" back into the platform was hooted and booed by half the assembly.
With this July 4 long weekend, many writers have bewailed the animus Americans exhibit toward
one another and urged new efforts to reunite us. Yet, recall again those first words of Jefferson
in 1776:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them "
Are we approaching such a point? Could the Constitution, as currently interpreted, win the approval
of two-thirds of our citizens and three-fourth of our states, if it were not already the supreme
law of the land? How would a national referendum on the Constitution turn out, when many Americans
are already seeking a new constitutional convention?
All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation? French writer
Ernest Renan gave us the answer in the 19th century:
"A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things constitute this soul, this spiritual
principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy
of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to
invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.
"Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate: our ancestors have made us what we
are. A heroic past with great men and glory is the social capital upon which the national idea
rests. These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and
a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them
again."
"In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks
of "one people." The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789,
begins, "We the people " And who were these "people"? In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of
them as "one united people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing
the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners
and customs " ** If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of
Americans as one nation and one people? **
** YES
It would appear that Mr. Buchanan is making an argument our Founding Fathers established a
British enthnostate, but IF (and I say IF) he is taking this position, similar to Vox Day, then
he is totally wrong. Preserving rights "for one's posterity" was legal repudiation of feudalism,
which stated liberties were a grant from a monarch and the State, and reverted upon his/her death.
That is, fundamental freedoms were NOT passed to future generations. The Declaration and the Federalist
Papers in particular destroys that feudalist notion. More importantly, Article I, Section 8, Clause
4, as a component of our Constitution and reflects original intent, granted Congress and NOT the
States the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization. By definition, naturalization
extends citizenship, and the liberties related to it, to an "outsider".
So, the drafters of our Constitution and the adopting state s fully comprehended the new Congress
would have to power to receive immigrants and set forth the standards under which they are naturalized.
Citizenship therefore is NOT exclusively confined to the British. This means this argument that
the franchise of citizenship is meant to be confined solely to the British children of rebel British
subjects is not reflected in the clear meaning of the document. Since immigration was allowed
to the United States, at first to Europeans but later extended to non-Europeans, the "posterity"
includes more than the actual descendants of residents of our great nation at that time.
But, but, but "[the Constitution] did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition,
is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously."
Well, a contract, which essentially is what is our Constitution, that has an amendment process
is NOT meant to remain constant. It has no original purpose but to establish exactly what the
Preamble states. Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as
a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots,
French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great
Britain.
Posterity is synonymous with "legacy"–what we leave behind. Indeed, few, if any, had imagined
when the Constitution was created that anyone BUT a white European had the intellectual capacity
to embrace Republican principles of government YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas
is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific. Of course, that does NOT mean foreigners have the right
to enter our shores, and it is legitimate, although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that
non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles. Of course, in the past foreigners
have ben excluded on racial and religious grounds.
Interestingly enough, Vox Day makes these arguments
"As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended
to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of
the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants,
invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens
to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the
original We the People.
"Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the
United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The
U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of
Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants,
resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide
them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is
totally irrelevant.
"The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and
there never will be any such thing."
So, everyone on this fine blog, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British
settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.
Happy 4th Of July!
Tom Kratman, a science fiction writer, took Vox Day to task on this matter.
"All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation?"
Aelius Aristides, a Greek who received Roman citizenship in 123 A.D. stated
You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire everywhere giving citizenship
to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born
identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. Neither the sea nor the
great expanse of intervening land keeps one from being a citizen, and there is no distinction
between Europe and Asia No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust.
Rather, there is here a common "world democracy" under the rule of one man, the best ruler and
director You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans and because you have divided people
in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with
you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens
have not even seen this city [Rome]! There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high
points of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their
native lands for you yet there is not a residue of resentment among those excluded [from Roman
citizenship and a share in the governance of the provinces]. Because your government is both universal
and like that of a single city-state, its governors rightly rule not as foreigners but, as it
were, their own people Additionally, all of the masses of subjects under this government have
protection against the more powerful of their native countrymen, by virtue of your anger and vengeance,
which would fall upon the more powerful without delay should they dare to break the law. Thus,
the present government serves rich and poor alike, and your constitution has developed a single,
harmonious, all-embracing union. What in former days seemed impossible has in your time come to
pass: You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind "
Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has
transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other
European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish,
Bavarians, the Catalans–they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled
and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates
who, like any and all groups, self-identify. They know who they are and where they come from,
and create groups who share their self-identities. Furthermore, the default for American is American
and not a particular race, regardless of one's willingness to admit it this decided fact. When
you call yourself a black American or a Chinese American, you are still an American, as in residing
in the nation referred as the United States. And while Yankees and Southerners and Midwesterners
are clearly different, they are not separate "tribes" or "nations", just locations with groups
of people who self-identify geographically, socially, and culturally.
This identification is the direct result of indoctrination from our Founding Fathers.
Yeah, and someone named Khizr Khan, a Pakistani Islamist-supremacist who, as a lawyer, has
written articles defending Sharia law, was _invited_ by the Clinton campaign to speak at the Democratic
convention, where the Islamist proceeded to lecture Trump on the U.S. Constitution, and wagging
his finger declared .."Mr. Trump, this is not your America .." (or words that effect), to a wild
applause of brainwashed 1,000s in the audience.
@The Anti-Gnostic "Isn't the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?"
So are you and your family, with you being a lawyer and your wife a school teacher. Now are
you ready to get rid of all of your technological gadgets and live strictly in accord with the
beliefs AND lifestyle of Orthodoxy?
I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country
hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other
half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then and if fact we're starting to see things slowly
escalate to threats, fisticuffs and even a few shootings.
Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century
among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked
by mankind's most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans,
the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?
Today's elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet
of trendy ideology?
The idea that "diversity is strength", in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced
falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert.
Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major
issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force, and that the
more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times
an external shocks. Any diversity is a fault line, along which a society can crack under pressure,
even if that pressure is merely the kind of opportunist identity lobby charlatans who have done
so much harm in modern American and European societies.
But common sense has little chance in the face of ideology.
Pat like most Amurikans in the Fourth Reich have forgotten what ideals animated the American
and French revolutions: liberty from tyrannical big guvmints, liberty to strike out on one's own
to build a business and a homestead, and a declaration of universal human rights (life liberty
pursuit of happiness privacy) all of which the current and past empires have trampled upon in
the name of greed for money and power the glue that defines America is precisely the willingness
to risk life and property for these ideals if we studied our two greatest wars 1770-87 and 1859-1965
(civil rights and states rights) we might educate ourselves to the light and dark in our culture
he(Wright) denounced calls of "God Bless America!" with the curse "God Damn America!"?
Happy Fourth. And God bless the USA.
ROTFL. Is Buchanan still in defensive mode about America?
Why would God bless the current America? Just think about it.
This is a degenerate nation whose new faith is homomania. People have tattoos and piercings
for identity. Even in elite colleges. Mainstream culture has been pornified. Just turn on the
TV. Some primetime shows are downright lurid.
We have white families falling apart too and opoid addiction going thru the roof. Gambling
is of the main industries and GOP's main sugar daddy is cretin Sheldon Adelson. Fathers raise
their boys to be pansies and their girls to be skanky sluts.
Catholic church is home of pederasty and homo agenda. Women's idea of protest is wearing 'pussy
hats' and spewing vulgar filth from their lips.
Media are 100x nuttier than Joe McCarthy in their hysteria and paranoia. These are the very
Libs who'd once made McCarthy the most sinister person in US history.
Blacks routinely beat up & wussify white boys and colonize white wombs, but white 'Muricans worship
black thugs in sports and rappers.
Blacks do most violence but we are supposed to believe BLM.
Americans eat like pigs. US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even
aiding Al-Qaida in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane. We are told we must support Israel or
Sodomia because it has the biggest homo 'pride' parade.
And 'pride' is now synonymous with homo fecal penetration.
Why would God bless this kind of degenerate nation?
Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject
the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
Not enough of them vociferously enough to make the ruling elites pay attention, clearly.
Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.
As I noted, ideology trumps common sense, for those who make policy and for those who wish
to be seen as good guys by their supposed betters and peers.
America is a culture in decay, it is a huge piece of land with lots of resources and ruled
by outside forces from within. It is pimped to the max!!! Our cuckold "experts and politicians
" imaginations run wild whenever the pimps (from outside) and their representatives (within) give
the orders to further push this land into an increasingly decadent society .. look how happy we
are when we kill defenseless people, clearing their (pimps) garbage, work hard to collect wealth
for them, it is soooo sad just thinking about it. Carrying the pimp's flag is considered one of
the most patriotic thing to do, ask Tom Cotton, Bolton, Rumsfeld .
We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country.
We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago
ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants,
Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.
Pat seems to imply that if the original ancestry had been maintained, America would not
have the problems it now faces. He singlehandedly lays out the blame for the decline of American
Republic/democracy at the feet of non-white foreigners. Let us follow this line of reasoning and
see where it leads us.
First, unless the original white immigrants to this country had wiped out every non-white resident
(the American Indians) of this country, there would still be non-white people living in America.
However, leaving that little detail aside, let us examine who caused the decline of America.
The laws of the land are enacted by the congress of the United States. The US congress has the
sole power of imposing taxation, allowing immigration, and the conduct of wars. Up until recently
the congress of the United States consisted of mostly white citizens. Out of the 45 presidents
that the country has seen, all but one have been white Americans. The one black president was
more white than black. Just check with black citizens and they will tell you that they were better
off before him.
The British taxes, without representation, that the colonist rebelled against were much lower
than what they are now. These taxes have been imposed by the white congressmen and signed by white
presidents.
The immigration laws and quotas were passed by the white congress and signed by white presidents.
The wars, both declared and undeclared, have been waged by the white presidents.
While I sympathize with Mr Buchanan lamenting upon the good old days, no one but his own white
folks have destroyed those good old days. America took pride in been called the nation of immigrants
but only when the going was good. As long as, the immigrant scientist, engineers, and architects
made this country great they were welcome but as soon as things got rough America blamed the immigrants.
Mr. Buchanan, don't blame all immigrants. Most of them are still productive and faithful to
their adopted country. If you want to blame someone, follow the money, since money is the root
of all evil. I don't have to tell you who controls the money. You should know very well who. I
have followed your career for a long time. I even voted for you in 1992 presidential primary.
You were very outspoken then but your wings have been clipped. There is no zing left in your writing.
You have toned down criticism of the very group of people that have destroyed this country.
"Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and
practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs.
The core of the culture."
Which America has. "Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive
of social capital and destructive to the host society." According to Vox Day, only the English
immigrants were able to understand the Rights Of Englishmen. Non-English immigrants perverted
its meaning. Are you non-English? If yes, you have to go back.
Jacques Sheete "We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another
happiness over the fraud."
Thank you for your virtue signaling. "Can a cesspool be a nation? If so, who would want it?"
Except America is not a cesspool, nor resembles anything like it.
The Jester
"In a historic turnabout, we have now given the feminists and sexual deviants hiding behind
Cultural Marxist ideology a legally protected status and (under the Marxist aphorism that personal
choice defines one's culture, gender, and sex) are inviting massive immigration from the hell-holes
populating the Third and Fourth Worlds."
The scope of Cultural Marxism is Fake News.
Randal
"Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major
issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force "
Except America does not fit that description.
"and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding
hard times an external shocks."
America's people are bound by a common set of values.
"... Trump is another vassal/tool of the power elite. as all Presidents have been for decades. Some unhappily, but all completely. ..."
"... Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators. ..."
"... He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. ..."
"... "EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh, give me a break -- ..."
"... Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't get his wall. Period. For the rest of the agenda other than the wall – I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because his agenda is supported by a majority. ..."
"... The other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they care for Trump's agenda. ..."
"... Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and needs to be reigned in. ..."
"... Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected. ..."
The Trumpocalypse is already building a wall in the minds of the
prospective immigrant.
Amid immigration setbacks, one Trump strategy seems to be working:
Fear
Most notably, Trump signed an executive order during his
first week in office that, among other things, vastly expanded the
pool of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants who are deemed
priorities for deportation. [...] The most vivid evidence that Trump's
tactics have had an effect has come at the southern border with
Mexico, where the number of apprehensions made by Customs and Border
Patrol agents plummeted from more than 40,000 per month at the end of
2016 to just 12,193 in March, according to federal data.
Had a similar story, mutatis mutandis, been written by somone French in
France about French immigration, he or she would have been labeled
extreme right, or even fascist.
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning
out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US
embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles
airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by
stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to
determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford
to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
"EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me
mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In
a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh,
give me a break --
H2B is a clear example that those researchers from Stanford (?) where
right: that the views/interests etc of 80-90% of Americans has exactly
ZERO influence over government/s policy.
Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK
government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet
process.
Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit
Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't
get his wall. Period.
For the rest of the agenda other than the wall –
I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because
his agenda is supported by a majority. The 40% approval rating Trump
enjoys – that's how many support his agenda. It's not a majority.
The
other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they
wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they
care for Trump's agenda.
Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a
Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and
needs to be reigned in. His agenda is not particulary popular among
people that voted against Hillary, not for Trump. Support for it is soft,
and as Trump continues a divisive agenda push that creates too much
opposition – soft support withers away.
he is going to be the same in office as all previous Republican
administrations
. Worse: Hard to see how the following story can be
interpreted as anything up Trump-Kushner selling visas for personal
enrichment. This is FILLING the swamp with corrupt Chinese .
There's been all kinds of cucking from Trump. I knew it would happen
eventually, but never dreamed it would happen within the first 100 days.
His latest cuck is leaving DACA in place and agreeing to accept the
1250 Muslim refugees who Australia did not want after blustering that
Obama made a "stupid deal" and we would not take them. You can't take
anything Trump says to the bank as it could change tomorrow or next week
and he acts like it's nothing.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing
cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words - one for cowards and one
for fakes.)
Where I live, in Montana, young white guys still work construction and
landscaping jobs. It's an amazing oasis, really.
What scares me is that
immigration decisions are being made by people who just
can't imagine
themselves or their family ever working these kinds of jobs or
anything close. They're out of touch. They have no right to capitulate
like this.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK
government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet
process.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big
business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to
become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in
this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of
political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He
has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting
the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless
opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly
in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend
retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.
@ThreeCranes
A former psychology professor of mine who also worked as a counselor at a
crisis center told our class that he could tell the real suiciders from
the wannabes by whether, after the "bang" of the supposed gunshot to the
head, he could actually hear the phone dropping onto the floor. If he
didn't, then presumably the caller was clinging to some hope, which it
was his job to nurture.
Mr. Derbyshire, like you I chuckle whenever Pres. Trump's makes the PC
crowd clamor for a safe space. But if you are concerned with the
vilification and death of traditional America then snark doesn't cut it.
If you voted for Trump, then sorry, the joke' on you, bloke.
We probably both miss the Scranton PA or Binghamton NY of 1955, but
Trump or any pol is powerless to bring them back. The best we rubes stuck
in the heartland can hope for is that the transfer payments from the
costal elites keep coming, and that the dollar remains a reserve currency
so that the government can borrow to support us. As I see it, Trumps
policies , gutting healthcare, tax cuts for the investor class, will hurt
us "badwhites". That is a bad bargain for seing Rosie ODonnell cry, no
matter how sweet.
@Clark Westwood
Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing
cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words -- one for cowards and one
for fakes.)
" How were these reptiles able to get their way on a major issue in the
Trump electoral agenda"
Very simple : Because they, the Democrats, own
and wield the "Racism" bludgeon, and there is nothing which terrifies a
meek, mild-mannered "Fair" Republican politico more than being labeled as
a :
RACIST
( not forgetting : " Enemy of women" , Homophobe, etc)
period.
And until these cowards learn to do their duty and persue that which
they were elected for, and ignore the tauntings of racism, and until they
begin to just throw it back, the racist label, at the crazy democrats,
they will be in the losers seat, period.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified
US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
Nobody here thinks that, you sanctimonious jerk-store.
Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to
be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because
Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero
or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected.
Worry not! The vice grip has been tightened , and now it's welded. You
think a con man from New York will betray his cabal buddies for a down on
his luck, beer chugging, and his world possession of a lifted 4×4, when
he has resorts to build and secure his little Zionist grand children that
one day will inherit the earth .Keep dreaming!
@Joe Hide
Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big
business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to
become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in
this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of
political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He
has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting
the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless
opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly
in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend
retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.
In First 2 Months in Office – Trump
Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion –
Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for
every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December,
2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous
president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in
additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush
served as president.
Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/
Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/
20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/
Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed
Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of
Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html
2010 Dems lost the House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state
level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House
seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.
Congress is the problem – not the president. Congress is dysfunctional.
Getting reelected is everything to those people. First and foremost,
congress people represent themselves – not their voters. Taking campaign
money from lobbyists to stop challengers in jerrymandered districts and
blue or red states, is paramount.
The last time congress really accomplished something was in the
Clinton administration. Newt Gingrich did good things (balancing the
budget and changed welfare). Other than open ended war, Bush congresses
did nothing. Obama's congress got a disastrously bad healthcare bill
passed and nothing else.
For sixteen years, the Bush and Obama congresses just spent more and
more money driving up the debt.
Trump is going to show his colors, when in a couple of months – a new
long-term spending bill is coming up for a monumental vote.
Will Trump veto the trillion-dollar deficit that congress will send to
him or not?
In First 2 Months in Office – Trump
Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion –
Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for
every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December,
2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous
president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in
additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush
served as president.
Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/
Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/
20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/
Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed
Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of
Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html
2010 Dems lost the House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state
level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House
seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.
Billionaire businessman
Marc Cuban
insists
that the H-1B visa racket is a
feature of the vaunted American free market.
This is nonsense on stilts. It can't go
unchallenged.
Another
billionaire, our president, has
ordered
that the H-1B program be reformed.
This, too, is disappointing. You'll see why.
First, let's
correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free
economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets
are intertwined. Trade, including trade in
labor, is not free; it's regulated to the hilt.
If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an
example of a fascistic government-business
cartel in operation.
The H-1B
permit, in particular, is part of that
state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B
hogs-Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian
firms), Microsoft, and Intel-import labor with
what are grants of government privilege. Duly,
the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like
incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do
they get to replace the American worker, but
they get to do so at his expense.
Here's how:
Globally, a
series of sordid liaisons ensures that American
workers are left high and dry. Through the
programs of the International Trade
Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the
International Monetary Fund, and other
oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker
is forced to subsidize and underwrite the
investment risks of the very corporations that
have given him the boot.
Domestically,
the fascistic partnership with the State amounts
to a subsidy to business at the expense of the
taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic
welfare state externalize their employment costs
onto the taxpayers.
So while
public property is property funded by taxpayers
through expropriated taxes; belongs to
taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit-at
least one million additional immigrants a year,
including recipients of the H-1B visa, are
allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported
infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival
avails himself of public works such as roads,
hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and
welfare.
Does this
epitomize the classical liberal idea of
laissez faire
?
Moreover,
chain migration or family unification means
every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an
entire tribe. The initial entrant-the meal
ticket-will pay his way. The honor system not
being an especially strong value in the Third
World, the rest of the clan will be America's
problem. More often than not, chain-migration
entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.
Spreading like
gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic
population growth is detrimental to all
ecosystems: natural, social and political.
Take Seattle
and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015
and 2016, the area was inundated with "86,320
new residents, marking it the region's biggest
population gains this century. Fueled in large
part by the technology industry, an average of
236 people is moving to the Seattle area each
day,"
reported
Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our
local fish-wrapper-in my case, parrot-cage
liner-have discharged their journalistic duties
by inviting readers to "share" their traffic-jam
stories.)
Never as dumb
as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates,
Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg and Marc Cuban
are certainly as detached.
Barricaded in
their obscenely lavish compounds-from the
comfort of their monster mansions-these social
engineers don't experience the "environmental
impacts of rapid urban expansion"; the
destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland;
the decrease in the quality of the water we
drink and air we breathe, the increase in
traffic and traffic accidents, air pollution,
the cellblock-like housing erected to
accommodate their imported I.T. workers and
extended families, the delicate bouquet of amped
up waste management and associated seepages.
For locals,
this lamentable state means an inability to
afford homes in a market in which property
prices have been artificially inflated. Young
couples lineup to view tiny apartments. They
dream of that picket fence no more. (And our
"stupid leaders," to quote the president before
he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are
so low!)
In a true free
market, absent the protectionist state,
corporate employers would be accountable to the
community, and would be wary of the strife and
lowered productivity brought about by a
multiethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All
the more so when a foreign workforce moves into
residential areas almost overnight as has
happened in Seattle and its surrounds.
Alas, since
the
high-tech traitors
can externalize their
employment costs on to the community; because
corporations are subsidized at every turn by
their victims-they need not bring in the best.
Cuban thinks
they do. High tech needs to be able to "search
the world for the best applicants," he
burbled
to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Yet more crap.
Why doesn't
the president know that the H-1B visa category
is not a special visa for highly skilled
individuals, but goes mostly to average workers?
"Indian business-process outsourcing companies,
which predominantly provide technology support
to corporate back offices," by
the Economist's accounting.
Overall, the
work done by the H1-B intake does not require
independent judgment, critical reasoning or
higher-order thinking. "Average workers;
ordinary talent doing ordinary work," attest the
experts who've been studying this intake for
years. The master's degree is the exception
within the H1-B visa category.
More
significant: THERE IS a visa category that is
reserved exclusively for individuals with
extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know,
because the principal sponsor in our family
received this visa. I first
wrote
about the visa that doesn't displace
ordinary Americans
in 2008
:
It's the O-1
visa.
"Extraordinary
ability in the fields of science, education,
business or athletics,"
states
the Department of Homeland Security,
"means a level of expertise indicating that the
person is one of the small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."
Most
significant:
There is no cap on the number
of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this
limited pool of talent is unlimited.
My point
vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs
are forever claiming that they are desperate for
talent. In reality, they have unlimited access
to individuals with unique abilities through the
open-ended O-1 visa program.
There is no
limit to the number of geniuses American
companies can import.
Theoretically,
the H-1B program could be completely abolished
and all needed Einsteins imported through the
O-1 program. (Why, even future first ladies
would stand a chance under the business category
of the O-1A visa, as a wealth-generating
supermodel could certainly qualify.)
Now you
understand my disappointment. In his
April 18 Executive Order,
President Trump
promised to merely reform a program that needs
abolishing. That is if "Hire American" means
anything to anybody anymore.
"... Villagers reported the victims as three-month-old Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri; Aisha Mohammed Abdallah al Ameri, 4; Halima Hussein al Aifa al Emeri, Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, both 5; Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri, 6; Khajija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, 7; Nawar Anwar al Awlaqi, 8; Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab, 11; Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab, 12. ..."
"... The concierge at Mar-a-Lago had the good manners not to interrupt Trump, Kushner, Bannon and the rest at dinner with pictures of the dead children. Therefore, no change of policy: they can go back to eating and planning the next raid. ..."
"Villagers reported the victims as three-month-old Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri; Aisha Mohammed
Abdallah al Ameri, 4; Halima Hussein al Aifa al Emeri, Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri,
both 5; Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri, 6; Khajija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, 7; Nawar Anwar
al Awlaqi, 8; Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab, 11; Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab, 12."
The concierge at Mar-a-Lago had the good manners not to interrupt Trump, Kushner, Bannon
and the rest at dinner with pictures of the dead children. Therefore, no change of policy: they
can go back to eating and planning the next raid.
Agent Orange failed to understand that he was elected mostly due to Hillary jingoism, not on his
own merits. [And that voters expect to hism to stop the wars for neoliberal empire expansion as
well as neocons war in support of Israeli regional interests.]
Or was forcefully "converted" into Hillary during the first 100 days of his presidency.
IMO, much of the focus on "immigration" as a mechanism for
low wage growth is a red-herring that seeks to turn attention
away from the undermining of labor, civil, and voting rights.
"First, not all migrants are competing against native
workers. Some are complements, and so help to raise wages."
"Of course, it is the case that real wages have been under
pressure in recent years. But why blame immigrants for this?
There are many other culprits: weaker trades unions; fiscal
austerity; financialization (pdf); the financial crisis;
power-biased technical change; and all the things that have
depressed productivity."
Does Immigration Help The Economy? Trump Administration To
Reopen H-1B Visa Program
By Lydia O'Neal @LydsONeal On 03/15/17 AT 4:30 PM
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
announced Wednesday that it would not draw down the number of
H-1B visas doled out to foreign workers for fiscal year 2018,
leaving the total cap at 85,000, and would begin accepting
applications April 3.
The decision came less than two weeks after USCIS alarmed
proponents of freer immigration for skilled workers when it
suspended the premium processing route for H-1B visas, which
allows companies to import workers quickly with just 15
waiting days and a $1,225 fee, for a period of at least six
months.
The agency attributed the decision to its need to "process
long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable
to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and
the significant surge in premium processing requests over the
past few years," according to a USCIS press release. USCIS
also kept its expedited processing route, which is reserved
for emergency situations, in place.
H-1B visas are reserved for foreign nationals with a clear
relationship with the American company seeking to hire them,
as well as a bachelor's degree or higher in a "specialty
occupation," defined by USCIS as "in fields such as
engineering, math and business, as well as many technology
fields."
H-1B Visa Petitions Approved in 2014 by Level of Education
Showing petitions approved in the 2014 fiscal year by
level of education. Approved petitions exceed the number of
individual H-1B workers sponsored because multiple types of
petitions can be filed for a single worker. The U.S. caps the
number of H-1B workers that can be given a visa at 65,000 per
fiscal year.
The tech industry often cites the program, which primarily
benefits Indian workers and companies, as a necessary tool to
compensate for labor shortages, but the existence of that
shortage has long been disputed.
A recent study found that, had the program not been in
place between 1994 and 2001, tech workers' salaries would've
been up to 5 percent higher, while their employment would've
grown by up to 11 percent. The paper, by researchers at the
University of Michigan and the University of California, San
Diego, also pointed out that productivity in the sector rose
by as much as 2.5 percent, while consumer prices fell,
ultimately benefitting information technology firms.
"... Block refugee admissions from the war-torn country of Syria indefinitely. ..."
"... Suspend refugee admissions from all countries for 120 days. After that period, the U.S. will only accept refugees from countries jointly approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all visitors to the U.S. and require in-person interviews for all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa. ..."
"... Suspend the visa interview waiver program indefinitely and review whether existing reciprocity agreements are reciprocal in practice. ..."
According to the draft executive order, President
Donald Trump plans
to:
Block refugee admissions from the war-torn country of Syria indefinitely.
Suspend refugee admissions from all countries for 120 days. After that period, the U.S. will
only accept refugees from countries jointly approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the
State Department and the Director of National Intelligence.
Cap total refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 at 50,000 ― less than half of the 110,000
proposed by the Obama administration.
Ban for 30 days all "immigrant and nonimmigrant" entry of individuals from countries designated
in Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated appropriations act: Iraq, Syria,
Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. These countries were
targeted last year in restrictions on dual nationals' and recent travelers' participation
in the visa waiver program.
Suspend visa issuance to countries of "particular concern." After 60 days, DHS, the State
Department and DNI are instructed to draft a list of countries that don't comply with requests
for information. Foreign nationals from those countries will be banned from entering the U.S.
Establish "safe zones to protect vulnerable Syrian populations." The executive order tasks
the secretary of defense with drafting a plan for safe zones in Syria within 90 days. This would
be be an escalation of U.S. involvement in Syria and could be the first official indication of
how Trump will approach the conflict there.
Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all visitors to the
U.S. and require in-person interviews for all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa.
Suspend the visa interview waiver program indefinitely and review whether existing reciprocity
agreements are reciprocal in practice.
The draft order, which is expected to be signed later this week, details the Trump administration's
plans to "collect and make publicly available within 180 days ... information regarding the number
of foreign-born individuals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United
States and engaged in terrorism-related acts." It also describes plans to collect information about
"gender-based violence against women or honor killings" by foreign-born individuals in the U.S.
The
language is unclear as to whether the names of these individuals, which could include American citizens,
would be made public, nor does the document define "radicalized" or "terrorism-related acts," leaving
open the potential to sweep vast numbers of people onto the list.
The move is reminiscent of the
expansive enemies lists created by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover last century.
Jimmy Dore makes some great points from time to time but this
particular rant has so many flaws that it would be a real
undertaking to itemize all of them.
Millions if not billions of people, including millions of
USAmericans have been horrified at US terrorism wherever it
occurs. We weren't OK with the US terrorizing these seven
countries or any of the other countries the US has terrorized.
We protested. We talked to our political representatives. We
advised young men to refuse to volunteer to kill and be killed
for money. We did whatever we could think of to stop the
carnage. We were unsuccessful.
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so
much as singling out people from specific countries, whether
Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it. The ban
should be on all religious extremists including apartheid
Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all
of the major religious have committed heinous atrocities.
I could go on, but those are the main points I wanted to make.
What? Fake news isn't enough for you, so now you're engaging
in fake debate? You have problems with Jimmy's points then
argue them. Too many for you? Then pick the top six and
critique them. Otherwise stop stuffing your fingers in your
ears and loudly singing patriotic songs to drown out the
unpleasant truths. P.S. There were significant protests when
Bush Jr. was running the show but they all died out after
Obama took over the nation's reins. After that all I heard
from the American left about his constant assault on the
Constitution, keeping Guantanamo, the country's wars of
aggression, U.S. support of the military coup in Honduras,
his unconditional and unlimited subsidization of Wall Street,
his unprecedented vendetta against government whistle
blowers, and his impressive accumulation of 306 golf outings
(at a gob smacking five hours a pop!) ... was crickets.
You read different stuff than I do. I heard a fire hose
stream of Progressive/liberal criticism of Obama's
policies and enormous disappointment in Obama - including
from people like Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, and Amy
Goodman, and especially from Glenn Greenwald, Assange and
other brilliant political thinkers as well as from
Veterans for Peace, Pro-Palestine humanitarians, and
anti-nuclear activists. Medea Benjamin has been on the
front lines for eight years attacking Obama's war
mongering. Of course we need many more like her. Unless
you are her, using a fake name, then why weren't you right
there with her?
And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban;
hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con
hypocrites? Cynical demo pigs would love to impeach Drumpf and
wage nice with Pence. We are f*^ked unless we (us "lefty
ranters" and more) don't demand radical change from the
Corporatist neo-fascist establishments of both parties - the
party of dicks and the party of pant-suited V's. And the
media/wall street/military industrial complex can't get enough
of this.
BEWARE -- Why is the Zionist control media, and many Zionist
controlled organizations, so adamant about allowing people from
war torn Muslim countries come to the US ?
The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to
weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep
state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is
only an apprentice.
Trump's Muslim ban is not about terrorism or keeping America
safe. Otherwise Saudia Arabia would have been on the top of
list. This is about countries that stand against the US/Israel
agenda.
https://www.darkmoon.me/ /dona..
.
This guy should take Wolf Blitzer's job and expose the truth on
the national media. Blitzer can be consigned to telling risible
lies on You Tube, as should most of the jokers in the so-called
mainstream media.
People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized
Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of
thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and
paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes '
when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael
Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey
headline:
"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors
"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in
southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up
and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen"
about a planned construction project before the council.
Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling
actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a
scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself
as a local, sincere citizen.
Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a
company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend
politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog
in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been
paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016
presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did,
nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...
All those demonstrating against Trump are a asset to the deep
state. I can't understand why those demonstrators in the UK/EU
bashing Trump, there are more pressing reasons to demonstrate
in the UK, poverty, austerity, families relying on food banks
that the supermarkets have thrown out, where are the marches
against that obscenity, instead of going along with the agenda
of the Clinton band wagon, those causing havoc in the US/UK/EU,
would be better employed in demonstrating against those who have
created all those immigrants Muslim or otherwise in the first
place, ie; bush blair obama the clintons etc; time those out on
the streets got their priorities right.
People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized
Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of
thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and
paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes '
when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael
Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey
headline:
"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors
"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in
southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up
and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen"
about a planned construction project before the council.
Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling
actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a
scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself
as a local, sincere citizen.
Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a
company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend
politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog
in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been
paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016
presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did,
nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...
Strife Over
Immigrants: Can California Predict the
Nation's Future?
https://nyti.ms/2jW2PTW
via
@UpshotNYT
NYT - Emily Badger - February 1, 2017
The political ads warned that illegal immigrants were dashing, by the millions, over the Mexican
border, racing to claim taxpayer-funded public services in California.
"They keep coming," the announcer intoned over grainy aerial footage and a thrumming bassline.
When viewed on YouTube today, these ads hardly seem the stuff of multicultural California as we know
it.
In 1994, though, that message helped lift California's governor, the Republican Pete Wilson, to
re-election. That same year, voters adopted a referendum, Proposition 187, denying state services
to undocumented immigrants, including public education and health care.
California is often held up as a harbinger of the demographics - and, Democrats hope, the politics
- of the nation to come. Mr. Wilson's bet against immigration is thought to have hurt Republicans
in the long run in the state. But in the dawn of the Trump era, the state is also a cautionary tale
of what happens during the tumultuous years when that change is occurring rapidly.
Donald J. Trump has taken office in a nation that is not only growing more diverse, but also growing
more diverse everywhere, because of both foreign immigration and shifting internal migration patterns
that are touching the last bastions of nearly all-white America.
After an election in which Mr. Trump appealed to unease about the nation's changing identity -
and a month when he alarmed civil rights leaders and immigration advocates - his presidency poses
a very different question from his predecessor's.
Not: Are we post-racial? But: How will we handle the racial change that is only going to accelerate?
Sociological studies suggest that increasing contact between groups can yield familiarity and
tolerance. But it can also unnerve, especially in communities where that rapid change is most visible
- and when politicians stand to gain by exploiting it. California lashed out at diversity before
embracing it.
"There's a very rich history of xenophobia, of racism, of trying to wipe each other out," said
Connie Rice, a longtime civil rights lawyer in California. "It's not like we were all of a sudden
born the Golden State." ...
Related?
More Californians dreaming of a country without
Trump: poll
http://reut.rs/2j6s8iG
Reuters - Sharon Bernstein - January 24
The election of Republican businessman Donald Trump as president of the United States has some
Californians dreaming - of their own country.
One in every three California residents supports the most populous U.S. state's peaceful withdrawal
from the union, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, many of them Democrats strongly opposed
to Trump's ascension to the country's highest office.
The 32 percent support rate is sharply higher than the last time the poll asked Californians about
secession, in 2014, when one-in-five or 20 percent favored it around the time Scotland held its independence
referendum and voted to remain in the United Kingdom.
California also far surpasses the national average favoring secession, which stood at 22 percent,
down from 24 percent in 2014.
The poll surveyed 500 Californians among more than 14,000 adults nationwide from Dec. 6 to Jan.
19 and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of one percentage point nationally and
five percentage points in California.
The idea of secession is largely a settled matter in the United States, though the impulse to
break away carries on in some corners of the country, most notably in Texas.
While interest has remained about the same nationwide, it has found more favor in California and
the concept has even earned a catchy name - "Calexit."
"I don't think it's likely to happen, but if things get really bad it could be an option," said
Stephen Miller, 70, a retired transportation planner who lives in Sacramento and told pollsters he
"tended to support" secession. ...
'Calexit' would be a disaster for progressive values
http://fw.to/ks9LHNS
LA Times - January 27
Imagine if President Trump announced that he wanted to oust California from the United States.
If it weren't for us, after all, Trump would have won the popular vote he so lusts after by 1.4 million.
Blue America would lose its biggest source of electoral votes in all future elections. The Senate
would have two fewer Democrats. The House of Representatives would lose 38 Democrats and just 14
Republicans. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, among the most liberal in the nation, would be
changed irrevocably. And the U.S. as a whole would suddenly be a lot less ethnically diverse than
it is today.
For those reasons, Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan,
Republicans with White House ambitions, opponents of legalizing marijuana, advocates of criminalizing
abortion and various white nationalist groups might all conclude –– for different reasons –– that
they would benefit politically from a separation, even as liberals and progressives across America
would correctly see it as a catastrophe.
So it makes sense that the leader of the Yes California Independence Campaign, Marcus Ruiz Evans,
was - contrary to popular assumptions - a registered Republican when he formed the separatist group
two years ago, according to the San Jose Mercury News. He briefly hosted conservative talk radio
shows in Fresno, and would not tell the newspaper if he voted for Trump. ...
Point well made! Regarding the argument that today's
immigrants aren't as willing as past immigrants to
assimilate, I recently read that 80% of 19th Century German
immigrants returned to Germany, and 30% of Italian immigrants
did the same.
Our national mythology glosses over the history of how
unwelcoming our country has mostly been to new immigrants.
The idea that America has always been a land that welcomed
immigrants and provided them immediate opportunity is very
comfortable, but it contradicts a much harsher history. It's
a real shame that so many of our fellow countrymen are
willfully ignorant of their own ancestors' struggles, and are
willing to inflict the same harshness on our newest arrivals.
On the other hand, the news coverage of this past
weekend's protests over the Trump immigration Executive Order
included a picture of a man carrying a sign saying,
"Mexican-Americans Welcome Muslim Refugees!" I can't thing of
anything that expresses the ideals of real Americanism better
than that!
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign
Terrorist Entry Into the United States." Following is the language of that order, as supplied by
the White House.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101
et seq
., and section
301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by
foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose
.
The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals
with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was
that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy
prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19
foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process
was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from
receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the
United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes
since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving
visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement
program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest
increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The
United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for
admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country
do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and
should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies
over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry
or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution
of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of
any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals
who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign
nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries
of Particular Concern
.
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary
of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine
the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under
the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the
individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director
of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described
in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of
the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information,
within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy
of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period
described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization
of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards
are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the
United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12),
would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United
States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
(excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization
visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding
the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments
that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals
within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President
a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit
the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2,
G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection
(d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary
of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional
countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential
proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security
may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report
on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report
within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order,
and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs
.
(a) The
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication
process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a
fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to
their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure,
such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure
that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include
questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that
the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood
of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions
to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to
commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director
of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to
the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this
order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days
of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017
.
(a) The
Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During
the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security
and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application
and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those
approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States,
and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process
may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that
is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only
for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures
are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law,
to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided
that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.
Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation
to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry
of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend
any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the
USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry
of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions
would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section,
the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the
United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they
determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest - including
when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution,
when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting
international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause
undue hardship - and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of
the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals
on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit
a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable,
State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement
in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that
end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which,
consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the
process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall
devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility
.
The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General,
consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating
to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking
system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress
of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted
within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of
the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this
order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is
fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security
.
(a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the
Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which
requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject
to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary
of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing
the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language
training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of
their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are
not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity
.
The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant
visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly
reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections
221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not
treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of
State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment
of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection
.
(a) To be more transparent with the American
people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent
with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and
every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged
with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses
while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity,
affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security
reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been
radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have
provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the
United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women,
including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order
or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary
of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of
foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report
on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions
.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or
otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability
of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies,
or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
"... I happen to think the heartlessness of this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's base is cheering. ..."
"... silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO less recondite, etc, etc....... ..."
"... Before the Nazi had the power to go after the Jews they had effect the party's police state, before which ordinary Germans [and whatever police there were after the depression shuttered everything] permitted the party to do organized violence on their opponents: the social democrats, socialists, bolshevists, et al. ..."
"... The ban on returning residents is utterly against the law. ..."
'Mr. Trump's executive
order is un-American, not Christian, and hopefully
unconstitutional. This is a shameful act and no good person
can remain silent.'
Thanks for saying this Bill. JFK International had a
demonstration against this ban that featured the detention of
a brave Iraqi who helped US troops. This ban is also
incredibly stupid.
I happen to think the heartlessness of
this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner
maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and
Trump's base is cheering.
But on a longer term scale, heartlessness towards
Muslim immigrants and DREAMers is going to turn persuadables
against Trump. That and the next recession.
We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump
are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in
every single election they have voted in.
Amazes me that
even now people keep thinking that Trump voters are anything
but loyal GOP voters. And I think the best argument against
this (besides common sense) is the reaction of Rep leaders to
this obviously illegal action.
They're silent.
They cannot afford to speak out against this racist
policy, as their own voters are for this racist policy.
silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more
guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation
building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO
less recondite, etc, etc.......
Are the libruls all
riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror
shootings in US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?
There were a fair amount of voters who "came home" to the GOP
before the election, even though they found Trump himself
distasteful. At least some of those nouveau-Reagan democrats
also voted for him because of his economic agenda. They
believed that his racism was all for show.
Once upon a time, for
academic reasons I read the same book that Trump was rumored
to have by his bedside in NYC: the english translation of the
full text of Adolf Hitler's speeches. Hitler's argument for
getting ordinary Germans to go along with his extreme
anti-Semitic agenda was masterful. It went in essence like
this: "I know that there are a very few good Jews, and you
may know a few of them. But the vast majority of Jews, who
you don't know, are evil. But in order to get to the mass of
bad apples, we might have to inflict some hardship on a few
good people." By getting people to overlook their own
experience with Jews they knew, he prevailed.
In contrast - for example - gay rights triumphed when
enough people knew gays in their ordinary lives, and realized
that they were no different from anybody else. So they were
unable to see any valid reason to discriminate against them.
This ban is much more like the second situation than the
first. It is inflicting a lot of pain on a lot of good
people, in order to get to (allegedly) a few bad apples, and
people can see that. It is not going to be popular.
Before the Nazi had the power to go after the Jews they
had effect the party's police state, before which ordinary
Germans [and whatever police there were after the depression
shuttered everything] permitted the party to do organized
violence on their opponents: the social democrats,
socialists, bolshevists, et al.
"We'll differ on this one part, people that voted
for Trump are not persuadables. They have always voted the
same way in every single election they have voted in."
Reminds me of the obstinate, closed-mindedness which Trump
voters direct at immigrants and Muslims.
Neoliberals have not delivered a growing, healthy economy
despite Krugman's claims that everything is great, crime is
down, etc.
Obama's record for 8 years is an average of 1.7
percent growth. NGDP is even worse which is why I support an
NGDP target for the Fed. It would show how poorly they have
done.
This after decades of corporate trade deals and a
shrinking middle class.
People are angry. They want scapegoats. Trump provided
them with scapegoats and the uneducated white working class
took the bait.
I appreciate Bill's judgement that Trump's acts are odious,
but "un-American, not Christian, and hopefully
unconstitutional" seems to be going too far.
It only takes a quick tour of historical US acts on
immigration to find plenty of precedent.
1870-1943, Chinese.
1882, lunatics.
1907, Japanese
1921, everybody.
1923, Indians.
1932, everybody, especially Mexicans.
Mme. Chiang Kai Shek (recently
deceased at age 106 on Long Island) has much to answer for
before the bar of history, but she had one shining moment.
Supposedly at one point during WW2 both she and Winston
Churchill were living at the White House (must have made for
interesting dinner conversation). Anyway, during that time
she gave a speech to Congress. In that speech she pointed out
that Japanese militarist propaganda, that America's myth of
liberty and equality before the law was hypocritical, had one
inconvenient feature: given the Chinese and Japanese
Exclusion Acts, it was true.
This speech was so shaming that Congress changed the law
to allow Asian immigation - in a trickle at first, but
thereafter a river.
Yes, and her teenage voyage to San Francisco ended with her
being treated exactly like the people being detained at
airports this weekend. It made a lifelong impression on her.
Yes, its pretty unremarkable. And you are correct the that
Christian Arab refugees from Syria have been accepted at 5%
of the rate their population would suggest:
"But the
numbers tell a different story: The United States has
accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian.
Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say,
one-half of 1 percent.
The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian,
which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious,
and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have
acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an
especially persecuted group."
Here's a quite detailed discussion of the background around
the EO and its implementation ... including the 2015 law
limiting visas from those countries, and the reference for
the above quote. It also contrasts the headlines in much of
the press. As they say, read the whole thing.
"There is a postponement of entry from 7 countries (Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) previously
identified by the Obama administration as posing
extraordinary risks.
That they are 7 majority Muslim countries does not mean
there is a Muslim ban, as most of the countries with the
largest Muslim populations are not on the list (e.g., Egypt,
Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey,
Nigeria and more).
Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not
affected.
Moreover, the "ban" is only for four months while
procedures are reviewed, with the exception of Syria for
which there is no time limit.
There is a logic to the 7 countries. Six are failed states
known to have large ISIS activity, and one, Iran, is a sworn
enemy of the U.S. and worldwide sponsor of terrorism.
And, the 7 countries on the list were not even
so-designated by Trump. Rather, they were selected last year
by the Obama administration as posing special risks for visa
entry ..."
I believe they don't mention that IIRC we were bombing 5
of the 7 counties on the list last month.
The current system relies on referrals from the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Syria's population in
2011 was 90 percent Muslim and 10 percent Christian, CNS
said. Less than 3% admitted as refugees are Christian. But
not the state dept's doing.
I've seen some farmers of late complaining about Trump's
protectionism hurting their business. Yes they are smart
enough to realize that the dollar appreciation will reduce
their exports. Too bad these rural Americans were not smart
enough on election day not to vote Trump in as President.
The man knows only what he's seen on cable TV most of which
he doesn't understand. Knows nothing about: economics, trade,
foreign affairs, government, law, ... He epitomizes the know
nothings of the world, and, the fact that he doesn't know
doesn't bother him in the least. A narcissists-grandiose type
with neither regard nor interest for the probable
consequences.
I think it's wrong to even hope Trump turns out well. I think
the country needs act to save democracy, to save itself from
traveling down the road of despots and tyrants, from the
likes of Trump who can be manipulated by the likes of Bannon.
stupid is one who ignores that Obama presidency growth
averaged 1.7% and failed to lift millions while wall street
prospered and corporate market power increased both in goods
and labor markets.
As The Hill reports
, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on Sunday
said the president's executive order barring refugees and people from seven
majority-Muslim nations does not affect green card holders.
"We didn't overrule the Department of Homeland Security,
as far as green card holders moving
forward, it doesn't affect them,"
Priebus said on NBC's "Meet The
Press."
But Priebus noted if a person is traveling back and forth to one of the seven
countries included in that order, that person is likely to be "subjected temporarily
with more questioning until a better program is put in place."
"We don't want people that are traveling back and forth to one of these
seven countries that harbor terrorists to be traveling freely back and forth between
the United States and those countries,"
he said.
When pressed further on whether the order impacts green card holders, though, Priebus
appeared to reverse himself, saying, "Well, of course it does."
"If you're traveling back and forth, you're going to be subjected to
further screening,
" he said.
Furthermore, Priebus also said more countries could be added to the list already
included in the president's executive order.
"Perhaps other countries needed
to be added to an executive order going forward,"
he said.
"But in order to do this in a way that was expeditious, in a way that would pass
muster quickly, we used the 7 countries that have already been codified and
identified."
As we noted yesterday, of the seven countries that are on the banned list, we note
that the United States is actvely bombing five of them.
maybe he didn't include saudi arabia because he is a genius.
couldn't do it on the first go, but if enough people raise their
voice about that exclusion, he will be like, what do you think
folks, should I include SA? Ok, done!
The seven countries listed were already defined by the Obama
administration as principle threats, which is WHY Trump used them in
his EO of his FIRST WEEK in office. This is part of his campaign
agenda and using Obama policy was the fastest way to get it started.
You can also bet that there are PLENTY of government employees who
will do their best to make ANY such policy an embarrassment.
(f)
Suspension
of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens
or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary,
suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as
immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens
any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the
Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed
to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating
to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent
documents used by passengers traveling to the United States
(including the training of personnel in such detection), the
Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens
transported to the United States by such airline.
Standard Disclaimer: How long do you think those planes
will keep flying when hit with a million dollar a day fee?
10M? 100M?
Or do the words "any restrictions he may deem to be
appropriate." still fail to register within that pea-sized
brain of yours.
Trump banned 7 countries who produced not a single terrorist attack on US
soil, but Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Russian, Indian and Israeli Muslims are
not in the list, such are uselessness. What about US jail system, it seems
to produce more Muslims than the immigration. Even USA army produced more
terrorists than the 7 countries.
I came here to accuse you of being full of shit but the first few were
somalia, afghanistan, pakistan. not going to dig deeper because the
conclusion is obvious - we just need a full blown muslim ban.
Where the Trump admin is clumsy, inexperience
and naive is in thinking that every move they will make will NOT be used as
an opportunity to assassinate them politically and in PR terms.
The fight happens mainly in the media, for voters minds anyway.
Trump admin should learn this. Fast.
P.S. The decision was just fucking stupid. Non-muslim, non-refugee PhDs
who've been working for US tech/aerospace/finance/medical industry were left
stranded. I'm not sure that Bubba from Alabama or Joe from Flint would get
those jobs, even if Trump kicked out every single foreign PhD working in the
US. Also, Silicon Valley would totally tank, if that happened. It was just a
stupid move. Stupid.
I think what you're missing here, along with many others, is that
this administration DOES NOT CARE what the MSM thinks. They can fabricate
all the protests and memes they want, the administration will just shrug
and say "whatever".
W said he "had a mandate", then did half-steps. Obama said he "had a
mandate" , then didn't do any of it (close Gitmo, close black sites, end
the middle east wars (hell, he more than doubled the middle east
entanglements!)), Trump isn't even bothering to say he has a mandate,
he's just proceeding as if it's a given.
So go ahead and rage MSM and associated protesters, but I doubt it'll
do you any good.
The only way for him to avoid that from occuring would be to turn over
the office to them and not make any decision they have not given approval
to.
The effectiveness of their PR using the msm and their protest
events will lessen if Trump ignores them and makes moves quickly and
moves on. They will have difficulty getting attention over last months
news - Unless they get more destructive or violent.
Sorry BigFat, I like Ron Paul as much as you do, but his Libertarian Foreign
Policy viewpoint on the Islamic issue is COMPLETELY naive. They want to
establish a caliphate REGARDLESS whether they are bombed or not. They are
inextricably linked to following what the Koran says about murdering
Christians and Jews and establishing Sharia Law to dominate and subdue
unbelievers (yes even naive Libertarians).... goodness me bro, educate
yourself. Watch this school in Britain that is teaching students crazy
Sharia Law viewpoints and ask yourself if these people in its current form
are really compatible with Western Society:
It took Charles Martel "The Hammer" to put a stop to the Islamist creed
of conquering Europe after the Moors completely took over Spain and were
headed north towards France and the rest of last vestiges of the West. It
looks as if we need a revival of his bloodline in order to really bring
about peace and security in the West.
Criminal factions in the USA created ISIS. The American people are
trying to undo that crime and bring those responsible to justice. This
ain't gonna happen in a week.
No, you are wrong, VISAS and Green Cards are NOT "Forever documents"
granting the holder full citizenship or voting rights. It CAN be suspended
for ANY reason deemed proper under the ALREADY WRITTEN LAWS. The President
can suspend ANY entry:
"8 US Code 1182 Inadmissable Aliens
Section (10) (f)
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of
any class of aliens
into the United States would be detrimental to
the interests of the United States,
he may by proclamation, and for
such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or
any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry
of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Whenever
the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply
with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of
airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers
traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such
detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens
transported to the United States by such airline."
Additionally, theree can be action that can be taken on any airline or
transporter that accepts fradulent documents for admission. The United
States Law on immigration was NEVER get here stay here. WE get to choose
and it is NOT for democrats or globalists or elitiets to make that call. It
is .... wait for it.... wait for it...
WE THE (FUCKING) PEOPLE. WE DECIDE. Not a bunch of libtards that gave
up on America.
The fact that even Green Card holders
are aliens (with legal permanent residence in the US) is clear. A Green
Card expirs after 10 years, you can apply for another 10 years, but then
either become a citizen or leave the country. I understand that.
I was referring to the 90-day ban in the executive order. The
executive order appears to me - among many other things - to imply, for
example, that all Green Card holders, say, from Iran that just left the
US for, say, a week to go on vacation (but have otherwise lived and
worked here for years) will be barred from re-entering the US for a
period of 90 days until various objectives in the executive order are
worked out.
From Trump's executive order, Sec. 3. (c): '... I hereby proclaim that
the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens
from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,
and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and
nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order'
The way I read this is that if I am a Green Card holder from Syria who
has lived in the US for the past 17 years and has studied and worked
here, but who went on vacation to Venice, Italy, I WILL BE (no exception)
barred from re-entering the US for 90 days. While your quote of 8 U.S.C.
1182(f) appears to indicate that the president can do exactly that I
still think it is not clear cut from a legal perspective. We will see. If
I am wrong I am wrong. I maintain that the Trump administration did not
think through this executive order carefully. We can reconvene in the
near future once this initial transient period is over to see where we
are.
You obviously don't understand the size and scope of the problems this
administration is inheriting. Your agenda is clear. Bash Trump at every turn
and deflect from Obama's disastrous policies.
I find it interesting that you claim that my agenda is clear from just
reading one of my posts. That is not enough information that would allow
you make such a grand claim. Maybe you should go back and only claim
things, for which you have sufficient evidence. BTW, in my original post
I actually do bash the previous administration.
ANOTHER OBAMA DHS SCREW UP: 20,000 GREEN CARDS HANDED OUT LIKE CANDY
In the latest instance of the Obama administration's neglect and
indifference toward America's immigration problem, around 20,000 green cards
have been wrongly distributed or contained false information.
The DHS report highlights that at least 19,000 green cards were issued with
either incorrect information or sent in duplicate, while the USCIS also
received over 200,000 complaints that cards had either been sent to the wrong
address or not received at all.
Furthermore, the OIG report found that over 2,400 immigrants who had only
been cleared for two-year conditional residence status were inadvertently
issued cards that don't expire for 10 years.
Oh, and BTW, these countries
where Drumpf has businesses or business interests are exempt:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. United Arab Emirates
3, Turkey
4. Indonesia
Of course, no terrorists ever came from those nations. Oh,
wait...
It's one thing to try to tighten immigration overview.
Quite another to knee-jerk your way into an international
political blow-up with a fucked-up bull-in-china-shop
approach to strategy and tactics.
1. Saudi Arabia is the centerpiece of the petrodollar. An attack on Saudi
Arabia is an attack on the dollar and worthy of a military response. Nixon and
Kissinger laid the foundation of this monetary order and Carter made it very
clear about US defending Saudi Arabia.
2. UAE is a key ally of Saudi Arabia.
3. Turkey is a key NATO member, contributing a large percentage of troops
and vehicles, and also controls a key outlet for Russian warships based in
Crimea.
4. Indonesia controls the Strait of Malacca, a strategic chokepoint for oil
headed to East Asia.
I would refer everyone complaining about KSA and friends not being on the
list to your post.
Become self-sufficient (money/energy/manufacturing not
critically dependant on others), then you can tell KSA what you really think
of them. With all the winning these days, maybe it's not so far-fetched a
dream...
It's a difficult issue. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Some risk must be
accepted in order to remain within the law. Obama issued these visas and we have
to abide by them and that is that. We can not have witch hunts in this country.
Fortunately going forward, we can refuse new visas. And what is taking President
Trump so long to ban new border crossing "refugee" claims? That is actually a
more pressing issue.
It is not a matter of we vs. them, it's we vs. us. This Administration is proving
in 7 days to be rank amateurs.
So many statements and decrees have been walked
back, cancelled or corrected. No one thinks these things through or understands
what is lawful or possible.
So many statements and numbers have been proven objectively wrong and changed
on the fly.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, he cannot be trusted.
The Administration appointees and the Vampire Squid already control more wealth
than 1/3rd of the population.
Today we learn that the National Security Council has been downsized so as not
to include the Dec Def, or White House Security Adviser. A joke that only
President Paranoid can love.
When will the loyalists realize we have been PUNKED by this Administration?
Good thing there's no Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor anti-Western Jihadis in
Turkey, etc.
What I want to know is - regarding the drone ordering, cakewalk
promising, WMD swearing terrorists who started all shit to begin with - when will
they
be banned permanently from sunlight and fresh air?
Do you really think for a moment that Google is so desperate to hire good
programmers that it needs to recruit from Syria/Iraq/etc???
The Obama
administration and its henchmen for years has preyed upon the generosity of
businesses like those in Silicon Valley, to get them to hire from these Muslim
countries. This is how a Muslim governs. Obama did this with the express intent
of cirumventing any limitations on refugees, this way their status was immediately
legal.
This is a Muslim invasion. They are not refugees. And Islam is an evil cult,
which should not be given the title of 'religion'.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in
the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison
This story is about an investigation by George Webb that
takes us back to the Dulles Brothers and the birth of the CIA in 1947. It
includes a cast of characters, entities, and events leading up to Snowden;
including Booze Allen; the Carlie Group; the Enron scandal; Kosovo; Somalia;
Argentina; East Timor; the Clinton Foundation in Haiti; Hillary's arming of ISIS,
and destruction of Libya. And then there's the FALSE FLAG attack on Syria, using
Sarin Gas from Libya, for which Assad was blamed.
Webb began investigating of the Clinton Foundation and has
descended into a labyrinth of a Rabbit hole. Be assured the prima facie evidence
against Hillary in Libya and the Foundation, including Bill, is overwhelming.
If you are interested in the depth of the Rabbit Hole and the
psychopaths within, please see:
Good point. Much as I disagree with both bombing Muslims and
denying refugees, it is refreshing to see a president
actually try to accomplish what he believes in...after eight
years of a president who just shrugged his shoulders, told us
it can't be done, and that Americans should just suck it
up...the jobs are never coming back!
What 'liberal's fail
to understand is that Trump probably cares less about whether
he succeeds in banning Muslim immigrants and is more
concerned about how deplorables perceive how hard he is
trying.
If Obama and Hillary had tried half as hard as Trump to
accomplish things that working Americans wanted, then Trump
wouldn't be president. It is tragic that Democrats were more
interested in rolling over and having their bellies rubbed by
wealthy and powerful interests than beating their heads
against the wall for American workers.
In one way, the things that Trump is doing are similar to
what other newly elected presidents have done. In their first
weeks they try to reward the base voters by pushing through a
huge number of changes that are high on those voters'
agendas. Then they turn back to more normal, professional,
DC-oriented politics.
But in this case, we might not get a
return to normal. Possibly the most worrisome thing he is
done yet is put the lunatic cretin Bannon on the NSC, and
demote the Joint Chiefs and DNI. He's creating his own little
radical, ideological national security directorate of
wild-eyed, amateur outsiders and Holy Warriors.
He has already started a process for reviewing the US's
ISIS policies, including looking for ways to avoid
international law constraints. I expect that within a
relatively short time, he will launch a major, ruthless
military blitz against ISIS. He will team up with Putin to do
it. It will be combined with a domestic campaign of
persecution and intimidation directed against various kinds
of Muslims and non-Muslim political dissidents.
Trump believes he's the head of a movement, one that
overthrew the Republican establishment and faces unyielding
opposition from the press.
It's the economic and cultural nationalism of Jeff
Sessions and Bannon etc. He's a populist which is why he is
concerned with how popular he is. It's why the size of crowds
matters to him. It's why it matters whether or not he won the
popular vote. It's why he tweets directly at his supporters.
He repeatedly called Iraq a disaster on the campaign
trail. Many of his voters agree. I don't see him putting
boots on the ground, at least not for any extended period of
time or for an occupation. He's isolationist. America First.
They want to withdraw from the world, from alliances.
His Defense Secretary Mattis says torture doesn't work and
Trump said he'll defer to him. We'll see. Yes he'll probably
do some sort of military adventure but it will be drawn up by
Mattis and the generals. He'll declare victory and go home
and change the subject. When all is said and done he's a
real-estate developer and a con man. He'll use bombing ISIS
as a distraction. I see him as more like Berlusconi. Corrupt.
How many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? So if
all but one came from that country the travel ban on people
from 7 countries must certainly include Saudi Arabia, right?
No apparently not - because it could hurt Trumps personal
business deals. The criteria to select countries for this
cruel and completely unnecessary travel ban (leaving many
students at american universities stranded in their home
countries) has apparently not been designed based on actual
likelihood of terrorism.
Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos
and Outcry Worldwide
https://nyti.ms/2jHS6tQ
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, NICHOLAS KULISH and ALAN FEUER - Jan
28
WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Brooklyn came to the aid
of scores of refugees and others who were trapped at airports
across the United States on Saturday after an executive order
signed by President Trump, which sought to keep many
foreigners from entering the country, led to chaotic scenes
across the globe.
The judge's ruling blocked part of the president's
actions, preventing the government from deporting some
arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential
order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country
or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr.
Trump's actions. ...
In a rare middle-of-the night decision, two federal judges
in Boston temporarily halted President Trump's executive
order blocking immigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations
from entering the United States.
At 1:51 a.m., Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge
Judith Dein imposed a seven-day restraining order against
Trump's executive order, clearing the way for lawful
immigrants from the seven barred nations – Iran, Iraq, Yemen,
Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria – to enter the US.
"It's a great victory today," said Susan Church, a lawyer who
argued the case in court. "What's most important about today
is this is what makes America great, the fact that we have
the rule of law."
The ruling prohibits federal officials from detaining or
deporting immigrants and refugees with valid visas or green
cards or forcing them to undergo extra security screenings
based solely on Trump's order. The judges also instructed
Customs and Border Protection to notify airlines overseas
that it is safe to put immigrants on US-bound flights. ...
Judge Who Blocked Trump's Refugee Order Praised
for 'Firm Moral Compass'
https://nyti.ms/2jDI930
NYT - CHRISTOPHER MELE - January 29, 2017
The federal judge who blocked part of President Trump's
executive order on immigration on Saturday night worked for
years in the Manhattan district attorney's office, where she
was one of the lead prosecutors on the high-profile Tyco
International fraud trial.
Colleagues remembered the judge, Ann M. Donnelly, as an
astute lawyer unfazed by the spotlight. She found herself in
its glare unexpectedly on Saturday night, when she heard an
emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union
challenging the executive order barring refugees. She granted
a temporary stay, ordering that refugees and others detained
at airports across the United States not be sent back to
their home countries.
Enforcing Mr. Trump's order by sending the travelers home
could cause them "irreparable harm," Judge Donnelly ruled.
The order, just before 9 p.m., capped an intense day of
protests across the country by opponents of the order, which
suspended the entry of all refugees to the United States for
120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely and blocked
entry for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim
countries. ...
Protest Grows 'Out of Nowhere' at Kennedy Airport
After Iraqis Are Detained
https://nyti.ms/2jDgKhA
NYT - ELI ROSENBERG - January 28, 2017
It began in the morning, with a small crowd chanting and
holding cardboard signs outside Kennedy International
Airport, upset by the news that two Iraqi refugees had been
detained inside because of President Trump's executive order.
By the end of the day, the scattershot group had swelled
to an enormous crowd.
They filled the sidewalks outside the terminal and packed
three stories of a parking garage across the street, a mass
of people driven by emotion to this far-flung corner of the
city, singing, chanting and unfurling banners.
This was the most public expression of the intense
reaction generated across the country by Mr. Trump's
polarizing decision. While those in some areas of the country
were cheered (#) by the executive order, the reaction was
markedly different for many in New York. References to the
Statue of Liberty and its famous inscription became a
rallying cry.
Similar protests erupted at airports around the country.
Word of the protest at Kennedy first filtered out on
social media from the immigrant-advocacy groups Make the Road
New York and the New York Immigration Coalition. It seemed
like it might stay small.
But the drama seemed to rise throughout the day. ...
#- Trump's Immigration Ban Draws Deep Anger
and Muted Praise
https://nyti.ms/2jBezLG
NYT - RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA - Jan 28, 2017
A group of Nobel Prize winners said it would damage
American leadership in higher education and research. House
Speaker Paul D. Ryan and some relatives of Americans killed
in terrorist attacks said it was right on target. An
evangelical Christian group called it an affront to human
dignity.
The reaction on Saturday to President Trump's ban on
refugees entering the United States, with particular focus on
certain Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, was
swift, certain - and sharply divided.
The order drew sharp and widespread condemnation Saturday
from Democrats, religious groups, business leaders, academics
and others, who called it inhumane, discriminatory and akin
to taking a "wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty."
Thousands of professors, including several Nobel laureates,
signed a statement calling it a "major step towards
implementing the stringent racial and religious profiling
promised on the campaign trail." ...
'Give me your tired, your poor:' The story behind the Statue
of Liberty's famous immigration poem
http://ti.me/2keeIFr
Time - Katie Reilly - January 28, 2017
In the wake of
President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration
Friday, many critics quickly took up a familiar rallying cry,
lifting words from the Statue of Liberty that have for
decades represented American immigration: "Give me your
tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free."
Former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin,
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright all invoked those words - written by
American author and poet Emma Lazarus in 1883 - as they
condemned Trump's suspension of the country's refugee
assistance program. ...
The poet James Russell Lowell said he liked the poem "much
better than I like the Statue itself" because it "gives its
subject a raison d'être which it wanted before," according to
the New York Times.
"Emma Lazarus was the first American to make any sense of
this statue," Esther Schor, who wrote a biography on Lazarus,
told the Times in 2011. ...
"Wherever there is humanity, there is the theme for a
great poem," she once said, according to the Jewish Women's
Archives.
The poem was later published in New York World and the New
York Times, just a few years before Lazarus died in 1887.
The Statue of Liberty arrived in New York in 1885 and was
officially unveiled in 1886, but Lazarus' poem did not become
famous until years later, when in 1901, it was rediscovered
by her friend Georgina Schuyler. In 1903, the last lines of
the poem were engraved on a plaque and placed on the pedestal
of the Statue of Liberty, where it remains today.
The poem, in its entirety, is below:
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I happen to think the heartlessness of this
Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum
attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's
base is cheering.
But on a longer term scale, heartlessness towards Muslim
immigrants and DREAMers is going to turn persuadables against
Trump. That and the next recession.
We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump
are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in
every single election they have voted in.
Amazes me that
even now people keep thinking that Trump voters are anything
but loyal GOP voters. And I think the best argument against
this (besides common sense) is the reaction of Rep leaders to
this obviously illegal action.
They're silent.
They cannot afford to speak out against this racist
policy, as their own voters are for this racist policy.
ilsm -> EMichael...
, -1
silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more
guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation
building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO
less recondite, etc, etc.......
Are the libruls all riled
up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in
US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?
(cnbc.com)
416
Posted by msmash
on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @10:20AM
from the
aftermath
dept.
China is trying to capitalize on President-elect Donald Trump's hardline
immigration stance and vow to clamp down on a foreign worker visa program that
has been used to recruit thousands from overseas to Silicon Valley. From a
report on CNBC:
Leading tech entrepreneurs, including Robin Li, the
billionaire CEO of Baidu, China's largest search engine, see Trump's plans as
a huge potential opportunity to lure tech talent away from the United States
.
The country already offers incentives of up to $1 million as signing bonuses
for those deemed "outstanding" and generous subsidies for start-ups. Meanwhile,
the Washington Post last month reported on comments made by Steve Bannon, who
is now the president-elect's chief strategist, during a radio conversation with
Trump in Nov. 2015. Bannon, the former Breitbart.com publisher, indicated that
he didn't necessarily agree with the idea that foreign talent that goes to
school in America should stay in America. "When two-thirds or three-quarters of
the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ...,"
Bannon said, trailing off. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic
society."
(moneycontrol.com)
184 Posted by msmash on Monday November 28, 2016 @02:20PM from the meanwhile-in-India dept.
From a report on Reuters: Anticipating a more protectionist US technology visa programme under
a Donald Trump administration, India's $150 billion IT services sector will
speed up acquisitions in the United States and recruit more heavily from college campuses there
. Indian companies including Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, and Wipro have long used H1-B
skilled worker visas to fly computer engineers to the US, their largest overseas market, temporarily
to service clients. Staff from those three companies accounted for around 86,000 new H1-B workers
in 2005-14. The US currently issues close to that number of H1-B visas each year. President-elect
Trump's campaign rhetoric, and his pick for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a long-time
critic of the visa programme, have many expecting a tighter regime.
Posted by EditorDavid
on Sunday November 27, 2016 @11:34AM
from the
making-campaign-promises-great-again
dept.
Monday president-elect Donald Trump sent "the strongest signal yet that the
H-1B visa program is going get real scrutiny once he takes office," according
to CIO.
During his presidential campaign, Trump was critical of the H-1B visa program
that has been widely criticized for displacing U.S. high-technology workers.
"Companies are importing low-wage workers on H-1B visas to take jobs from young
college-trained Americans," said Trump at an Ohio rally.
"... I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc. ..."
"... If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population would be within a set period. ..."
"... Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly with transport but also with other infrastructure needs. ..."
"... The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access. ..."
"... In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability. ..."
"... It undermining social and democratic structures. ..."
"... Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy. ..."
"... What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by citizens? ..."
"... It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable. ..."
"... As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity and stability. ..."
"... Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than 25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies which are exacerbating the problem. ..."
"... So in addition to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows, we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue. ..."
"... I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework. ..."
"... For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon. ..."
"... What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people with no community at all. ..."
"... Think of the million Poles in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland, and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people living in Ireland . ..."
"... At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more or less directly, from a leftist point of view. ..."
"... In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity, but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place. The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled products to others further down the assembly line. ..."
"... It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for their environmental devastation and social dysfunction. ..."
"... Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering. ..."
"... Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create, consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery? ..."
"... John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China, not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product of past and present Imperialism. ..."
"... By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here. ..."
"... I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process), so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the same way. ..."
This is definitely approaching it from the right angle–large immigration flows act like globalization.
They improve overall average GDP but definitely hurt certain sectors of workers in ways that thus
far in the experiment suggests that they never recover.
I wonder about the effect of big city housing costs. They act as a barrier to moving to a better
job. Is this something that we should be worried about as part of the immigration issue?
ZM 12.21.16 at 6:15 am
I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways
than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach
this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial
transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be
phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc.
If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal
reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and
increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population
would be within a set period.
Also there is already a problem with gentrification in many cities, and associated issues of
people having to move further away from family and friends, and not enough affordable housing,
and homelessness - open borders would increase all these problems I would think as it would take
out all the regulations. And we already have problems with people from poor countries or poor
areas being under pressure to migrate for work and financial reasons, and open borders would exacerbate
that problem as well.
I think refugees need to be able to migrate the most urgently, but it would still be better
for them that there were specific policies for refugee migration that would allow the high numbers
of refugees to migrate to safety either temporarily or permanently, rather than open borders.
Most of the bloggers here are not in favour of laissez faire free trade, so I don't see why
open borders are favoured when "open trade" isn't?
Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration
is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then
you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have
had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly
with transport but also with other infrastructure needs.
I'm a bit suspicious that this sort of analysis suffers from large measurement biases.
As an environmentalist,
I'm concerned that we may be increasing a statistic (GDP) that is just a measure of an extent
of how much higher a proportion of consumer is now being captured in the market, and not a measure
of actual welfare. I remember very well as young economist wondering when I heard a more senior
economists complaining that Australians didn't want to work but just wanted to lie about on the
beach. And then I thought about how northern Europeans pay large amounts of money in order to
be able to lie about on the beach.
Maybe the beach occupying Australians were being rational and
the economist was not being rational. Having more crowded beaches does not show as a minus on
GDP as far as I know.
reason 12.21.16 at 9:20 am P.S.
GDP may also measure how rapidly our natural capital is being converted to perishable goods, but
not measure how rapidly it is being eroded.
On the immigration surcharge thing, I can see its attractions as a policy, but let me just comment
on it from the point of view of principle, not to advocate any particular solution but to notice
some things:
The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the
new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by
previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite
strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access.
(Adding in some plausible history, we might further note that the existing domestic infrastructure
hasn't, in many cases, been built up simply from the unaided efforts of the ancestors of the natives
but often reflects the efforts of the colonised or dominated ancestors of the would-be immigrants.)
Then notice also another asymmetry, that the proposal is to charge the incomers for the benefits
they derive from the infrastructure, whilst allowing the natives to benefit for free from human
capital that has been created elsewhere through educational and training programmes. That issue,
the so-called brain drain problem (I'm not a fan of the term or many of the associated claims
btw) forms the basis for a quite different set of proposals for taxing immigrants, the so-called
Bhagwati tax. So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!
reason 12.21.16 at 9:35 am
P.P.S. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not totally against open borders in all circumstances (in
fact in a fairly equal world with a stable population I would be all for it), but I see a distinct
danger of very rapid immigration:
In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing
stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability.
"Chang, who opposes open borders" "Currently a reader in the Political Economy of Development
at the University of Cambridge"
Open borders for me but not for thee?
ZM 12.21.16 at 9:45 am Chris Bertram,
"So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!"
Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income
people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration
intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy.
I would rather make improve inequality between countries, and then experiment with freer migration
after that. Since I think there would be less incentive to migrate if countries were more equal,
and then freer migration would be more likely to run smoother.
And (didn't see comment 7) - while yes, a surcharge isn't strictly fair, it is a far lesser evil
than not letting immigrants in at all.
I think it's plausible that remittances would more than make up for the investments home countries
had made in 'their' immigrants.
SamChevre 12.21.16 at 11:14 am
On a surcharge–I proposed one years ago in the context of the proposed "amnesty," that I think
avoids some of the problems Chris Bertram notes above.
What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by
citizens? This would be a "pay your share of current costs" tax, not an additional tax.
For the
US, it would be roughly $10,000 a year for the federal government (20% of per capita GDP)–and
any taxes paid to the federal government (FICA and income tax) would be credits against it.
It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed
upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial
resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes
that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and
bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable.
As an example, it is possible to get as many workers as you want into the UK within a few days.
If you have a warehouse that needs staff they can be here from anywhere in the EU, all well educated,
speaking English, with accommodation and ready to work. I'm not saying its a good or a bad thing.
But its a thing that has consequences.
One organisation that has resisted Open Borders is the Corbyn clique in the Labour Party. Entry
into the employment opportunities within that sector of the economy appears to be only open to
relatives, children of political allies, school mates and children of celebrity chums.
BenK 12.21.16 at 1:50 pm '
Not allowed to vote' is political smokescreen. If those people have for some reason not established
voting in the country they currently live in, then yes, they haven't paid the price for liberty
there. If they can, then they are voting – just not where they would apparently prefer to be voting.
As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of
extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity
and stability.
Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than
25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased
overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing
communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies
which are exacerbating the problem.
A surcharge might be a useful approach. I will say, echoing Reason, that massive waves of immigration
into a region change a lot of things, and not necessarily in ways that the natives would view
as positive.
I've lived in L.A. for the past 35 years, and during that time millions of immigrants
have come into this metropolitan area. Traffic problems, noticeable in L.A. when I arrived in
1981 but something that could be reasonably dealt with, got much, worse.
The public school system
went from fair to actively problematic. In both cases, the problem was made much worse by lagging
public investment, particularly in transportation systems.
Maybe L.A. was uniquely dysfuntional
politically, but I would suspect that most regions would see degradations in public goods in times
of massive in-migration. The significant investment required for massive population growth will,
in all likelihood, not be made, especially in a timely way, and the sort of planning that would
actually be necessary for a pleasant transition to a more populous future seems likely to be beyond
the capabilities of most cities, at least the ones I've lived in.
The inevitable resulting problems
will not endear the newcomers to the natives, even if those problems are solely the fault of the
immigrants.
William Meyer 12.21.16 at 2:48 pm
Sorry, my mistake, the last sentence should read "even if those problems are NOT solely the fault
of the immigrants.
#7
Reminds one of the old story of the Capitalist who berates the local for quitting fishing after
catching enough for today's dinner so he can lay about playing guitar and drinking beer on the
beach.
"You should fish from dawn to dusk 7 days a week. Sell your surplus. Buy another fishing boat. Do
this for 30 years."
"What for?",asks the local.
"So you can retire and lay about, play guitar and drink beer on the beach!"
Omega Centauri 12.21.16 at 5:10 pm
I think its a very difficult sale politically. But, you already know that.
There also is the issue of potentially large scale population flows from less "productive"
areas to
more "productive" areas.
We have this same issue within countries, such as rust belt to coastal
cities in the US, and we've seen political consequences -Trump_vs_deep_state become ascendant.
So in addition
to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows,
we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems
to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue.
@divelly it is from Adam Smith, Theory of the Moral Sentiments, part 3, ch. 3 :
"What the favourite of the king of Epirus said to his master, may be applied to men in all
the ordinary situations of human life. When the King had recounted to him, in their proper order,
all the conquests which he proposed to make, and had come to the last of them; And what does your
Majesty propose to do then? said the Favourite.-I propose then, said the King, to enjoy myself
with my friends, and endeavour to be good company over a bottle.-And what hinders your Majesty
from doing so now? replied the Favourite."
Stephen 12.21.16 at 8:10 pm
Moral sentiments of less desirable people: I propose to enjoy myself by being revenged on and
utterly destroying my enemies, and to be good company over the finest available bottle with those
who dare not contradict me.
I think we should be extra skeptical of any paper that claims that the "economics of open borders"
hasn't received "much" attention. Maybe not as much as many other things, and there may be some
hedging about what, exactly, fits, but the economics of migration has received _lots_ of attention.
In The US, the National Academy of Science did a huge study on it in the mid 80's, and updated
it again just recently.
Jagdish Bhagwati has written quite a bit on it, both popular and formal.
George Borjas has written a lot on it (most of it not good, in my opinion, but a lot on it.) Lots
and lots of people, including some very famous economist, have responded to Borjas. Paul Krugman
has written on it. One of my mentors, Howard Chang, a lawyer-economist at Penn Law, has written
a lot on it. Etc. So, already we know that there is something a bit fishy here.
Next, this sort of thing typically assumes, for its strong conclusions, that everyone will
move to where he or she will get the "highest" return for his or her skills. We know this is false,
because it doesn't even happen within any particular country, where there are no restrictions,
no "surcharge" to pay, and fewer cultural barriers. So, the gain will certainly be much smaller
than is projected.
I'd also suggest that this bit from John, Moreover, in a world where more than a billion
people travel internationally each year, it's inevitable that vast numbers of people are going
to have close relationships of all kinds with citizens of other countries. Restrictions on movements
across borders impose costs on all those people ranging from minor to calamitous.
Would need to be _much_ more rigorous to do any work. I travel quite a bit, yet unless "close
relationships" means "people I know somewhat", this isn't true for me. Is it true for "vast" numbers
of people? I'm not sure. It's too flabby to do work now. And, do we have in mind visits, temporary
residence, permanent residence (with or without access to full membership?) Etc. There are really
a huge number of details here, and the absolutely must be worked through, carefully, before you
can say anything useful. I'm in favor of reducing most barriers to movement. But, the arguments,
if they are to be any good, really do need some care.
I'm puzzled by your last paragraph Matt, given what I know about your work. I don't know how large
a number has to be to be "vast", but the spouses separated from one another and the children separated
from one parent by the UK's spousal visa income requirements already number in the 10s of 1000s.
Add to that elderly dependent relatives who are separated from children, lone refugee children
separated from family members in other countries. And then multiply all this separation by the
number of countries that make things difficult for people. I think that probably adds up to a
vast number of people in close relationships with others who are separated by border regimes and
who are currently incurring costs that are often calamitous. Don't you?
Hi Chris – yes, the cases you mention are interesting and important ones. It goes a little way
towards making John's too flabby to work statement a bit better. But even in these cases, it's
important to work through what's wrong with the different examples. (This is what I try to do
in my work, and it's why I'm annoyed by what seems to me to be handwaving that blurs and distorts
more than it helps.) I would insist that "making this difficult" for people, or causing them to
"incur costs" isn't a good way to think about these issues at all. (I will go see my parents for
the first time in over a year next week. It will be difficult and I will incur may costs to do
so. Nothing interesting follows from that at all, I think.) And, John's categories include may
more than those you mention. What follows for them? Why are borders, and not other types of boundaries
relevant here? (Suppose my best friend is admitted to Harvard and I am not. But I'd like to study
with him! Is it unfair that I'm not allowed to? Why not?) There are answers here, but we'll not
get at them from the approach in the post, I think, and especially not if we follow the approach
in this paragraph. The issues need to be dug in to, even though that take time.
(I might note that I've just finished a semi-popular short piece on thinking about immigration
post-Trump and post-Brexit. I started it by thinking about some of your discussion of Joe Carens'
book from a few years ago, and tried to think about reasonable strategies for working towards
fairer immigration policies in our dark times. One thing I suggested was fighting against needlessly
mean (in both senses of the word) restrictions like the too-high social support requirements for
family members in the UK. So, I see that as a real problem. But, I don't think that helps rehabilitate
the claims made, or suggested, in this paragraph. If and when the piece comes out, I'll send it
to you.)
John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 3:22 am
Matt @24 It was an aside of course, but one that I didn't think needed a detailed exposition.
The calamitous cases Chris mentions are well known, as is the fact that lots of people suffer
no, or only trivial, problems of this kind. Rather than multipy such trivial examples as you do
in @26, why not explain why you think the calamitous cases are rare, or need to be explained in
detail?
Matts response is to glib. My own family was driven into poverty by separation in the 1980s and
the long term pressures on all of us of that experience were huge. Yes nothing follows from that
if you're a wealthy academic, but quite a lot follows from it if you're not.
Dave 12.22.16 at 10:05 am
I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under
the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework.
For most of human history,
the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments
where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than
a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really
only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon.
What people in the urban professional class tend to forget, however, is that the old model
of village life never went away . In truly rural or otherwise undeveloped areas, it's mostly
stayed the same, and other cases it was remapped onto urban neighborhoods or desperately clung
to in "small towns" that are, in fact, larger than most Medieval cities.
Now, these people have a problem, which is that they'd very much like to maintain a traditional
village lifestyle (well, some of them just want to escape or move to the city and get rich, but
I'll get to that), but neither industrial nor post-industrial capitalism has had any patience
for people who want to stay put. Industries and opportunities have concentrated in large urban
agglomerations, but exactly which industries and which cities shifts every generation or two.
Plants close down or move to other countries, higher education pulls millions of people far from
home, entire fields of employment vanish or emerge from whole cloth and it's impossible to keep
up. So, we as individuals can, at any time, be forced into a terrible dilemma. Either move away
from the life you know and the people who keep you happy, healthy, safe, and sane, or forfeit
your "optimal" career and some share of prosperity and human capital.
Depending on what class you are, the values you hold, and what the costs and benefits of moving
away really are, there may be no choice at all. Really, there are two kinds of migrants. There
are the desperate, who migrate for negative reasons, and the ambitious, who do it for positive
ones (with plenty of overlap) and only the latter is really making a choice as such. The outcomes
are different too. Refugees and economic migrants occasionally become rich and successful, but
usually they're just looking for security. Whereas people who move around a lot to get the best
education and the best jobs, are often massively rewarded, but too many such people creates a
culture of anomy and alienation where no one knows their neighbors and everyone seems to be from
somewhere else.
What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent
homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the
neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and
in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of
perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals
and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary
ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people
with no community at all.
I grew up in the Southern California suburbs in wake of the Sunbelt migrations and massive
immigration from Latin America and had the utterly peculiar experience of being one of only a
tiny fraction of the population whose grandparents (well, two of them) also grew up there. Growing
up, it seemed like most of my teachers (and really a huge chunk of the professional class in general)
were from either the East Coast or the Midwest and many of them had strange notions about what
it meant to be Californian, having moved here for the sunshine or the surfing or the jobs or the
"vibe" and more able to see the place as an ideal than a reality.
People don't realize the extent to which generations of migration can isolate people from the
land, but I saw it. People that luxuriantly watered their lawns despite the climate and planted
gardens full of plants from all over the world while treating the native plants like weeds. The
tragedy of people in brushfire country not even realizing that having wooden shingles is a bad
idea. People mocking the native California accents, affecting them badly to fit in, or refusing
to acknowledge that we had one at all (we have several). Or, take the baffling experience millions
of California kids get this time of year where adults around them act like our Christmas is somehow
"wrong" because there's no snow and we don't have a "real" winter.
There was and is wanton disregard for tradition or the environment. The old growth oaks that
once covered much of SoCal were cut down for wood and cattle land and now most people have no
idea they were ever there, huge tracts of "empty" desert were flooded with saltwater when the
Salton Sea was created, the LA river was turned into a storm drain, massive population increases
and utterly unrestricted suburban sprawl has destroyed most of our wetlands and turned the Coastal
Sage Scrub into one of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. All that and CalTrans still plants
invasive, flammable Eucalyptus by every freeway. These were largely the work of generations of
short sighted, greedy migrants who didn't understand or value the land, but will be borne by generations
to come. Our land is being paved, poisoned, and pumped dry and most people don't even see it because
there aren't enough people around who still remember when it was any different.
If open borders means that places all over the world start getting flooded with migrants and
disrespected and debased the way Southern California has been, then I have no choice but to oppose
it.
A small point: – instead of adding additional taxes, one way to get the same net effect is to
have a basic income with a long residency requirement for non-citizens.
John – there is a lot of space between "not rare" and "vast", isn't there? That space needs to
be looked at carefully, and not used as a hand-wave. That's my point.
Faustunotes – I'm sorry to hear that. In published work, I've argued for strong rights for
family migration schemes. Without knowing more about your situation (not that I'm asking for details
now) I can't say more about, but, for example, the sorts of public support systems I've argued
for (and that exist in many countries) can be easily met by lots of people – the US requires 125%
of the poverty level for a family of the appropriate size, for example. That is arguably a top
acceptable level.
That meant that I was able to sponsor my wife when I was a grad student making
$15,000 a year (in 2003), not at all a "wealthy academic". So, again, it's important to get the
details right, to criticize particular cases, and not draw strong conclusions from hand-waving
generalizations. Failing to do this won't lead to any good work.
Matt, I think your quibbling with John on "vast numbers" is pretty silly here. You are an American,
and the US is a continental power with a large population. Perhaps it is rare for Americans to
have close relationships (let's set the bar at good friendships) with people outside the borders
of their country. But many of us live in smaller countries and on continents with lots of borders.
I think you'll find that when you tot up all the Europeans and Latin Americans with cross border
relationships (to name but two continents) and add in all the people who belong to ethnicities
that stretch across many borders, you'll get to a pretty high number.
Think of the million Poles
in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland,
and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people
living in Ireland .
Alesis 12.22.16 at 8:55 pm
The ever present struggle with taking the empirical body of knowledge on gains from migration
and making it into policy is that the only salient objections to migration are decidedly non economic.
Sure they pretend at an economic basis with admirable dedication to the act but the bottom line
is even if you prove that net wages for every single individual would go up from migration it
would till have exactly the same opponents you started with.
At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism
in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more
or less directly, from a leftist point of view.
If he was reacting to this post Smith would zero
in on the key premise underlying Kennan's model: the idea that global wage differentials inherently
reflect global differences in the productivity of labor between nation-states, known as the Balassa-Samuelson
hypothesis. Kennan seems to handwave away the idea of actually defending it by deferring to "large
bodies of evidence", evidence whose interpretation within a more-or-less standard neoclassical
framework he takes as a given - although notice how he hedges his initial claims more carefully
("cross-country differences in income levels are associated with differences in productivity",
and "large differences [in productivity] remain after adjusting for differences in physical
and human capital endowments ", emphasis mine) before moving on to construct a model where
"relative wages are used below to measure cross-country differences in labor efficiency", plain
and simple. Nice trick!
In any case, here's Smith:
The North-South purchasing power anomaly is sometimes called the Penn effect, after the
Penn World Table, which has gathered comparative price data from most countries in the world
since 1950. This effect is inversely correlated with per-capita GDP; as Figure 5.2 (page 143)
clearly shows, the poorer the nation, the bigger the gap. Mainstream neoclassical economics
advances two chief explanations for this anomaly, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, which hinges
on differences in labor productivity between rich and poor countries; and an alternative model,
proposed by Jagdish Bhagwati, Irving Kravis, Richard Lipsey, and others, which claims to circumvent
differences in labor productivity and accounts for the anomaly as the consequence of differences
in "factor endowments," that is, the relative abundance of capital and labor in the two countries.
Since their arguments are tautological, they arrive at the same conclusion. In the former approach,
the relative productivity of labor and capital determines the demand for these two factors
and, in conjunction with their supply, determines their equilibrium (market-clearing) prices.
In the second approach, different factor endowments affect the supply and demand in markets
for labor and capital, determining marginal productivities, so arriving at the other's starting
point.
According to both approaches, the purchasing power anomaly arises because of the low wages
of workers providing services (for example, a bus journey or a haircut), resulting in the prices
of these services being typically much lower in, say, Bangladesh than in Belgium. But equilibrium
exchange rates do equalize the prices of internationally tradable goods-in other words, they
assume that strong PPP holds in the tradable goods sector. Service sector wages are low in
Bangladesh because wage levels in the service sector are determined by wage levels in the tradable
goods sector. This occurs because labor is intersectorally mobile but not internationally mobile;
in other words, workers can freely move between the tradable and non-tradable sectors within
nations, equalizing wages between them, but cannot freely move across the borders between nations,
especially those between hard-currency and soft-currency nations. it therefore turns out that
the suppression of the free international movement of labor, the great exception to the principle
of globalization and whose cardinal importance is stressed in this book, is also at the heart
of the purchasing power anomaly.
In sum, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis says that the purchasing power anomaly results
from the lack of correspondence between the similar levels of productivity of service workers
in Belgium and Bangladesh and the vast differences in their wages. The contrary argument advanced
here is that it is the oversupply of labor, not its productivity, that is the prime determinant
of Southern wage levels. wages of service providers and incomes of petty entrepreneurs are
kept low not by the paltry productivity of workers in the tradable goods sector, as mainstream
theory has it, but by the destitution of a large part of the working population. This is why
a haircut or a bus journey in Dhaka is so much cheaper than in Amsterdam, even though a pair
of scissors or a bus may cost the same in both countries, and may even have come off the same
production line. Furthermore, local capitalists are not the prime beneficiaries of the super-profits
generated by this expanded employment of low-wage labor. Instead, intense competition among
Southern exporters leaves them with only a minor share of the proceeds, the rest passed on
to their Northern customers through ever-lower export prices. The purchasing power anomaly
results not only or mainly from conditions in goods and Forex markets but is fundamentally
the product of conditions in labor markets and in the sphere of production where this labor
is put to work. The enormous growth in the relative surplus population combines with suppression
of international labor mobility to exert a tremendous downward pressure on all wages and on
the incomes of small producers, maintaining or widening still further the distance between
real wages in the imperialist nations and in the Global South.
In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central
to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity,
but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place.
The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from
what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual
category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international
trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled
products to others further down the assembly line. Here's Smith again:
Statistics on labor productivity, obtained by dividing the value added of a firm, industrial
sector, or nation by its total workforce, are highly deceptive. Much of the alleged increase
in labor productivity in the imperialist nations is an artifact resulting from the outsourcing
of low value-added, labor-intensive production processes to low-wage countries. As Susan Houseman
has argued, "when manufacturers outsource or offshore work, labor productivity increases directly
because the outsourced or offshored labor used to produce the product is no longer employed
in the manufacturing sector and hence is not counted in the denominator of the labor productivity
equation." This is extremely important, because "the rate of productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing
increased in the mid-1990s, greatly outpacing that in the services sector and accounting for
most of the overall productivity growth in the U.S. economy." Thus she argues, "To the extent
that offshoring is an important source of measured productivity growth in the economy, productivity
statistics will, in part, be capturing cost savings or gains to trade but not improvements
in the output of American labor." Houseman believes this solves "one of the great puzzles of
the American economy in recent years the fact that large productivity gains have not broadly
benefited workers in the form of higher wages. Productivity improvements that result from
offshoring may largely measure cost savings, not improvements to output per hour worked by
American labor."
Thus, when a firm outsources labor-intensive production processes, the productivity of the
workers who remain in its employment rises, even though nothing about their specific labor
has changed. Outsourcing therefore has what might be called a "ventriloquist effect" on measures
of productivity. But this only scratches the surface of the productivity paradox. Labor-intensive
production processes are practically synonymous with low value-added production processes,
yet the more labor-intensive it is, that is, the larger living labor is relative to dead labor,
the greater is its contribution to value and surplus value-but much of this is captured by
capital-intensive capitals, showing up as a much higher value added per worker.
John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 11:17 pm
@Dave You are arguing against internal freedom of movement. Do you support systems of internal
passports, as in the Soviet Union or the hukou system in China?
John Quiggin 12.23.16 at 3:14 am
WLGR: I'll look for this book. But on an initial reading of your first quotation, it seems to
me that Smith is just restating the factor endowment model. What does "surplus labor" mean, if
not a high ratio of labor to capital? Does he spell out the distinction somewhere else?
ZM 12.23.16 at 3:26 am
John Quiggin,
China has a very large population, hukou is problematic and has some undesirable impacts, but
China needs to get all the provinces and cities more equal before they can change the hukou system.
At the moment the inequality between provinces and cities in China is very very great compared
to inequality between States and cities in Australia.
Although inequality has decreased as more people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 10-20
years.
Dave 12.23.16 at 6:06 am
@ John Quiggin 34
That's a very good question and it does show why one should always consider the full ramifications
of ones' arguments. I would say that policies against internal migration are not limited to Communist
dictatorships - that's what serfdom was, after all. I'm enough of a liberal to find that sort
of thing oppressive, but I do think it had a certain social utility (of course, letting people
move and travel has advantages too).
It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population
centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester
to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for
their environmental devastation and social dysfunction.
Even in a modern era where resource extraction and heavy industry are less dominant economic
drivers than they once were, the combination of free movement of capital and free movement of
labor is a consistent recipe for explosive, unplanned, and unsustainable growth in whatever areas
are deemed economically valuable. The boom bust cycle of capitalism maps onto the landscape itself
and the effects for both the natives and the newcomers can be devastating.
What I would argue though is that free movement of people is a problem only insofar as there
is free movement of capital. You won't have millions of people flood a region if that region hasn't
already been flooded with millions of jobs. This would require a new international regulatory
framework to put the brakes on massive industrial and commercial development and a rejection of
the current extreme growth bias in economic thought. In effect, I think that it should be businesses
that have to apply for those permits or internal passports, rather than individuals.
Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts
are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities
that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can
see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one
another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering.
My worst case scenario is something like this. Lets say a fairly small - but not necessarily
tiny - country like Uruguay adopts global open borders. A little while later, they make the shocking
discovery that they're sitting on some of the largest reserves of, oh let's say, rare earth metals
in the world.
Now, these metals are incredibly valuable so getting the capital to open mines and ore processing
centers isn't a problem, the bigger issue is that Uruguay only has 3.4 million people, most of
whom already have jobs, so the tens of thousands of employees needed to build the new mining industry
will mostly be coming from elsewhere (or the mining companies will start by hiring Uruguayanos,
but then they'll need migrants to fill the jobs the natives vacated). It doesn't stop there though,
because the great new mining industry will produce secondary industries such as cell phone manufacturing,
service jobs for the growing population, construction jobs to expand the national infrastructure,
and on and on and on. These jobs bring in new migrants, who help grow the economy, and attract
new migrants in a feedback loop that only ends when the bubble bursts or wages collapse.
How big
does Uruguay get before the boom goes bust? Does it double in size? Triple? Does Montevideo become
one of the biggest cities in South America, with sprawling, polluted, slums to match? What happens
to the reasonably stable, reasonably prosperous, reasonably progressive little country that was
there before? Would Uruguay still be Uruguay at that point?
Poor former farmers that move to big cities typically wont drive cars, wont handle big industrial
manichery and will only heat /cool tiny living spaces. So they are probably not a significant
factor for the environmental issues in say big Chinese cities.
"Cities as we know them (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two
or three centuries old".
No. Ancient Rome had a population of 750,000-1,000,000, based almost
entirely on migrants, and more than large enough to create any number of social maladies; at least
five other cities in Mediterranean with populations in the hundreds of thousands; series of cities
in China with populations similar to Rome.
Evidence suggests significant levels of mobility, not
just for elite. I don't think this necessarily has any bearing on the modern situation (capitalism,
technology, yadda yadda), but certainly the historical evidence doesn't support your implied "large-scale
migration is unnatural" thesis.
What a daft question. When did the 'model' Uruguay exist, the one that we are supposed to preserve
for all eternity? Now? Before the Uruguayan nation-state was formed? Before Columbus?
The irony is that the effort needed to prevent change would in all likelihood just lead to
other changes of a more dysfunctional nature.
engels 12.23.16 at 12:21 pm
OT and possibly an ignorant question but does anyone know of any meaningful national or cultural
difference between Uruguay and Argentina?
Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create,
consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery?
John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China,
not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product
of past and present Imperialism.
Chris – maybe it's silly, but, if my work on immigration has tried to show anything at all, it's
that to make a contribution on the subject, it's important to get the facts right, not make assumptions
about movement we know are not true (people will move to where they get the best return on their
skills, etc.), not assume away other difficulties, and not blur cases together through hand-waiving
("vast numbers", "relationships", etc.) All of that's done here, and even more so in the paper
under discussion. I find it really annoying. Maybe I shouldn't let it bother me, but it seems
to me to be typical "assume a can-opener" level of discussion, at the very best, and not helpful.
By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south
of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people
in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here.
You're right, of course. I recognize now that my argument was a bit fuzzy and verges into begging
the question ("Modern cities, as I've chosen to define them, only existed under capitalism,
therefore
urban dysfunction is all capitalism's fault, QED, etc."). "Bigger than Cleveland" is not a universal
definition of what a city is and I shouldn't have treated it as one.
I'm not trying to say massive migration was unnatural though. I'm of the opinion that anything
humans do is natural, if that helps. Nor do I think migration, even of the large-scale variety
is wrong , but rather that it can be immensely harmful if there are no systems in place
to mitigate its social and environmental effects. So discussing policy that would tear down all
political barriers to migration as if it were mainly an issue of wages and productivity struck
me as reductive. Even on purely economic terms, the way migration contributes to urban sprawl
outpacing infrastructure is a huge issue that I frequently see overlooked.
@Igor 41:
I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between
the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking
to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process),
so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the
same way.
engels 12.23.16 at 3:32 pm
Also would be interesting to see numbers on marriages to foreign nationals by country-a quick
google didn't turn it up.
@engels – pretty sure that this is because the stats don't exist for many countries. The British
government simply has no idea how many of its nationals are married to EU nationals (at least
for England and Wales, there may be some record-keeping in Scotland).
@47. The UK has no idea how many EU citizens are here full stop. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia.
The 2001 UK Census recorded 36,555 Portuguese-born people resident in the UK. More recent
estimates by the Office for National Statistics put the figure at 107,000 in 2013. The 2011 Census
recorded 88,161 Portuguese-born residents in England and Wales. The censuses of Scotland and Northern
Ireland recorded 1,908 and 1,996 Portuguese-born residents respectively. Other sources estimate
the Portuguese community to be larger, with the editor of a Portuguese-language newspaper putting
the number of Portuguese passport holders in London alone at 350,000. According to academics José
Carlos Pina Almeida and David Corkill, writing in 2010, estimates of the Portuguese population
of the UK range from 80,000 to 700,000.
I mention it because informal information from someone at the embassy puts the number closer
to 1 million. Many of them well have been born here. But nevertheless the point is that the estimates
are all over the place.
Again, its not necessarily a good or a bad thing, but as a scientist with a bit of a measurement
fixation I find the fact that no-one has any idea to be quite disturbing.
engels 12.23.16 at 8:31 pm
E.g. on US vs Europe:
"4.6% of Americans were married to a foreigner in 2010, up from 2.4% in 1970"
"in France the proportion of international marriage rose from about 10% in 1996 to 16% in 2009.
In Germany, the rise is a little lower, from 11.3% in 1990 to 13.7% in 2010.
Some smaller countries
have much higher levels. Nearly half the marriages in Switzerland are international ones, up from
a third in 1990.
Around one in five marriages in Sweden, Belgium and Austria involves a foreign
partner"
A friend on Facebook made the mistake of posting two declamatory articles on the
India financial apocalypse under Modi with the snark line 'this is what passes for
democracy (sic) in the world now' and was notified just a day later by FB that their
Profile was 'Determined to be an unauthorized Business Space', and would then be shut
down, without any recourse, if they didn't provide a confirmed birth name and confirmed
cell phone number. Nyet spasiba, ...so their profile went immediately 404.
This FB purge masks the truth for what Modi really is, the Menem of India, for
privatization of Indian gold wealth, for taxation of outsourced high-tech workers, and
covering up the 100,000s of Hindu HIBs flying into the USA by the 747-load, taking away,
by some estimates 98% of new high-tech jobs, and 56% of existing high-tech jobs, where
American workers are being forced to train their Hindu replacements, then given a pink
slip and six months of COBRA and booted out.
[ASIDE: I was walking off frustration with Trump's financial picks today, and by
sheer fate met an older guy who had just been terminated before he reached his
employee-share pension age, by a company moving their assembly operations to China. He's
hoping to move to Idaho or Montana, where there are so many unemployed meth heads,
anyone who is clean and straight can find some kind of job that the Monkey Boys can't
get their hooks into.]
Hindus flooded the MSM back-office journalist pool, cratering American journalism
careers. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Street, ...all use Hindus to write their news,
bloat their comment section, and with more 'legal' Hindu H1Bs in editorial positions
within the USA, which is why in the Big Feu-faw since 9/11 fussing over Mexicans,
Muslims, Deadbeat Students and UnInsurable Elders, ...even with 95,000,000 Americans
unemployed, you will NEVER, EVER hear a single word about Hindus.
Nadella, Ellison, McDermott, Gelsinger, Besos, Zuckerberg, and Trump and his Cabinet
are all 100% behind UNLIMITED H1B 'legal' immigration for USA. (Amazon even had to put
cones around a dead PT minimum-wage worker, so their robots wouldn't crush his body,
then the other day, an 'addlebrained' employee jumped off the roof). With all the jobs
going to H1Bs, Trump will have to make America Great Again with his YUUGE infrastructure
program :
The Few, The Proud, The
Brave!
Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
"... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
"... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution
of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support
a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship
, and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.
We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are
proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States
citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape,
and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities
of citizenship and truly call America their home.
Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate
illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington
talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border
was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal
immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned
the very next day to commit crimes again.
President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and
illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in
El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone,
the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country.
Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them
on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.
However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the
temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need
to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans
like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort
of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong,
and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.
Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against
employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over
real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries.
We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members
who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be
held legally responsible for supporting them.
I have written a number of posts, some using data and some not, on immigrstion. Some of those
posts attracted vitriol in comments, including from some who keep accusing me of hiding my punchline.
Personally I find myself repeating myself, or trying to restate a point yet a different way so it
will sink in. I figured it is probably time to put everything in one place, so here it is:
1. Some cultures prepare their people to function well in the US, some don't.
2. Ability to function well in the US is not the same thing as intelligence. As an example,
consider me. I lived almost a third of my life in South America. I have never been to Central Asia.
All else being equal, I can hit the ground running more easily in Argentina than in Iran. In Argentina
I know how to behave in a seamless way that won't raise eyebrows. In Iran, I would need to put effort
into day to day activities. Additionally, my communication skills wouldn't work as well. It isn't
just a matter of not speaking Farsi, but also being unable to unconsciously read and display the
myriad of social signals Iranian society uses. Therefore, my productivity will be greater in Argentina
than Iran (again, all things being equal). And yet my traits – the degree to which I am or am not
intelligent, creative, diligent, sane, honest, etc. – will be the same whether I am in Buenos Aires
or in Teheran. Most of my work related skills (less those involving communication) will also be the
same in both places. The difference between my productivity in Argentina v Iran will be due entirely
to differences in cultural compatibility.
3. Cultural compatibility runs the other way too. Arriving in the US doesn't automatically
confer respect for Western values. In many countries, anti-Christian or anti-Semitic attitudes are
common. In the West people argue about gay marriage. In some countries, the debate is whether gay
people should be stoned or thrown off tall buildings. Similarly, the treatment of women and children
in some countries would be criminal in the US. Think honor killings, child's marriages, FGM or bacha
bazi. (And yes, we are seeing those things happening here now.). Writing again from the role of someone
who was a guest in other peoples' countries for a third of his life, it should be the responsibility
of the newcomer to adapt to his/her new home, and not of the residents of his/her new home to adapt
to the newcomer.
4. In Western countries, immigrants who don't manage to bridge cultural gaps are more likely
to end up dependent on the taxpayer. Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare. In general,
it seems (at a minimum) to be bad form to request entry into another society only to become a burden
on its people. It is one thing for refugees with no other option to do it, but most immigrants to
the US are not refugees.
5. Being overwhelmingly reliant on government largesse in a foreign society built by strangers
has got to be dispiriting to most thinking adults. It can only add to a person's feeling of alienation.
That in turn can lead to various dysfunctions – vices, crime, anti-social behavior and even terrorism.
It is no surprise that some of these issues exist disproportionately in some immigrant communities.
6. Countries whose emigrants do well in the US also tend to be countries with Western values
and strong economies. More precisely, countries whose immigrants do well in the West have economies
which thrive from the skills of its people, and not countries whose economies is based mostly on
raw material extraction directed by foreigners or on financial transfers from wealthier nations.
7. Countries whose emigrants function well in the US also function well in other Western countries.
Conversely, countries whose emigrants don't function well in the US also don't function well in other
Western countries.
8. Within any society, there are some who are more able to function in the US and some who
are less able to function in the US. To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them
to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries. Place of origin
shouldn't be enough to, by itself, weed out one potential immigrant or guarantee entry to another
to another.
9. The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction.
The fact that there is need and poverty in this country that doesn't receive sufficient aid is an
argument against importing more need and poverty from abroad.
10. There are far more people who would like to immigrate to the US than we allow into the
US. Given that, it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are
unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US.
I note that none of these points are new. I have stated them all before, but not all in one place.
"... Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties. ..."
"... Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners. ..."
"... "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," ..."
"... The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol. ..."
"... On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector. ..."
Around a decade ago, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton rightly pointed out how "a fascism
of the future - an emergency response to some still unimagined crisis - need not resemble classical
fascism perfectly in its outward signs and symbols ... the enemy would not necessarily be Jews.
An authentically popular fascism in America would be pious, anti-black, and, since September 11,
2001, anti-Islamic as well; in Western Europe it would be secular and, these days, more likely anti-Islamic
than anti-Semitic; and in Russia and Eastern Europe it would be religious, anti-Semitic, Slavophile,
and anti- Western.
New fascisms would probably prefer the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time."
Does any of this sound familiar across the Atlantic?
Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not
an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true
nature of far-right parties.
Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote
a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners.
There is also a sense of decline and threat that was widely exploited by interwar fascism, and
by these extreme-right parties, which - after 1945 - resisted immigration on the grounds of defending
the so-called "European civilization".
The future of Europe?
The future of European societies could, however, follow these specific lines: "Our European
cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial
powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single
European currency," as Marcel de Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom group
in the European Parliament, declared.
Another fellow party, the Belgian
Vlaams Belang , calls for an opposition to multiculturalism. It "defends the interests of the
Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary", and would "dissolve Belgium and establish an independent
Flemish state. This state ... will include Brussels", the current capital of the EU institutions.
The Austrian
Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from
the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking
Italian bordering region of South Tyrol.
On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle
of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector.
She also wants to renegotiate the European treaties and establish a "
pan-European Union " including Russia.
At the end of these inward-looking changes, there will be no free movement of Europeans across
Europe, and this will be replaced with a reconsolidation of the sovereignty of nation states.
Resentments among regional powers might rise again, while privileges will be based on ethnic origins
- and their alleged purity. In sum, this is how Europe will probably look if one follows the "moderate"
far-right policies. The dream of building the United States of Europe will become an obsolete memory
of the past. And the old continent will be surely less similar to the post-national one which guaranteed
peace and - relative - prosperity after the disaster of World War II.
Andrea Mammone is a historian of modern Europe at Royal Holloway, University of London.
He is the author of "Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy". He is currently writing a book
on the recent nationalist turn in Europe.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Exception of course are refugees (which one could say we have some moral responsibility to
rescue since our 15 year war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria (since we are
bombing quite a bit in Syria), and many other places has more than done or bit fan disorder and
violence from which the refugees flee rather than die, ditto the children fleeing Mexico and Central
America where our war on (some people) who use drugs has created both right wing Governments and
drug gangs and associated violence.)
I think it is bad form when left wing sites repeat right-wing memes (falsehoods and half-truths),
particularly when the new right-wing authoritarian kleptocrats who are taking over the Government
are talking about rounding up, placing in concentration camps, and deporting millions of people,
citizens and non-citizens alike..
rickstersherpa, November 30, 2016 11:46 am
Just out curiosity, since Mr. Kimel used the example of Iran, there was a huge Iranian immigration
to the U.S. In sense they both support (since many of the these people were high skill immigrants)
and rebut his point (since they came from a culture he marks as particularly "foreign" to U.S.
culture.
http://xpatnation.com/a-look-at-the-history-of-iranian-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ It has actually
been an amazingly successful immigration, with many now millionaires (a mark of "success" that
I find rather reflects the worse part of America, the presumption by Americans, Rich, Middle,
or poor, that if you are not rich, you are nothing, a loser; but still it appears to be a marker
that Mr. Kimel is using.
Beverly Mann, November 30, 2016 3:47 pm
To add to Rickstersherpa's comments, I'll also point out that among the Muslim immigrants who've
committed acts of terrorism in this country, none to my knowledge was on welfare nor were their
parents on welfare, None.
This post is just the latest in what is now many-months-long series of white supremacist/ white
nationalist posts by Kimel, whose original bailiwick at this blog was standard left-of-center
economics but obviously is something close to the opposite now. He left the blog for two or three
years, and came back earlier this year unrecognizable and with a vengeance. Literally.
I was a blogger here for six-and-a-half years until earlier this month, and was among regulars
who comment in the Comments threads who repeatedly expressed dismay. Kimel's last few posts, lik
this one, are published directly under his name. Before that Dan Crawford and run75441 were posting
them for him and crediting him with the posts.
In my comments int those threads, I've suggested as you did here that this blogger belongs
at Breitbart, or more accurately, you say that this blog is providing the same type of voice as
Breitbart.
But at least Breitbart hasn't been known as left-of-center blog. Allowing these posts on a
blog that has misleads readers into thinking, if only for a moment, that maybe this guy's saying
something that you're missing, or not saying something that you think he's saying. It's really
jarring.
The Rage November 30, 2016 3:49 pm
Sorry, but leftists were the originators of anti-immigration. They blasted classical
liberals and their "open borders" to buy talent on the market rather than "building within"
and using the state to develop talent.
"right wing" Christians are some of the worst people in terms of helping the underground
railroad for immigrants in the US.
The Rage November 30, 2016 3:54 pm
Beverly, Breitbart loves illegal immigration and wants it to stay, indeed quite illegal.
You represent the problem of modern politics. Anyone you don't agree with, you start
making dialectical points rather than going under the hood to find out the point.
Jack November 30, 2016 4:24 pm
Kimel,
Your points leave out any consideration of the cultural variabilities of this host country.
Given that the USofA is a country made up of immigrants from a wide variety of places across
the globe I would think that there is some benefit to varying the sources of immigration
in the present given the past. Some of the cultural distinctions that you suggest as different
from our own are not homogeneous within our own culture. For example, I wouldn't choose
to live in some parts of the US because of the degree of antisemitism that I might find
even though I am what one might call an agnostic Jew. There are many Americans that don't
make that distinction.
Face it Mike, there is probably a place for just about anyone from any place that would
be suitable for their emigration within the US. We don't all have to share the same values
with the new comer. We don't share values amongst ourselves as it is. We've got large numbers
of immigrants and their off spring from the Far East, South East Asia, Africa, South America
and the middle East. We even have many Europeans. Keep in mind that that last category is
made up of people who have spent the past two thousand years trying as hard as possible
to kill one another. So who is to say what immigrant group is best for the US? We've been
moving backwards for the past several decades. Maybe we need some new blood to get thinks
going forward again.
Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:27 pm
Apparently you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations and fears unrelated
to racism and ethnicity bias masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and immigrants
willing to work for lower wages irrespective of their race and ethnicity, on the other hand,
The Rage. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.
Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.
Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:34 pm
CORRECTED COMMENT: Apparently, The Rage, you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations
masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and fears unrelated to racism and
ethnicity bias, that immigrants willing to work for lower wages will put downward pressure
on wages in this country, irrespective of the race and ethnicity or the immigrant willing to
work for the low wages. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about
his claims.
Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.
(Definitely a cut-and-paste issue there with that first comment, which I accidentally clicked
"Post Comment" for before it was ready for posting.)
Jack, November 30, 2016 4:45 pm
I will accept one category of immigrant for exclusion. No identifiable criminals allowed.
We haven't always done so well on that trait. So let's do a better job of excluding those seeking
admission who can be shown to be actively involved with any form of criminal behavior. That
goes for Euros, Russians, Chinese, South Americans, etc. That also includes very wealthy criminals
whose wealth is the result of their positions of authority in their home country.
"The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction."
What manner of dysfunction beyond criminality did you have in mind?
" it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely
to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US." Please
define "unlikely to function well" more precisely. Remember that the goal of our immigration
quotas is to allow a reasonable balance of people from varying countries to achieve admission.
"To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically
they are dissidents in non Western countries." That statement is generally problematic. What
measure of attitude do we use here? Is it the rabble rousers that you want to give preference
to? Then why only from non Western countries?
"... The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
"... Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. ..."
"... Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right
for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are
the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.
The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry,
which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.
Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people
who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come
to their defense.
Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are
not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority
groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.)
I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed
Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly
harm other people.
Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions
of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their
taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable
power, and get away with massive levels of pollution.
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are
the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.
you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of
movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour.
better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad.
and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical
liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in
their own house.
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
85
86
The fundamental problem seems to be that the left /
liberals are playing the game of the right for them and
not being intelligent enough to realise it.
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main
beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the
corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the
incumbent population and the local workers.
The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from
those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been
ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
RJB73
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
48
49
Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal)
is bad for working class people who are citizens of the
US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the
past naturally come to their defense. Instead, they've
labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they
are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather
divisive identity politics focused on minority groups
(e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win
many votes.)
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
greenwichite
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
22
23
Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.
I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn
demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed
Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
To be liberal is to let people do whatever they
want, so long as they don't
directly
harm other
people.
Multinational businesses love this mentality,
because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of
people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a
very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes
them stronger than most national governments, so they
wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with
massive levels of pollution.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Stillgrizzly
greenwichite
3d ago
9
10
The liberals "horror" at Corbyn is because he is
bringing out reactionary "hard" left elements amongst
other things, which are destroying what was a kind of
consensus.
This is fracturing the opposition and driving people
towards the right or "protest" parties. Corbyn is the
best recruiting tool UKIP never had.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
icansee
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
6
7
If you think that this was a universal backlash to the
effects of immigration on jobs , then you are missing
the point .
My advise is for you to check the archives of mother
jones and other blogs to find out how this faux rage
developed .
Trump's primary voters have an average income of
$70,000. They are not affected by mass migration .
This is a rage against Marriage equality ,Seperation of
the church and state ,continuation of the war against
affirmative action ,environmental protection ,union etc
.
The faux rage was engineered by l
1 Remnants of Koch brothers tea party
2 Fox news
3 Alt right
4 Evangelicals
5 Gun manufacturers
They created an hurricane and carried other
unwilling groups like blue collar democrats with them .
However , they wouldn't have stand any chance if
progressives had turned up .
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Jaisans
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
0
1
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main
beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the
corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the
incumbent population and the local workers.
you might
be putting the cart before the horse a little bit
there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try
not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is
employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would
attract more local labour, instead employers actively
seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of
economic liberalism, which is very different to
classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses
for their workers to live in, rather than not paying
them enough to live in their own house.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Stillgrizzly
icansee
3d ago
2
3
Trump is allied with the Republican party, people seem
to have overlooked that. Therefore, shock horror, a lot
of Republican voters voted for him.
Also in the US, the level of non voting is huge,
suggesting a level of ignorance / disillusionment with
either of the choices.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Stillgrizzly
Jaisans
3d ago
3
4
You're arguing for protectionism, just like Trump,
effectively state subsidy of the incumbent population
via tarriffs / subsidies / buy British / American
campaigns / increased welfare etc, the net effect is
the same.
isn't controlled
immigration also protectionism? employers exploiting
foreign workers at the expense of local labour is just
plain wrong, it's not market forces. and it's not the
fault of freedom of movement. and it causes
trouble...even keir hardie saw that
better welfare would be a good idea. a better one
would universal credit.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Its_me
Stillgrizzly
2d ago
3
4
Yep, they hate Corbyn because he's rocking their cosy
boat where they could wear Red while having Blue
policies. The people who hate Corbyn are the same ones
who were vociferous against UKIP, for the same reasons
- they threatened to disrupt their LibLabCon club and
the opportunities they think they deserve.
Ethnically divided population is easier to control. This is what identity politics is about...
Notable quotes:
"... In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10. ..."
"... The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere. ..."
"... Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox ..."
"... These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox ..."
I think this one short paragraph provides a better clue to the unexpected political rise of Donald
Trump than would a hundred footnoted academic articles.
In the year 1915 America was over 85%
white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due
to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics
changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase
in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while
the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase
due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially
classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic
trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to
become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing
barely half of all children under the age of 10.
Demographic changes so enormous and rapid on a continental scale are probably unprecedented in
all human history, and our political establishment was remarkably blind for having failed to anticipate
the possible popular reaction. Over the last twelve months, Donald Trump, a socially liberal New
Yorker, has utilized the immigration issue to seize the GOP presidential nomination against the vehement
opposition of nearly the entire Republican establishment, conservative and moderate alike, and at
times his campaign has enjoyed a lead in the national polls, placing him within possible reach of
the White House. Instead of wondering how a candidate came to take advantage of that particular issue,
perhaps we should instead ask ourselves why it hadn't happened sooner.
The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our
major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming
the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed
positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders
multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community
of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere.
Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with
unabashed socialistic views,
was interviewed by Vox's Ezra Klein, and explained that "of course" heavy foreign immigration-let
alone "open borders"-represented the economic dream of extreme free market libertarians such as the
Koch brothers, since that policy would obviously drive down the wages of workers and greatly advantage
Capital at the expense of Labor.
These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following
day another Vox colleague
joined in the attack, harshly denouncing the candidate's views as "ugly" and "wrongheaded," while
instead pointing to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as the proper font of
progressive economic doctrine. Faced with such sharp attacks by young and influential Democratic
pundits less than half his age, Sanders soon retreated from his simple statement of fact, and henceforth
avoided raising the immigration issue during the remainder of his campaign.
"... Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists. ..."
"... Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him. In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense. ..."
I guess we have all noticed that the holier-than-thou groups who whined that Trump wasn't going to
accept the outcome of the election refuse to accept it themselves.
Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and
homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists.
And it is unbelievable. The entirety of "the other America" refuses to accept the people's decision.
They think that their concerns are more important than the concerns of the American people, who they
regard as nothing but a collection of racist homophobic rednecks.
Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump
wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him.
In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear
powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence,
Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense.
Yet "the threatened people" see it as fascism. Who are "the threatened people?" As always, the
most powerful. Tell me, what lobby is more powerful than the Israel Lobby? You can't. But the Jewish
Lobby, J Street, has sent me a hysterical email at 5:11pm on 14 November. Unless "we all come together
and oppose Trump's appointment of Breitbart editor Stephan Bannon as chief strategist and senior
counselor" a "wave of hate will sweep across the land," consuming "Jews, Muslims, African-Americans,
LGBT peoople (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered), immigrants, Hispanics, women and other groups."
Really now! So is Trump's chief strategist, whatever position that is, going to attack the Jews
and those with unusual sexual impulses with drones and cluster bombs, like the Zionist neoconservatives
who controlled the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes did to millions of slaughtered and
displaced peoples in 7 countries, and like Israel does to Palestinians? Or is the former Breitbart
editor going to round them all up and torture them in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo like Bush and Obama
did. And like Netanyahu does in Israel?
Or will Trump simply shoot them down in the streets like Netanyahu does to the Palestinian women
and children.
How come J Street and the Oligarchy-funded fronts are only concerned with nonexistent threats
and ignore all of the real threats?
... ... ...
We must hope that Donald Trump understands the state of moral, cultural, legal, and political
collapse that America is in. Two years ago at the Valdai International Discussion Club, Russian President
Vladimir Putin said:
"Many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian
values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and
all traditional identities, national, cultural, religious, and even secular. They are implementing
policies that equate families with same-sex partnerships, worship of God with worship of Satan.
I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound
demographic and moral crisis."
Ordinary Americans know what he means. They are forced to accept blasphemous films about Jesus Christ
and shameless newspaper caricatures of the Virgin Mary, but if one of them calls a homosexual a pervert,
he has committed a hate crime.
America is a country without an honest media. A country without an honest judiciary. Without an
honest government. Without an honest legislature. Without honest schools and universities. A country
whose morals are confused by propaganda. A country whose elites believe that they are entitled to
all the income and wealth and that normal American people are the "deplorables," to use Hillary's
term for ordinary Americans.
"... Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners. ..."
"... demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is, a demand that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism. ..."
"... They very likely in our current regimes will not show up in the same places. Neoliberalism and neoimperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation. ..."
"... And elites are fighting over the spoils. ..."
"... But there are also people who either liked Trump's economic rhetoric and just disregarded the racism/sexism stuff the same way Clinton voters like me disregarded her warmongering (Republicans:domestic minorities::Democrats:foreigners), and other people who didn't have their resentments channeled at all and just stayed home. ..."
The economic case for immigration may be attractive-and, for the moment at least, persuasive-but
it is essentially a conservative argument, suggesting that human beings ought to be treated
in a certain manner because it generates economic benefit, and not necessarily because it is morally
required. Of course, liberals don't really want to look a gift horse in the mouth: with the political
climate hostile to the humanitarian plight of even the most sympathetic of migrants, liberals
are thrilled to have statistics and pie charts and suchlike to lay before a skittish American
public. It isn't every day that the right thing to do is also the rationally self-interested thing
to do, and we should certainly celebrate those joyous occasions when they arise. However, it's
important not to lose sight of the moral dimension of the argument, and in that context there
are a few questions worth asking.
…
The left has something to learn from the moral clarity of the libertarian case for immigration,
which asserts that human beings simply have a natural right to migrate freely. The moral argument
is far more robust than the economic one, because it is true universally regardless of changing
economic conditions. One doesn't need to prove that immigrants grow the GDP or that they will
never compete for the same jobs as Americans. The better point is that there is no good moral
reason for putting up walls and keeping people out. And just as Americans feel entitled to the
freedom to go anywhere in the world they please (and would be surprised to be turned away at a
border), so everyone else should be granted the same basic entitlement. It's also worth emphasizing
the inherent arbitrariness of global inequality. Given that the earth's resources are unevenly
apportioned, and people's life circumstances depend on the geographic accident of their birth,
shouldn't we understand this to be a moral evil, and strive to correct it where we can? Perhaps
such arguments will fail to persuade. But they are far more sound, and ultimately, far more honest.
Increased immigration should be allowed because it is morally right, not because it is in our
narrow economic self-interest.
Point being, Dipper @ 108 has hit the nail quite squarely on the head.
Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one
sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships
in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our
illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners.
(Which can even happen inside one's own borders, as long as it remains suitably "illegal"; notice
how much less ideologically problematic it is to document the presence and labor of the most brutally
exploited migrant workers in e.g. China or the Gulf Arab states than in more liberal societies like
the US or EU.)
It's the height of either hypocrisy or obliviousness for those who consider themselves liberal
progressives to then act surprised when the people charged with carrying out this domination and
subjugation on our behalf - our Colonel Jessups, if you will
- demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly
and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is, a demand that may be the single most authentic marker
of the transition from liberalism to fascism. Is that easier to understand?
bob mcmanus 11.15.16 at 4:31 pm
I liked WLGR's at 115 a little better than Dipper, but there are many comments coming
better than anything I can do.
It may be that global manufacturing jobs are declining due to automation, but my recent reading
has convinced me that capital is now able to move low wage low skill manufacturing jobs so fast
that it is hard for analysis to keep up. LTV says that as long as the profits and wealth and accumulation
(and political power) are showing up, somewhere there is superexploited labor. They very likely
in our current regimes will not show up in the same places. Neoliberalism and neoimperialism
show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just
now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation.
And elites are fighting over the spoils.
Consumatopia 11.15.16 at 3:54 pm
There's a weird disconnect between the debate among online leftists/liberals and the debate among
Democratic politicians now. Online it's socialists saying "they hate neoliberalism, reach out
to them!", social justice activists saying "they're racists, screw them!" In party institutions,
it's the same except the second group is saying "they're racists, we must avoid antagonizing them!"
Seriously, they're arguing that Bernie would have lost because he's Jewish and his ally Keith
Ellison shouldn't lead the DNC because he's Muslim.
So I just hope the people saying "they're racists!" understand that if the Democratic party
comes to agree with you then the party will move to the right on race–or at least it will pull
back from some of the rhetoric Chris (merian) described at 76.
Anyway, from the OP, "These have indeed failed people, and policies of austerity coupled with
bailouts for the banks have enraged the voters, so that many people, nostalgic for a more equal
and more functional society but confused about who to blame, have channelled their resentments
against immigrants and minorities. "
I think this is almost but not quite correct. There definitely exist some people for whom this
is true. But there are also people who either liked Trump's economic rhetoric and just disregarded
the racism/sexism stuff the same way Clinton voters like me disregarded her warmongering (Republicans:domestic
minorities::Democrats:foreigners), and other people who didn't have their resentments channeled
at all and just stayed home.
More that that, I just don't think anyone has a good understanding of what moves the white
working class to the right. It isn't just racism and sexism, and it ends up playing out
differently in different regions. It's not necessarily true that they're ready for Sanders–look
at Kentucky voting for a governor promising to end Medicaid expansion in 2015. This is a poor
but very white state. Lower middle class whites turned against further downscale whites. Poor
whites didn't show up. It wasn't racism that drove this, but it wasn't hatred of neoliberalism
either–it may be a response to pain neoliberalism caused, but they haven't been prepared to point
the finger there.
@WLGR: I do not believe that the case for free movement depends on economic arguments; I do believe
that when its opponents advance bogus economic arguments they should be rebutted.
"... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
"... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
"... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share
of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family
incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states,
the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20
points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).
The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points.
Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012
by 2 points.
The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the
Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited
from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by
11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased
from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.
Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans
(3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class,
with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).
Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance
of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle
class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses
of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade
unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the
working class, regardless of race or gender.
Ed209
5h ago
2
3
Good article, but it fails to mention immigration as a
further factor hammering the working class. Of course it's
pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than
taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any
economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe
that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you
like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to
your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and
all willing to work for much less than you make?
Of course, in the case of the UK it hasn't been one
million, but more than three million. And in the case of
the USA, untold millions (illegals alone are thought to
number 10 million).
It's because economists, journalists and politicians
never have to face this kind of competition for their own
jobs that they are so keen on mass immigration. But
low-skill/no-skill workers face this reality everyday.
Nika2015
Ed209
4h ago
0
1
Telling it like it is...Bravo!
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Dana Todd
Ed209
4h ago
0
1
There's a pretty in-depth analysis of immigration's
effect on economy and workers/wages here
http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature
Bottom line is, it's complicated, and not all
immigrants are the same - or the same value to a
country. Immigrants with college degrees definitely add
to the GDP of their new home, typically estimated in
six figures cumulative per individual contribution.
Immigrants without college degree do place a drain on
the country, through depressed wages, because there's
parity (and since we haven't invested as much in our
educations here, we are not as competitive to outside
labor). Illegal immigrants cause a definite deficit,
albeit not so big as to threaten an entire economy -
but by creating an artificial competition they drive
wages down.
I am by all measures a liberal and very open to
immigration - I think we can't measure in dollars what
we get in new ideas, new energy, culture, art, food,
music - but for those who take a hard line look at the
return/impacts, it's worth taking the time to
understand the more complex story in the data.
Thiel also criticized the media's coverage of Trump's bombastic remarks. He said that while the
media takes Trump's remarks "literally" but not "seriously," he believes Trump supporters take them
seriously but not literally. In short, Trump isn't actually going to impose religious tests on
immigrants or build a wall along the Mexican border, as he has repeatedly said, but will simply
pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies.
"His larger-than-life persona attracts a lot of attention. Nobody would suggest that Donald Trump is
a humble man. But the big things he's right about amount to a much needed dose of humility in our
politics," Thiel said.
While the Silicon Valley tech corridor and suburbs around Washington have thrived in the last
decade or more, many other parts of the country have been gutted by economic and trade policies
that closed manufacturing plants and shipped jobs overseas, Thiel said, reiterating a previous
talking point.
"Most Americans don't live by the Beltway or the San Francisco Bay. Most Americans haven't
been part of that prosperity," Thiel said Monday. "It shouldn't be surprising to see people vote
for Bernie Sanders or for Donald Trump, who is the only outsider left in the race."
Thiel later said he had hoped the presidential race might come down to Sanders and Trump, two
outsiders with distinct views on the root cause of the nation's economic malaise and the best
course of action to fix it. "That would have been a very different sort of debate," he said.
Thiel's prepared remarks seemed more of an admonishment of the state of the country today than a
ringing endorsement of Trump's persona and policies. He decried high medical costs and the lack
of savings baby boomers have on hand. He said millennials are burdened by soaring tuition costs
and a poor outlook on the future. Meanwhile, he said, the federal government has wasted trillions
of dollars fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East that have yet to be won.
Trump is the only candidate who shares his view that the country's problems are substantial and
need drastic change to be repaired, Thiel said. Clinton, on the other hand, does not see a need
for a hard reset on some of the country's policies and would likely lead the U.S. into additional
costly conflicts abroad, he said.
A self-described libertarian, Thiel amassed his fortune as the co-founder of digital payment
company PayPal and data analytics firm Palantir Technologies. He has continued to add to that
wealth through venture capital investments in companies that include Facebook, Airbnb, Lyft and
Spotify, among many others.
"... Actually there is a point about reducing migration that can be rationally made. It's not about racial purity or demonising refugees but the prospect of high population growth brings great challenges and a. Need to assess what population Australia can reasonably sustain. ..."
"... It's interesting that Australia has benefited greatly by migration since WW2. The enriching of our economic and cultural fabric has been incontestable. But maybe we've reached the safe limits of population growth. Even the Bernadis and Abetz clans have reached here relatively recently. ..."
"... Call me old fashioned but I thought it was the responsibility of Governments to develop sound policies in the interests of the country and EXPLAIN them to the voters so that they can get understanding and support. This seems to be way beyond our politicians now, they throw anything up in the air and abandon it when there is opposition. So much for integrity and conviction. ..."
"... This morning an economic think tank recommended doubling the immigration intake, saying it would "increase per capita GDP" despite the fact that per capita GDP has gone backwards due to increased migration. ..."
"... If you halved the current migration rate it would return to historical levels, and be better for the economy and for the well being of the people already here. ..."
"... The problem is not with migration in this country, but with the 457 visa program where employers, like Caltex and 7Eleven, pay below award wages and provide poor working conditions. ..."
"... This flows on into the broader community festering discontent amongst Australians who see their jobs and employment conditions disappearing. ..."
"... Rather than focusing on immigrants, how about a thoughtful discussion of growth: what it means, how it ought to be measured, what's good and bad about it, and moving forward, what we as a society want in those terms. Immigration will assume a far more meaningful place in the context of a discussion of that kind, which would hopefully incorporate a strong environmental focus. But even in terms of the latter, issues of sustainability are not simply about raw population numbers but ultimately about lifestyle, modes of consumption, and energy use. ..."
"... What's really interesting here are the telling contradictions within the governing party between its fundamental commitments to neo-liberalism and ever-increasing growth in GDP as absolute goods, and its stumbling attempts to also embrace political reaction against the economic consequences of both policies. ..."
"... In that sense Bernardi is a useful idiot - plays to reaction through the red herring of prejudice (plus allowing the extreme right in the LNP to vent a bit of steam) while remaining rock-solid behind neo-liberalism and free markets -- at least, when it comes to the free movement of capital anyway (though the LNP has very astutely used various categories of working visa as an attempt to gradually entrench the movement of labour also, though not in any 'free' sense, just in the interests of maximizing profits). ..."
"... Yes it has, but Australia is now a vastly different place to what it was in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Back then there was plenty of land and housing, jobs available to anyone who wanted them, and the roads and hospitals were virtually empty. ..."
"... Australia isn't like that anymore and anyone living in the major cities knows how overcrowded they currently are. The 2 bedroom flat opposite me is being rented out and 7 people are living in it. Also, one of the garages downstairs is being occupied by a small family of three.. ..."
"... We need pro family policies if we wish to reduce migration. Working women must be given bigger incentives. ..."
Liberal senator, who has reiterated his support for Trump while on taxpayer-funded
secondment to the UN, calls on government to 'reconsider' refugee intake
quintal -> MadDuck
Hi mad duck
Actually there is a point about reducing migration that can be rationally made. It's not
about racial purity or demonising refugees but the prospect of high population growth brings
great challenges and a. Need to assess what population Australia can reasonably sustain.
We are, Antarctica aside, the driest, ,soil poor of all the continents. To put further
pressure on our resources by too great a population increase is not wise.
It's interesting that Australia has benefited greatly by migration since WW2. The
enriching of our economic and cultural fabric has been incontestable. But maybe we've reached
the safe limits of population growth. Even the Bernadis and Abetz clans have reached here
relatively recently.
It's also instructive that those countries with relatively small populations that invest in
people as opposed to mines are economically more successful than are we. Think Singapore,
Sweden, Switzerland. Taken together they have about half of Austrlias population and are
amongst the strongest economies in the world.
So there's an irony that Senator BErnadi, detestable in so many of his statements, makes some
common purpose with environmental groups .
Ironic but I suppose that it is what it is and the issue needs some careful thought.
Cheers
Alpo88 1h ago
"Cory Bernardi warns One Nation will rise if migration not halved"....
Liberal Civil War- Dispatch from the front N. 22:
General Bernardi, commander of the Third Infantry Division of the Confederate Army of the
Australian Conservatives has sent an ultimatum to the besieged contingent of the Army of the
Waffler in Canberra warning that an all out assault, with a taking-no-prisoners rule is being
prepared unless the Waffler's Army surrenders immediately and unconditionally.
Commander in Chief Gen. Turnbull is reported to be in his bunker, frantically thinking how to
respond to the ultimatum: a task that he has described to his entourage as "squaring the
circle in a way that nobody notices I have failed in the task"....
A review of the young stormtroopers deployed to protect the bunker is planned for this
afternoon....
Facebook Twitter
McMurdo 1h ago
What an intelligent approach, there is criticism of policy so drop it quickly.
Call me old fashioned but I thought it was the responsibility of Governments to develop
sound policies in the interests of the country and EXPLAIN them to the voters so that they can
get understanding and support. This seems to be way beyond our politicians now, they throw
anything up in the air and abandon it when there is opposition. So much for integrity and
conviction.
Of course Bernardi is being opportunistic here and using scare tactics to get a policy
change he wants for other reasons. That he even tries this stunt indicates the very low point
our
politics has reached. In a healthy system his views would be disowned and rejected instantly.
Our brave pollies will spend days wafting in the wind waiting to see how much support he gets
before they declare a position, if they manage that at all. Pathetic.
ajostu 1h ago
OK I loathe Bernardi, but it's time to look at a bit of history.
John Howard has admitted that his "Stop The Boats" policy was a bait-and-switch scheme to
soften the public's resistance to higher immigration. Other ministers from the period
(Costello, Vanstone) have supported this version of history.
So while pushing the we-hate-boat-people line, Howard doubled the regular immigration intake.
Rudd, Gillard and Abbott have all gone along with this in a completely bipartisan fashion.
Why? Because it's what lazy, uninnovative Australian business wants. More people, business
expands, CEO bonus, that's all that matters.
Meanwhile people (particularly in Sydney and Melbourne) are noticing that their quality of
life has gone down. Cities are crowded, traffic appalling, and young people can't buy a house
(though immigration is a small factor in that last one).
Both Labour and Liberal have completely buggered up regular immigration. The 457 scheme is a
disaster, below-minimum-wage pseudo-slavery is widespread, and "students" are rorting the
system left right and centre.
And the Greens do SFA because they'd have to choose between genuine sustainability (which is,
you know, what Greens are supposed to be on about) and an open migration policy (because they
don't have the political skills to separate refugees from the overall intake).
This morning an economic think tank recommended doubling the immigration intake, saying it
would "increase per capita GDP" despite the fact that per capita GDP has gone backwards due to
increased migration.
If you halved the current migration rate it would return to historical levels, and be
better for the economy and for the well being of the people already here.
Of course Bernardi doesn't care about any of that he only cares about One Nation. But if One
Nation is the only party proposing a reduction in immigration, they'll get a lot of votes.
FredLurk 1h ago
I hate to agree with Bernadi, but he's dead right. Look at what is happening in Paris right
now. Ask yourself, do we want this here?
The problem is not with migration in this country, but with the 457 visa program where
employers, like Caltex and 7Eleven, pay below award wages and provide poor working conditions.
This flows on into the broader community festering discontent amongst Australians who
see their jobs and employment conditions disappearing.
But Bernadi and his ilk choose to distract from corporate malfeasance by playing the racist
card, and thereby protecting the vested interests of the Coalition.
Filipio 1h ago
I happen to be a fan of immigration to Australia. It's enriched Australian society
enormously. At the same time can we please move on from seeing GDP as some kind of sacred
measure of all that is holy and good, even in economic terms?
Rather than focusing on immigrants, how about a thoughtful discussion of growth: what it
means, how it ought to be measured, what's good and bad about it, and moving forward, what we
as a society want in those terms. Immigration will assume a far more meaningful place in the
context of a discussion of that kind, which would hopefully incorporate a strong environmental
focus. But even in terms of the latter, issues of sustainability are not simply about raw
population numbers but ultimately about lifestyle, modes of consumption, and energy use.
What's really interesting here are the telling contradictions within the governing party
between its fundamental commitments to neo-liberalism and ever-increasing growth in GDP as
absolute goods, and its stumbling attempts to also embrace political reaction against the
economic consequences of both policies.
In that sense Bernardi is a useful idiot - plays to reaction through the red herring of
prejudice (plus allowing the extreme right in the LNP to vent a bit of steam) while remaining
rock-solid behind neo-liberalism and free markets -- at least, when it comes to the free
movement of capital anyway (though the LNP has very astutely used various categories of
working visa as an attempt to gradually entrench the movement of labour also, though not in
any 'free' sense, just in the interests of maximizing profits).
jack1878 -> Filipio 43m ago
"I happen to be a fan of immigration to Australia. It's enriched Australian society
enormously."
Yes it has, but Australia is now a vastly different place to what it was in the 40s, 50s
and 60s. Back then there was plenty of land and housing, jobs available to anyone who wanted
them, and the roads and hospitals were virtually empty.
Australia isn't like that anymore and anyone living in the major cities knows how
overcrowded they currently are. The 2 bedroom flat opposite me is being rented out and 7
people are living in it. Also, one of the garages downstairs is being occupied by a small
family of three..
Is this what we really want? Just because a policy worked well 50 years ago doesn't mean it
should be retained for eternity.
jack1878 1h ago
I hate to say it, but I agree with Bernardi on the issue of immigration--but not much else.
To still be carrying out a policy of mass immigration in these disastrous economic times ie.
no jobs, shortage of housing, overcrowded roads, hospitals etc. is a recipe for social unrest.
To cause such social unrest merely to prop up an overheated housing market and create a large
pool of cheap labour for the benefit of wealthy elites is about as irresponsible a policy as
you can get.
James Graham 45m ago
We need pro family policies if we wish to reduce migration. Working women must be given
bigger incentives.
Abolish the tax breaks for novated lease vehicles for a start. Lift the GST on cars to 15%.
And lets offer even higher incentives to have the 2nd and 3rd child.
SisterRhino -> NambuccaBarry 34m ago
I note even CNN ( Clinton Network News!) that has championed the same views of Donald Trump
that you have just outlined, is starting to distance itself from Hillary.
She's so tainted that she will be of no use to her benefactors if she does squeak across
the line. Who'd be dumb enough to be asking for the favours they've paid for given the
scrutiny she'd going to be under from hereon in?
Just watch....as her backers desert the ship, one by one, then all at once.
Trump's promise to deport illegal immigrants and build a massive wall along the Mexican border
has been one of his signature issues of this campaign. "They are coming in illegally. Drugs are pouring
in through the border. We have no country if we have no border. Hillary wants to give amnesty, she
wants to have open borders," the GOP nominee argued.
And he also argued that the border problem was contributing to the drug and opioid crisis in the
country by allowing them to pore over the border.
"We're going to get them out, we're going to secure the border, and once the border is secured,
at a later date, we'll make a determination as to the rest, but we have some bad hombres here, and
we're going to get them out," Trump said.
Clinton said she didn't want to "rip families apart. I don't want to be sending parents away from
children. I don't want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our
country." She pointed she voted for increased border security and that any violent person should
be deported.
"I think we are both a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws, and that we can act accordingly
and that's why I am introducing comprehensive immigration reform within the first hundred days with
a path to citizenship," Clinton promised.
"... Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing new historically. ..."
"... The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things. ..."
"... How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it. ..."
"... So much for Democracy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html ..."
"... I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that. ..."
I suppose immigration is particularly sensitive because the newcomers will likely settle and become British citizens, thus giving
them the vote and a say in how the country is run. If the newcomers fail to assimilate then they may vote in ways that the "native"
population object to and bring about changes that would not otherwise have occurred.
Imagine for example a referendum on the
monarchy that is won by republicans based on the votes from first generation immigrants who, understandably, are less likely to
have attachment to the institution. I suppose another way to put it is: do the original inhabitants of a territory have a right
to prevent social/cultural/political/economic change brought about by newcomers?
@AndrewD what is your point? That there are no such people as British people? That those who live here have no more rights than
those who don't?
Brexit in a nutshell: decades of treating the population of the UK as if they are nobodies: ask them "are you happy to continue
being treated as if you are worthless nobodies?" Answer "no".
My point is that the concept of "original inhabitents" for any part of the world (save possibly a small part of East Africa) is
meaningless in historical terms. Historically, immigrants came with "fire and slaughter". Justify your statement about the rights
of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we were here first.
The difference between Daniel Kahnemann and Jason Brennan is that Kahnemann talks about the biases we all (including him) have
and Brennan talks about the biases that "they" have. Which is why I take Kahnemann seriously and not Brennan. What's more, Dan
Kahan's work on motivated reasoning suggests that it affects Type 2 (slow) thinking as well and that the bias is greatest among
the most educated. In other words, we're all prone to cognitive biases and there's no justification from that to restrict the
franchise.
Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there
that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing
new historically.
The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time
in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things.
How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all
just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it.
AndrewD - "Justify your statement about the rights of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we
were here first."
well that's just about the whole of human history. If everyone has rights to be everywhere then no-one gets to influence what
happens in "their" area. I like my neighbours but they live in their house and I live in mine.
More specifically and recently, the switch of who "we" are from the UK to Europe has created a bonanza for some people and
left others on the scrap heap.
For example, you're relying on the idea of an in group and an out group. What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are
they part of your in group or not? What about people in your street that like immigration? Where are your borders? Then think
about Europe where, to put it mildly, there has been a recent history of "fluid" boundaries.
@aragon Ah good, I wondered how long it would be before the Appeal to Nature fallacy reared its head. Social Darwinism anybody?
How do you reconcile the fact that the areas of the UK that saw the most EU immigration were the areas that were the most tolerant
of it, and vice versa?
Lastly your wisdom of crowds reference is a bit silly. What we saw in the referendum was crowd psychology rather than diverse
collections of independently deciding individuals, because the media drip fed them their views over 20 years or more.Crowds can
be made to behave stupidly too.
"What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are they part of your in group or not?" this is a critical question that
recent referenda have thrown up, even more so than left/right and class. The scots are part of my group but I suspect increasingly
I am not part of theirs.
"What about people in your street that like immigration?" well once out of the EU we can all vote for parties that reflect
our views on immigration. While in the EU over 450 million people have the right of residence and our various opinions matter
not a jot.
@ Tonybirte. so people who disagree with you have been drop fed views over 20 years and are too stupid to see the truth.
Are you sure its not you who has been drip-fed views over the past 20 years? Are you absolutely sure you are not the one behaving
stupidly? Have you done your due diligence?
Gastro George, the Scots are not pro-immigration. Opinion polling suggests they are less opposed to it than the UK as a whole,
but still opposed overall.
I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy
under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that.
I'm all for reducing the unmanageably high levels of total immigration
into the U.S., and I strongly believe in penalizing illegal employers, but I
think you have exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants.
According to Numbers USA, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in
the U.S.:
"... I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth. ..."
"... As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo. ..."
"... And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants? ..."
"... Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America. ..."
"... Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today. ..."
"... U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region. ..."
"... The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population. ..."
"... Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily. ..."
"... Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor. ..."
"... most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out. ..."
"... It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it. ..."
"... I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization. ..."
"... So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth". ..."
"... H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. ..."
"... Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic. ..."
"... My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.) ..."
Posted on
September 21, 2016 by
Yves Smith Yves here.
I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing
wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the
cost of overall growth.
In
a
recent post , I showed that looking at data since 1950 or so, the percentage of the population
that is foreign born is negatively correlated with job creation in later years. I promised an explanation,
and I will attempt to deliver on that promise in this post.
I can think of a few reasons for the finding, just about all of which would have been amplified
since LBJ's Presidency due to two things: the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and the launch of the Great Society.
The Hart-Cellar Act may be better known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It phased
out country quotas in existence since the 1920s. As a result of these quotas, about 70% of all immigrants
were coming from England, Germany and Ireland, with most of the remainder coming from elsewhere in
Western Europe and from Latin America. The Great Society, of course, included a number of welfare
programs, many of which (or their descendants) are still in existence.
With that, reasons why the foreign born population is negatively correlated with subsequent job
creation include:
1. Immigrants who are sufficiently similar to the existing population when it comes to language,
culture, skillsets and expectations will integrate more smoothly. Slower and more imperfect integration
necessarily requires more expenditure of resources, resources which otherwise could go toward economic
development.
2. Naturally, skills and values that are more productive and efficient than those of the existing
population are conducive toward growth. Conversely, bringing inferior technology and processes
does not improve the economy. As the source of immigrants shifted away from sources of sources of
high technology like England and Germany and toward the developing and not-developing world, the
likelihood that a randomly selected new immigrant will improve productivity diminishes.
3. Eligibility for welfare can change the incentive structure for existing and potential immigrants.
An immigrant arriving in the US in 1890 certainly had no expectation of being supported by the
state. It may be that most immigrants arriving in the US now also don't have that expectation. However,
it is no secret that welfare exists so some percentage of potential immigrants arrive expecting to
be supported to some degree by the state. In some (many?) cases, the expectation increases post-arrival.
(Like any great economist, Milton Friedman got a lot of things wrong about how the economy works
but he had a point when he said you can have a welfare state or open borders but not both.)
4. Rightly or wrongly, reasons 1 – 3 above may combine to create resentment in the existing
population. Think "my grandparents came to this country with nothing and nobody gave them anything "
Resentment can break down trust and institutions necessary for the economy to function smoothly.
5. Over time, transportation has become cheaper and easier. As a result, the likelihood
that an immigrant has come to the US to stay has diminished. Many immigrants come to the US for several
years and then go back to their country of origin. This in turn leads to four issues that can have
negative impacts on the economy:
5a. Immigrants that expect to leave often send back remittances, taking resources out of the
US economy. For example, in 2010, remittances from workers in the US
amounted to 2.1% of Mexican GDP .
5b. Relative to many non-Western countries, the US taxpayer invests heavily in the creation
of a state that is conducive toward acquiring useful skills and education. Often, the acquisition
of such skills and education is heavily subsidized. When people acquire those tools and then leave
without applying them, the value of the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.
5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically;
any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely
of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters.
5d. Immigrants who arrive with a non-negligible expectation of leaving are, on average, more
likely to take risks which generate private gains and social losses. If the bet goes well, congratulations.
If the bet goes bad, "so long suckers!" The bet may even involve a crime.
6. (This one is more conjecture than the others – I think it is true, but I haven't given it
enough thought, particularly whether it is entirely separate from the previous reasons.) The
non-existence of a lump of labor does not mean there isn't a population to labor multiplier, or that
the multiplier cannot change over time. In an era of relatively slow economic growth, economies of
scale, and outsourcing abroad, the number of new employment opportunities per new customer (i.e.,
job creation per resident) can shrink. We've certainly seen something resembling that since about
2000.
None of this is to say that immigration is good or bad, or even that it should be opposed or encouraged.
In this post I simply tried to explain what I saw in the data. I will have one or more follow-up
posts.
I think one of the best things the US can do re immigration is to develop policies that make
it easier for people to stay in their country of origin which many probably want to do. Our policies
have tended to have the opposite effect such as
and Syria/Libya etc "An estimated 11 million Syrians have fled their homes
since the outbreak of the civil war in March 2011. Now, in the sixth year of war, 13.5 million
are in need of humanitarian assistance within the country. " (
http://syrianrefugees.eu/ )
We are also very much in need of a job guarantee paying a living wage which would put pressure
on major employers such as Walmart and McDonalds and get their executives off of government subsidies.
(they pay a wage so low their workers are forced into food stamps and medicaid) (One of the major
beneficiaries of the nation's food-stamp program is actually a hugely profitable company:
Walmart .) (
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/walmart-food-stamps_n_4181862.html )
Another great post, read word-for-word, and I very much look forward your subsequent ones.
You've cogently explored the "yin" of immigration, but what about the "yang"?
As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive
for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social
systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status
quo.
And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable
regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants?
'As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive
for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social
systems or resolve ongoing conflicts.'
After a mere ten years, NAFTA succeeded in reversing net immigration from Mexico.
Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America:
countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now
they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America.
Increasingly Mexico will focus on its own southern border with Guatemala, as it becomes more
of a destination country rather than simply a transit country, as detailed here:
Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing
gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans.
The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today.
Yes. It is a pernicious cycle with something like these dimensions. . .
U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region.
The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic,
and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers,
often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation
than the native population.
Native population sees the contours of its society change with the influx along with a
lessening in quality of living standards, which leads to dangerous, xenophobic mental associations.
Xenophobic politics begin to take root and thrive.
The real solution is for our country to stop doing step 1.
Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an
economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives
industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily.
Its clear that the emigree benefits, and the receiving country receives a subsidy in the form
of valuable human capital. But how does the originating country develop? Invest in education and
the best leave. Invest in industry and you compete with the products of the developed countries.
And of course, the rich in unstable countries have little reason to care about the long term
consequences of their actions if they can take their loot and run. There is a reason so many rich
Chinese are emigrating.
David Harvey once told a story about how he warned investment bankers that if things keep getting
worse, the US could end up a failed state like Mexico. In typical Wall Street fashion they asked
Harvey if they should buy villas in France.
I think this is the first article I have EVER read that even supposes there might be negative
ECONOMIC effects of immigration.
I would note that if there ever was a jobs program with the explicit goal of reducing unemployment
to 4% (and not pretending the people who have dropped out don't want a job because they CAN'T
get a job) and providing a job to any and all applicants – well, I think the immigration from
South America that has slowed would amp right up again – of course.
You know, I have been reading some of the Davos Man class going on and on about how they didn't
really do enough to ameliorate the negative effects of "free" trade on those who don't benefit
from trade. But NAFTA is going on a quarter of a century – and in every subsequent trade deal
such promises are either never kept or never effectively implemented.
I suspect that to REALLY provide jobs of equal pay and equal benefits is not economically feasible.
Think of it this way – people who worked as landscapers, when displaced by immigrants, may not
have the aptitude, skills, or even desire to change careers – if you work outside, why in the
hell do you want to have to start working indoors???
Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .
What are you gonna do keep these people employed – have the same lawn mowed twice every week?
Have the same computer code written twice?????
Again, the whole scenario has struck me as not being ever critically thought through. The benefits
to consumers getting low prices are endlessly pointed out, but the negative effect of fewer jobs
at low pay are glossed over or NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. The whole deal is that less income to workers
and more income to capital – is it REALLY unforseeable that eventually there will be a demand
dearth?? Decades of experience of jobs shipped overseas and not replaced are not acknowledged.
Ever growing inequality. We have been sold a load of bullsh*t because it benefited a very, very
narrow slice at the top only.
Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .
Over 100K H-1B Visas issued so far for 2016 alone, over 10% of those were issued in my state
of Massachusetts. The Mathworks Inc. of Natick was given a $3 million dollar state tax subsidy
in return for "creating" 600 new jobs – they created jobs alright, 386 H-1B jobs so far, Americans
need not apply.
The HB-1 Indian workers that have flooded Boston's labor market seem to fit this part because
they get on and off Public transportation enmass at stops with clusters of rental buildings --
"5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically;
any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely
of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters."
As a lifelong blue collar worker for nearly 40 years, I found my ability to remain employed
competing against a never-ending influx of 22 year old immigrants to be a sinking, and finally
sunk quagmire. I lost. I cannot be 22 forever.
Coming up in the 1970's many of my acquaintances and I were skilled laborers, we got up in
the morning and went out everyday to work hard for a living. None of us would even be considered
for any of those entry level positions any more. They all go to immigrants from somewhere else
or another. As a native born white American you don't even get a chance at those jobs anymore,
no employer would even bother talking to you.
The US has all but done away with apprenticeship programs for the skilled trades. We just bring
in exploitable people from all over the world to build our stuff, and then when we're done with
them, they go back to where they came from. I know this is true because I've asked them, I've
worked with them – they have no intention of staying in America longer than it takes to educate
their kids, build up a nest egg, and go back home. A lot of them don't really like it here.
But we Americans don't have those options. We can't go to Guatemala or Germany or the Philippines
to work for 10 or 20 years to return to America with saved money on which we can survive for the
rest of a lifetime.
This deal is a one-way street.
As an American, I challenge you to get a job abroad. I challenge you to get a foreign residency
visa or a work visa. I challenge you to do any of the things that immigrants do in our country.
You can't.
I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm pro- our people first. Us first, and then when we need other folks
they're welcome too. But that's not what has been happening in my work lifetime of the last 40
years.
Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise
is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown
Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the
discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor.
For example most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable
to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out.
In any case the below author does talk about how the notion of "illegal" immigrants is a more
recent phenomenon and in earlier periods Mexicans were freely allowed to come across and work.
I think it's also useful to consider private prison labor. This article notes that half this
revenue comes from undocumented immigrants but that means the other half comes from US citizens.
private prisons
""Private prisons bring in about $3 billion in revenue annually, and over half of that comes
from holding facilities for undocumented immigrants. Private operations run between 50% to 55%
of immigrant detainment facilities. The immigration bill battling its way through Washington right
now might also mean good things for private prisons. Some estimate that the crackdown on undocumented
immigrants will lead to 14,000 more inmates annually with 80% of that business going to private
prisons.
The prison industry has also made money by contracting prison labor to private companies. The
companies that have benefited from this cheap labor include Starbucks (SBUX), Boeing (BA), Victoria's
Secret, McDonalds (MCD) and even the U.S. military. Prison laborers cost between 93 cents and
$4 a day and don't need to collect benefits, thus making them cheap employees.""
It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations
that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it.
Now that they are here and have settled with families, it is deplorable to speak of mass deportation.
As has been noted with the Walmart expample, those that massively profit from this abberation
should bear the major cost of public services required for a 'Shadow Workforce'.
And Hillary Clinton and her neocon crowd, whose policies have created chaos resulting in mass
immigration of refugees offers no apology but more of the same. Insanity doing the same thing
over and over for a different result?
I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country.
But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of
limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the
contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization.
I argue that the theory is self contradictory because it is normal human nature being selfish
hence anti competition. When threatened by the influx of seemingly hard working, creative and
passive immigrants, I tend to gravitate towards conservatism. I start taking necessary steps towards
protecting myself, my immediate family and hence my domestic market. These rules are typically
borrowed from nature. How to balance the impulsive theory of free market economics vs the reality
of limited resources and opportunities is a unique challenge to governments, policy and decision
makers worldwide hence globalization in the short run presents unique challenges (conflicts) sometimes.
Johnson supports private, for-profit prisons. As Governor of New Mexico he dealt with overcrowded
prisons (and approximately seven hundred prisoners held out-of-state due to a lack of available
space) by opening two private prisons, later arguing that "building two private prisons in
New Mexico solved some very serious problems – and saved the taxpayers a lot of money."
He could have saved the taxpayers even more money by releasing non-violent prisoners convicted
of minor crimes. But that would have offended some of his campaign donors.
Bernie's goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from
prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you?
According to Lee Fang of The Intercept, Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary
Clinton.
After pressure from civil rights groups, Vice News explains Hillary Clinton Shuns Private
Prison Cash, Activists Want Others to Follow Suit.
The Huffington Post writes "Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants,
GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC,
according to Vice."
Do you trust Clinton?
I guess this means that we should vote for Sanders in the primary. Oh gosh, there's a minor
problem. The primaries are over, and Clinton is the nominee.
"I do think we can do a lot of privatizations, and private prisons it seems to work a lot
better," said Trump when asked how he planned to reform the country's prison system.
For more research on the topic – I found the following very readable, gave me a lot of insight
into the factors influencing whether or when immigration is good or bad from which point of view:
So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education
system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working
life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If
I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because
of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return.
So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth".
Question is, how much of the pension and/or social security and/or investment gains do I owe
to the US, and how much to the UK? I think I owe more there than I do here. Particularly in light
of the fact that the UK paid for my college education, but my nephews and nieces have to pay for
their own, so I have hitherto been a drain on the UKs social investment strategy.
I see it as much a moral question as an economic one that I should help support my family's
education directly, and the UK social system through future taxes paid from pension. I have after
all supported the US social and military-industrial systems through work done and taxes paid during
my working life.
1. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare they can barely get emergency room
care.
2. H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest.
Could India actually make use of its intelligent people? Is it moral for the U.S. to, in effect,
bribe them to leave their native country? (A point made by Ralph Nader in answering a libertarian
at his Google talk )
3. Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic.
Got a link on this? My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here
on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas
don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're
not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for
their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.)
I can only speak for Texas, but the nail salons, massage parlors, dry cleaners, restaurants,
fishing boats and electronics refurbishing can't ALL be H1-B visas. And that isn't even counting
all the people from India I see. Most of them are too old to be students.
Trump's statement that he will issue an executive order forcing employers to use E-Verify for
all new employees is a good start. While that program has a few flaws, the net effect would be
massive for favoring citizens over illegals.
To be fair, employers should still have the option of using illegals, however, they should
put their money where their mouths and labor savings are, by not being able to deduct the non
E-Verifiable wages from their income for taxation purposes.
"... Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910. ..."
"... Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in. ..."
"... As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html ..."
"... "Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians. ..."
"... I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants. ..."
"... Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. ..."
"... "If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated." ..."
"... I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist. ..."
"... The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away. ..."
Trump's Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues : Donald Trump would
like you to believe that immigration is largely responsible for the difficult economic conditions
the working class has experienced in recent decades. But immigration is not the problem. The real
culprits are globalization, technological change, and labor's dwindling bargaining power in wage
negotiations.
Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly
done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership
class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born
workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910.
Lettuce Wars: Ten Years of Work and Struggle in the Fields of California
In 1971, Bruce Neuburger-young, out of work, and radicalized by the 60s counterculture in Berkeley-took
a job as a farmworker on a whim. He could have hardly anticipated that he would spend the next
decade laboring up and down the agricultural valleys of California, alongside the anonymous and
largely immigrant workforce that feeds the nation. This account of his journey begins at a remarkable
moment, after the birth of the United Farm Workers union and the ensuing uptick in worker militancy.
As a participant in organizing efforts, strikes, and boycotts, Neuburger saw first-hand the struggles
of farmworkers for better wages and working conditions, and the lengths the growers would go to
suppress worker unity...
Mexican migrants were in Ohio 60+ years ago, making the vegetable circuit. (The biggest Campbells
Soup plant is in Napoleon Ohio. The region has some of the best top soil on the planet). Some
of them settled and are on the third generation. They even hang out with the white working class,
who are their neighbors and co-workers. Some of them even marry Germans and Swedes.
Yeah, guest workers go way back at least 100 years in the US. And sure many stayed and, in that
case, I am totally fine with actual immigration when they become citizens and pay taxes and buy
or rent homes here as permanent residents. Green card workers and illegals are doing a lot of
the farm work in VA on the Northern Neck and Eastern Shore and have been for thirty years.
Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US.
These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant
for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in.
I understand the effect of illegal immigration, Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects
of illegal immigation, ...., in fact almost all working class Americans understand the effects
of illegal immigration.
"Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor
Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip
flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this
destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians.
Mark Thoma is suggesting a humane alternative to Wilson's two extremes.
If there was a basic income with a substantial residency requirement for immigrants - this would
be a non-issue, since qualified residents could live better than immigrants on the same wages.
I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and
there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish
names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan
and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were
just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We
are all, save Native Americans, immigrants.
I remember those old World War 2 movies where the squad is made up of diverse immigrants. You
got the Italian, the Jew, the Irsh guy, etc. And they formed a team. E pluribus unim. Attacking
immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. E
"Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most"
Conservatives have been attacking immigrants for years. They hated JFK and Catholics. Being
a Catholic Jew is not new to me, but Cons hated Catholics and then they used us Jews for their
political gains. It never worked on us. Most Jews are too intelligent for conservatism. Take care.
Our excellent host gets to the heart of the matter:
"If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are
globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems
for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs
and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up
with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better.
Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs
due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger
hand when wages are negotiated."
Trump has nothing to offer except hate. Besides - who could object to more tacos. Oh wait -
I need to do a long run before eating Mexican food tonight.
I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure
that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free
trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will
use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter
the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well,
those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist.
The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself
since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities
(the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s
with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that
they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again
can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they
fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they
own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away.
And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they
siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map,
intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show
up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist....
[ Perfectly paraphrased from Dr. Strangelove. We are being siphoned, OMG. ]
Washington Post Presents an Overly Simplistic View of Trade
It is unfortunate that it now acceptable in polite circles to connect a view with Donald Trump
and then dismiss it. The result is that many fallacious arguments can now be accepted without
being seriously questioned. (Hey folks, I hear Donald Trump believes in evolution.)
The Post plays this game * in noting that the U.S. trade deficit with Germany is now larger
than its deficit with Mexico, putting Germany second only to China. It then asks why people aren't
upset about the trade deficit with Germany.
It partly answers this story itself. Germany's huge trade surplus stems in large part from
the fact that it is in the euro zone. The euro might be properly valued against the dollar, but
because Germany is the most competitive country in the euro zone, it effectively has an under-valued
currency relative to the dollar.
The answer to this problem would be to get Germany to have more inflationary policies to allow
other countries to regain competitiveness -- just as the other euro zone countries were generous
enough to run inflationary policies in the first half of the last decade to allow Germany to regain
competitiveness. However, the Germans refuse to return this favor because their great great great
great grandparents lived through the hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany. (Yes, they say this.)
Anyhow, this issue has actually gotten considerable attention from economists and other policy
types. Unfortunately it is very difficult to force a country in the euro zone -- especially the
largest country -- to run more expansionary countries. As a result, Germany is forcing depression
conditions on the countries of southern Europe and running a large trade surplus with the United
States.
The other part of the difference between Germany and China and Mexico is that Germany is a
rich country, while China and Mexico are developing countries. Folks that took intro econ courses
know that rich countries are expected to run trade surpluses.
The story is that rich countries are slow growing with a large amount of capital. By contrast,
developing countries are supposed to fast growing (okay, that doesn't apply to post-NAFTA Mexico),
with relatively little capital. Capital then flows from where it is relatively plentiful and getting
a low return to developing countries where it is scarce and can get a high return.
The outflow of capital from rich countries implies a trade surplus with developing countries.
Developing countries are in turn supposed to be borrowing capital to finance trade deficits. These
trade deficits allow them to build up their capital stocks even as they maintain the consumption
standards of their populations.
In the case of the large trade surpluses run by China and other developing countries, we are
seeing the opposite of the textbook story. We are seeing fast growing developing countries with
outflows of capital. This largely because they have had a policy of deliberately depressing the
value of their currencies by buying up large amounts of foreign reserves (mostly dollars.)
So the economics textbooks explain clearly why we should see the trade deficits that the U.S.
runs with China and Mexico as being different than the one it runs with Germany. And that happens
to be true regardless of what Donald Trump may or may not say.
By the way, this piece also asserts that "Germany on average has lower wages than Belgium or
Ireland." This is not true according to our friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
China is building its military at a huge rate. Double digit growth per yer over almost 20 years.
They are at $150 billion a year(if you believe their figures).
You have a point with China at $150B a year going to real engineering and not inept Lockheed
you need to worry. Those PLA re-education camps might make you another McCain.
US' Pentagon welfare trough: $500B "core" per year even with the sequestration.
Paying for DoD part of drones delivering collateral damage justified by its military utility*:
$80B in FY 16 (was $150B in FY 12).
CIA contracted drones and contractor (See the guys killed in Benghazi) run wars we can know
nothing about $XXB a year.
*If Germany had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged.
Rusty - your usual confusion. Economists only advise. Lawyers make these decisions. And most lawyers
either do not listen to economists or if they do they get really confused. But will a lawyer ever
admit they are confused or not listening?
I don't see your call to take America back to the 60s and tube radios and TVs because they are
cheaper than semiconductor manufacturing because all the tube electronic factories already exist.
Nor do I see you extolling the virtue of $8 gasoline and heating oil thanks to the total ban
on fossil fuel imports.
I'd love someone to ask Trump if he would ban imports of oil and iPhones and Samsung electronics
in his first 100 days as president.
If he says yes and doesn't lose popularity, I'll make sure to buy all the electronics I'll
want for a few years. I've already sworn off gasoline.
Surely fuller then full employment
and a largest possible share of net income
going to primary producers isn't precluded by external trade restrictions
Economies of scale ?
Adequate competition between producing units ?
North America is plenty big for most optimal "plant sizes "
And at least three firms for each product
See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure
See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure
[ Of course, that will take reading through the last 30 years or so of work by Joseph Stiglitz
since I am not going to give a reader a clue as to how to find such a reference. No problem though,
just start reading. ]
There will be no relief until we "euthanize the rentiers". Raise top marginal rates to confiscatory
levels on income over $1 million, treat all income the same, prohibit corporations from deducting
executive compensate over $1 million, eliminate all tax breaks for individuals that do not widely
apply to those in the bottom half of the income distribution and all corporate tax subsidies.
Not even close, just a return to the 1950s, when the economy boomed. The idea that the wealthy
and large corporations will physically move to countries with more favorable tax regimes, most
of which are in the third world, is pure fantasy, which is why most of the super rich live in
New York, California, and other high tax states.
I understand the differences, but was merely addressing Rusty's nonsense implying this was somehow
outrageous and unprecedented. In addition to the trade advantages the US had, the emergence of
new industries in electronics, aviation, and petrochemicals, which all needed a lot of highly
skilled workers and paid very well, was vital as well. Nonetheless, the policies I mentioned would
go a long way to addressing our current problems, including reducing the incentives to offshore
production (contrary to Rusty).
You don't understand the point of tax dodges, do you? The tax dodges are rewards for paying workers
to build capital assets. But they need high marginal rates to justify paying workers.
Capital gains needs to return to the hold for five years or more to get the incentive. It isn't
really "capital" if not held because it's productive.
However, if inflation in the price of productive capital that barely retains its value is taxed
as income, you punish building productive capital. Asset basis price can be inflation adjusted
reasonably well these days thanks to computer technology making detailed calculations simple for
humans.
I'd have loved to pay workers to install solar and batteries to dodge 50-70% marginal tax rates
in the 90s. Much better than the best case 30% tax credit for paying workers these days. Of course,
given the penalty for paying workers due to low tax rates, I have no high wage income to be taxed
at high rates.
As Milton Friedman pointed out in the 60s and then later in the 80s as I recall, the 50-70-90%
tax rates never raised much revenue because the tax dodges rewarded paying worker to do wasteful
things, in his opinion, like production too much cheap energy, producing too much innovation which
ended up in too many new consumer products the wastefully overpaid workers bought.
This is an irrelevant aside. Friday was a minor bloodbath for investors inequities and bonds.
Thing is, I was like okay, I lost paper money, why.? I could not find a reason the market was
tanking other than Fed fears. Now I realize equities markets can behave like crack addicts or
lemmings. But 2.45 percent based on Fed fears of a rate hike?
Usually when the market is down I go to Calculated risk to see what must be some bad data.
Friday is a profit taking day. But as a small investor that was a really bad day.
Also, Los Lobos version of Hotel California via the Big Libowski is essential.
Final trading session before the 15th anniversary of 9-11 disaster! Would you guess that lot of
folks hedged with ultra-short-ETF earlier in the week? Lot of folks took profits before labour
day?
A day like that is why there needs to be a micro tax on trades. I get it if people sell based
on fundamentals. Everyone hedges, too, that's why you diversify. But the ultimate purpose of investing
is to provide companies with the capital to make productive investment.
A good part of the market is just short term bets. How is that socially useful. And the funny
thing, a lot of these guys don't make money for their clients, they just make money on the commission.
Like a casino owner. Like the con man running for prez.
Technological change is definitely not an issue. Productivity growth is slower now than in 1945-1973
when we had a large middle class. Cross nationally the arguments that robots are taking jobs doesn't
make any sense. If you traveled in both the non-industrial world (Africa, Haiti etc) and East
Asia, you will be aware of this. In the non-industrial world formal sector employment is only
10-20% of the labor force; 80% of the pop. is involved in "gig" jobs selling candy on the street
etc. In East Asia you have virtually no unemployment, but these are the places with by far the
largest deployment of robots, much, much higher than the US. The robots argument is convenient
politically, but doesn't make any sense to anyone whose traveled the world or knows anything about
economic history.
Before, auto plants hired 5,500 @ and produced X vehicles; after, they hired 1,200 @ and produced
1.4 vehicles. You don't get to have your own reality.
I bet that tamales truck is run by a Mexican. I hope so as it would likely mean you are enjoying
awesome tamales. Trump has no idea what good Mexican food is as it does not exist in Manhattan.
I think we need to change the compound growth capitalism we've had since forever. It will not
be sustainable much longer. We need 'de-globalization' not more globalization, in my opinion.
The efficiency bookkeeping model that promotes globalization is deeply flawed. What about the
pollution issues involved in global distribution of products that can easily be made at home?
Again, Keynes said it best. "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the
hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is
not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous--and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short,
we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place,
we are extremely perplexed."
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm
After the Berlin Wall fell, and defense budgets got cut, the SoCal economy changed as income
and jobs drained out. Blacks occupied the lower end of support jobs and got underbid by Hispanics,
so they moved away from LA. The same trend impacted lower income whites, who largely moved out
of state. Middle and upper income whites adapted as the local economy transitioned to absorb the
laid-off engineering talent, often through new business ventures along the 101 corridor and in
the multi-media areas in Santa Monica and the south bay. What took a few decades in Pittsburgh
and other cities impacted by major industry changes took about a decade in LA.
In southern California overall, the combination of illegal immigration and a higher total fertility
rate among Hispanics has brought about significant population and employment changes, particularly
over the last 25 years. As well-documented by demographers, blacks suffered significantly through
those changes and were displaced from low end jobs by the burgeoning Hispanic population.
For example, south central LA has transitioned from majority black to majority Hispanic as
a result of job changes and influx. Blacks moved to San Bernardino, Victorville and other areas
where cheaper housing and potential employment were available.
Now the taco trucks are supplemented by grilled cheese trucks, crepe trucks, Korean taco trucks
and other variations designed to serve a more diverse population.
That is actually a decent description of LA. And the diversity of food is why some sing "I Love
LA". It has its issues but I do miss southern CAL .. especially during these harsh NYC winters.
Urbanites like Trump probably see
'taco trucks' frequently as their
limos whiz by. They appreciate
their visibility to likely
Trumpy supporters.
(Limos & trucks both?)
'Doing something about pesky
immigrants should garner a few votes!'
Except The Donald didn't start the tweet storm.
'Taco Trucks on Every Corner': Trump Supporter's
Anti-Immigration Warning http://nyti.ms/2bIeFyw
NYT - NIRAJ CHOKSHI - SEPT. 2, 2016
"My culture is a very dominant culture, and it's imposing and it's causing problems. If you
don't do something about it, you're going to have taco trucks on every corner."
That was Marco Gutierrez, founder of the group Latinos for Trump, issuing a dire warning to
the United States in an interview with Joy Reid on MSNBC on Thursday night.
Trump campaign manager repeatedly grilled about
candidate's false proclamations on Iraq War
position http://read.bi/2bZ6iyG
via @BusinessInsider - Sep 9
Donald Trump's campaign manager was repeatedly pressed Friday as she attempted to explain inconsistencies
in the Republican presidential nominee's statements on the Iraq War.
On two separate morning shows, Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the
war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how
he felt at the time.
On CNN, anchor Chris Cuomo pressed Conway on Trump's Iraq War flip-flops.
"He doesn't want to own that he wasn't against it before it started," Cuomo said. "Why not?
Why not just own it? And as you like to say, he was a private citizen."
Conway insisted that despite Trump responding "yeah, I guess so" when Stern asked if he supported
the invasion of Iraq, his statement wasn't equal to then Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote in favor
of the war. ...
(At least, 'Trump has acknowledged that
Clinton's vote (for the war - *) was a mistake.')
... "The point is, as you know, he constantly says 'I was always against the war,'" host Charlie
Rose said to Conway. "Here he says 'I guess' I would support it. That's a contradiction."
Conway pushed back, offering a similar defense to the one she gave CNN.
"Not really, Charlie," she said. "And here is why: He is giving - he is on a radio show. Hillary
Clinton went into the well of the United States Senate representing this state of New York and
case a vote in favor of the Iraq War."
Rose said that "this is not about Hillary Clinton."
"She has acknowledged that vote and acknowledged it was a mistake," Rose said. "He has not,
and he wants to have it both ways."
Conway said that Trump has acknowledged that Clinton's vote was a mistake, to which Rose replied,
"No, but he has not acknowledged that at one point he said he was for the war.
"Why can't he simply say that?" Rose asked. "'At one point I was, and then I changed my mind."
...
(When Trump criticized the Iraq War in 2004,
it was because we hadn't seized their oil
assets as spoils, ostensibly.)
*- Iraq Resolution (formally the Authorization
for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)
"Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with
radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time."
Of course Kellyanne Conway lies even more than her client.
Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables' ... http://nyti.ms/2c1UlbC
NYT - AMY CHOZICK - SEPT. 10
... Mrs. Clinton's comments Friday night, which were a variation of a sentiment she has expressed
in other settings recently, came at a fund-raiser in Manhattan.
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what
I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" she said to applause and laughter. "The racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.
And he has lifted them up."
By Saturday morning, #BasketofDeplorables was trending on Twitter as Mr. Trump's campaign demanded
an apology. His supporters hoped to use the remark as as evidence that Mrs. Clinton cannot connect
to the voters she hopes to represent as president.
"Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working
people. I think it will cost her at the polls!" Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. ...
Immigration PLUS the "demobilization" of labor unions (the discontinuance of collective bargaining
with the concomitant dismemberment of middle class political punch) EQUALS the impoverishment
of low skilled workers ...
... equates to reducing what should be $800 jobs to $400 jobs ...
... which is the alpha and the omega of today's income inequality -- at least lowest income
inequality; the folks who work fast food and supermarkets (the wrong end of two-tier supermarket
contracts, gradually going low tier all the way). I'm not especially concerned that more low skilled
jobs add more higher skilled employment.
********************************
Why are 100,000 out of something like 200,000 Chicago gang-age, minority males in street gangs?
Where are the American raised taxi drivers? Could be $600 fast food jobs imm-sourced to Mexico
and India -- could be $800 taxi jobs imm-sourced to the whole world? $1000 construction jobs imm-sourced
to Eastern Europe and Mexico?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER
WILL TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOLERATE.
*****************************
Even zero immigration would only (as in merely) keep American labor from hitting rock bottom --
or at least hoping to find non-criminal employment w/o collective bargaining.
Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when
you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before
it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.
OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little
back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only
market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.
New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to
a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal
level.
Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO
for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro
labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise
the issue.
IF SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD JUST RAISE THE ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!
Wanna stop the shoot-em-ups in Chicago and elsewhere? To paraphrase a line from Superfly: It's
the American dream dog: flush toilet down the hall, AM radio, electric light in every room.
Let's call that $200/wk job level -- in today's money. And the year is ...
... 1916 ...
.. and today's gang members, not to mention my American raised taxi driver "gang" would be
willing to put in a hard week's work for it ...
... in 1916.
But today's "gangs" are not going to work for $400, 100 years later. Hell, about 50 years later
...
... 1968 ...
... the federal minimum wage was $440 in today's money -- at half today's per capita income!
I read James Julius Wilson's book When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor and
Sudhir Venkatesh's book American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto, at the same time
-- and the projects only descended into gang infested hell as the bottom dropped out of the minimum
wage.
Beautiful thing about collective bargaining is: you know you have squeezed the most practicable
out (of your fellow consumers -- not the boss) of the economy and technology of your era.
Just don't forget Centralized bargaining so the Walmarts of the world can't squeeze better
contracts elsewhere. Walmart closed 88 big boxes in Germany which has centralized bargaining.
Wal-Mart's "advantage" is not in low labor cost, but logistics and market dominance allowing it
to boss around suppliers.
German labor laws may have contributed to its "problems", but the primary issues were its US-centric
logistics operation and having to compete against local incumbents who were at least its equals,
and had the home turf advantage. And competition as well as labor relations in German retail are
at least as cutthroat as in the US. Most recent (few years ago) scandals involving treatment of
workers and systematic intimidation were in large chain retailers.
There were also stories about how they were trying to sell US bedware sizes which are different
from the German sizes, and similar market research goofs, which seems to indicate a certain arrogance,
and that they probably underestimated the effort and sunk cost that had to be invested to become
successful.
Some of these stories also had a background of a general anti-US sentiment as neoliberal safety
net "reforms" and (labor) market "flexibilization" were prominently justified with US comparisons
(by officials). But I doubt this had much practical impact on the decision to cut the experiment.
"A staggering 96 per cent of America's net job growth since 1990 has come from sectors known
to have low productivity (construction, retail, bars, restaurants, and other low-paying services
were responsible for 46 percentage points of total growth) and sectors where low productivity
is merely suspected in the absence of competition and proper measurement techniques (healthcare,
education, government, and finance explain the remaining 50 percentage points)".
So we are expanding jobs that produce services. With increased robotics and productivity, a
smaller and smaller % of the workforce will be needed to produce all the food and merchandise
people need (or can consume). So the future growth of the job market will have to be in producing
services. The challenge will be to make sure that those jobs are paying sufficiently high salaries
to ensure continuous robust growth in demand. Otherwise we will be entering a permanent period
of low growth in the economy.
ensure that workers have more bargaining power so that the growth in output is shared rather than
"
~~MT~
Workers need to get a handle on bargaining power, need to realize that uncontrolled reproduction
will inevitably bid down the price of labour. Look!
American family should find it cheaper to reduce child bearing to one child per female. The
one child can then inherit the entire estate of the couple with no expense for legal battles with
rival siblings. The one child will have more quality time with parents, grand parents, and aunts
for mentor-ing and help with school work, be on the fast track of career path that requires quality
education. Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills. Such jobs do not adapt
easily to recent immigrants. Reduction in our birth rate cannot be completely de-fang-ed by immigration.
Our birth control will remain a windfall to our workers in aggregate sprint as well as in separate
family's economics.
One child per 2 parents would be an economic disaster. Unless productivity per worker exploded
we would find that the total GDP would shrink rather than increase. The national debt per worker
would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a
much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would
become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population either by
birth or by allowing immigrants to come here is part of why US is doing better than Europe.
national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it.
The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost
for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing
the population
"
Believe it! I just crunched approximate numbers to find that each child with only $2 in pocket
owes $57,000 to public debt, each retired pensioner, each billionaire and each millionaire owe
same thing, 57 K. But!
But 33% of Americans couldn't come up with $555 to handle an emergency. The answer to national
debt?
Endless exponential population expansion until natural resources run dry, no air to breath,
no water to drink, fug-get about food.
Population expansion is a social Ponzi scheme. Eventually it collapses -- we starve.
The remarkable instance of population control started when Deng Xiaoping crunched the numbers
and decided to opt for a draconian return to a rational World. The one child tradition began with
the most dramatic success at making folks rich enough to enjoy life and produce things for people
around the World to enjoy. Let the good times roll and thrill your soul. Got soul?
From my point of view as an employer, the Mexican and Caribbean immigrants have been good hires.
They are generally reliable and good cooperators. Other employers seem to think so as well, judging
by what I see when I go to the doctor or the dentist or the mechanic shop or just about anywhere
else that low to intermediate skill personnel are essential to running the shop.
I would not say that immigrants' effect on wages is trivial except in the macro sense. The
union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by low wage
immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. Unlike the doctors,
where immigrant doctors don't seem to depress wages much, the scarcity value of trained tradesmen
is substantially reduced by an influx of immigrants with similar skills. Auto mechanics, auto
body men, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc are badly hurt by the competition. Perhaps because
their skills are more easily acquired than those of the doctors. We have a large number of asian
scientific and technical people in the area and they are also high wage folks and native born
scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely affected. There is next
to no mechanism for the doctors and scientists and engineers, who arguably have been helped by
immigration, to help out the tradesmen who have been hurt.
Higher taxes may not be the only answer. Private and religious efforts are underway, mostly
religious in my locale. There is a Cristo Rey school that has received a lot of support from businesses
in the area, particularly the science and technology-based businesses. The Catholics organized
it and run it, but it is open to all. The kids get a better education than they can get in the
corruptly run, disorganized, deteriorating public high schools nearby. They are matched with a
team of 4 and each kid works one day per week at his or her sponsoring business and the earnings
pay for the schooling. The kids meet and work with business and professional people they would
not otherwise meet.
Higher tax rates may take too long to occur to make a difference in the lives of today's young
people struggling to get some security or a future worth living out. Supporting and participating
in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all do today.
Back when, before the onslaught, when I was a young man; a young man out of high school could
work construction, learn how to do a day's work, get paid enough to get a car, court a girl, go
to college, ... join the union, maybe get married, buy a home, start a family; it was a path upward
for so many. These days, those jobs are held by $10-15/hr illegals working as contract labor while
our own young men out of high school have never held a job, don't how to do a day's work, ...
may be on heroin or meth. This is not win win, this is not working. Time to stop pretending.
Re: " The union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by
low wage immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. "
The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER WILL
TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES (as you describe here) ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE
WILL TOLERATE.
What you describe would never happen with sufficient (high!) union density. See Germany.
******************
What to do:
Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when
you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before
it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.
OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little
back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only
market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.
New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to
a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal
level.
Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO
for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro
labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise
the issue.
Like any other collective action, collective bargaining relies on cohesion among the collective.
The objective of any collective, whether a trade group or union, is collective action on behalf
of its members. Cohesion among the group members is absolutely necessary to successful collective
action. Weakness of union bargaining is due to the inability of the collective to maintain cohesion.
Your own cabdrivers' union has been undercut by Uber. My friends among the local tradesmen are
being undercut by men with comparable skills who are not eligible for union membership under current
rules, but are willing to do comparable work for half the union scale. My friends in industrial
unions have been undercut by foreign competitors. Technological advances have played a large role
in assisting circumstances to undercut cabbies, carpenters, and machinists all.
"We have a large number of asian scientific and technical people in the area and they are also
high wage folks and native born scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely
affected."
A significant part of age discrimination complaints in tech is actually about preferring young
*foreign* or foreign-origin labor to locals who started their careers in the 80's and 90's, and
who are now around 40-60 years old.
There has been the related observation that EE/CS and other tech-related majors have been majority
foreign-populated as the share of locals has declined due to lower job prospects and escalating
tuition and ancillary costs.
Almost all entry-level hiring in "established" industries has been either abroad, or bringing
in visa workes, which after temporary labor crunches in the Y2K/dotcom booms led to an oversupply
of experienced but older workers who would be hired at more senior levels as long as they had
related recent work credentials, or not quite senior levels but expected to have age-appropriate
experience and work contribution.
But that works only for a few years. Once you are out of the industry for a while or stuck
at level because there is no need for advancement, prospects decline a lot.
In parallel there has been a widely bemoaned innovation stagnation, and that goes together
with more people being needed for maintenance-type jobs and only few for advanced R&D (and even
advanced R&D has a lot of mundane legwork - consider Edison's quip "invention is 1% inspiration
and 99% perspiration").
That relatively few people were hired at the entry level "here" since about 2000 has also contributed
to perceived "talent shortages" - as companies got used to the idea you can just poach talent
or hire from the market, as some point the supply of *young* local workers dried up as the pipeline
wasn't refilled.
If nobody has hired and trained freshers locally let's say for 5-10 years, how can anybody
expect to find people in that range of experience (who haven't "peaked" yet and can still be motivated
for a while with promises of career advancement, or still have headroom for actual advancement)?
That's actually what age discrimination is about.
Be careful who you call a racist. BTW racists are deplorable and some polls indicate that 60%
of Trump's supporters are racists. So "half" could be seen as an underestimate.
"none of the Trump campaign pushback to Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comments have said
anything about the people Clinton was talking about not being racist, not being misogynist or
by whatever definition not being 'haters.' It's not referenced once. Check out the statements
after the jump."
They cannot refute what Clinton said because Trump's supporters are racists. Rusty may be uncomfortable
with this reality but it is true.
Sanders style welfare proposals are misplaced. Continuing to subsidize people to live in areas
that are not sustainable does not fix the problem. Money is taken from urban areas that is needed
for renewal and investments in urban residents in sustainable areas and used to subsidize unsustainable
middle class lifestyles in exurban and rural areas. A more permanent solution is some combination
of transformation & relocation. Sanders tossed out the same 50 year old SWP nonsense without much
thought to whether it would work in today's economy. He made vague proposals that people were
free to interpret as matching their own. It was never in any sense a plan.
The world is urbanizing. The future is urban. The sooner we start planning and building for
the future, the less problems we will have with these unsustainable areas and lifestyles. An integrated
urban planning sustainable approach is needed.
Bernie's solution were those of the 70s, like the broken clock, he stood and waited, then yelled
I have the answer when he hadn't a clue what was happening. Hillary's are of the 90s and shall
prove worthless going forward, though she's not quite as clueless; the question is: Is she smart
enough to change her mind?
P T Trump, like his predecessors in such times, is offering snake oil remedies. His advantage,
his medium is the media (the man can see and admire himself when he's performing on stage and
camera), and enough suckers have already been born.. . America's love of snake oil has been the
subject of writers like Twain, movies, theater, ... is world renowned.
Supporting and participating in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all
do today.
"
Try it! You'll love it! Look!
Our rulers are in business for themselves, their votes, their re-election, and their own t-bonds
but not our jobs and families. We got to support our own community. Our pioneers learned that
from the Indians and passed it on to us. It starts with a block party on 4th of July and grows
in all directions -- looking
The US has a trade deficit of 2-3 billion dollars a year. Our exports to Asia are mostly transfer
pricing attempts to avoid foreign taxes and smuggle profits back to the US. Trump is the first
presidential candidate in forty years to make correcting the trade deficit a centerpiece of his
campaign.
There is no country today, and never has been, nor will there be one that has no industry and
is also wealthy. The US was once a protectionist manufacturing heavy country. DJT wants to take
us back to pre-1970 protectionism; this is our only hope.
$2-3 billion a day. Imagine if we manufactured cellphones, computers, socks, etc. etc. the Delta,
Appalachia, and Michigan, New Haven CT etc. wouldn't be quickly becoming hell holes.
BenIsNotYoda : , -1
Thanks to Mark Thoma for highlighting some good effects of legal immigration. From the article:
Immigrants also own a larger share of small businesses than natives, are no more likely to
be unemployed, are no less likely to assimilate than in the past (no matter their country of origin),
and they have contributed greatly to technological development in the US. One study estimates
that "25.3 percent of the technology and engineering businesses launched in the United States
between 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born founder. In California, this percentage was 38.8 percent.
In Silicon Valley, the center of the high-tech industry, 52.4 percent of the new tech start-ups
had a foreign-born owner."
Now only if the extreme liberals would stop bad mouthing H-1B program that brings in these
very people. To those who oppose H-1B: some abuse of the program to shut down the program is like
shutting down Medicare because there was a little fraud in Medicare. Obviously it is not a good
enough argument. Therefore I have to conclude it is pure discrimination disguised as something
else.
"... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
"... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
"... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
"... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests
that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated
with rapid technological change.
... ... ...
On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian
perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been
the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern
libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by
the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract,
"Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest
yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson,
LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J.
Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.
... ... ...
By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later
became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his
position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered
his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of
the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts,
he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with
the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States
had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively
high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which,
indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world,
with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly
surpass England's industrial prowess.
The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best
economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize.
His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time,
known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic
prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive
pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction,
except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this
process.
Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the
1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited
the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into
vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive
movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.
... ... ...
With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign,
the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance
right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism
both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new
mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler,
said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is
the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum
wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.
In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages
was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern
"yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as
the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders
and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced
racial superiority as their battle cry.
One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist
movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of
neoliberalism.
"... As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US. ..."
"... But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy. ..."
"... We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity. ..."
"... H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers. ..."
"... I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable. ..."
It's remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit
prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving
county and their citizens.
As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration;
it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to
allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream
of the crop and selected to benefit the US.
Its not credible to complain about low employment/population ratios,
limited wage pressures, high poverty rates, overburdened social safety nets,
limited prospects for those on the left side of the bell curve, and inequality,
and simultaneously support more immigration of the poor, unskilled, or difficult
to assimilate.
But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate
been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class,
who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy.
We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random
visa lottery. This verges on insanity.
H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected
by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In
2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian
IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and
recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these
workers.
I'm in favor of significant penalties for employing illegal workers.
Yes lets debate who is going to take care of washing and changing adult
diapers on 80 million baby boomers as they deteriorate towards their final
resting place, and who is going to dig the holes if we have deported all
those who know which end of a shovel is the business end.
"... Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid. ..."
"... The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. ..."
"... The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia) ..."
"... It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable. ..."
"... The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells. ..."
The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole
who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that
would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".
Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't
drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.
The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees.
Fred C. Dobbs -> anne...
(So-called 'alt groups' have been around
since the earliest days of the internet.)
The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing
all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically.
The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject
or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to
occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia)
Ben Groves :
There are a lot of Jews in the "Alt-Right"(aka, a Spencer invented term,
that they need to at least admit). Most have ties to neo-conservatism in
their past outside the desperate paleo types hanging on. To me, they are
"racist", but lets face it, the gentile left can just be as racist and historically,
more dangerous. Trying to be reactionary is just not a neo-liberal thing.
Fabians were quite racist as HG Wells outright said he was. Their vision
of globalism was a Eurocentric world of socialism and those 3rd world "brownies"
were setting socialism back and needed it to be enforced on them. The Nazi's
took Fabian economics and that dream to the nadir.
The problem is, the 'Alt-Right' is so upfront about it with a typical
neo-liberal economic plan. Even their "nationalism" has a * by it. Economic
Nationalism isn't just about trade deals, but a organic, cohesive flow to
the nation. Being in business isn't about stuffing your pockets, it is about
serving your country and indeed, stuff like the Epi-pen price hikes would
be considered treason. You would lower your prices or off with your head.
This, is a area where the "Alt-Right" doesn't want to do. They are not true
connies in the Bismark-ian sense. They want a nominal judeo-christianity
inside a classically liberal mindset of market expansion where white's pull
the strings. That is simply dialectical conflict. Who invented capitalism?
It was Sephardic Jews(say, unlike Communism which attracted Ashkenazi much
to Herr Weitling chagrin). Modern materialism is all things like Trump really
care about. So do his handlers like Spencer. Without the Jews, there is
no capitalism period. They financed it through several different methods
since the 1600's. Even the American Revolution was financed by them and
the founders absolutely knew where the bread was buttered. The Great Depression
was really the death rattle of the House of Rothschild and its British Empire(with
the Federal Reserve pushing on the string to completely destroy them, but
that is another post for another time). Capitalism as a system does not
work and never has worked.
It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going
back and it is getting less and less pleasurable.
The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function
with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will
finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to
hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed
and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less
product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark
and Wells.
ilsm -> Ben Groves, -1
"gentile left" bigotry is founded against po' white folk who are not as
educated in the logical fallacies the limo libruls use to continue plundering
them.
Everyone is so busy calling out Trumpistas they do not see their own
"inclusive frailty".
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that
has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches.
How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone
on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.
"... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
"... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
"... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
"... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
"... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal
and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and
anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the
debate.
You are so silly.
How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence
and deportation.
Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put
up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving
Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more .
If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into
the corrupt, poor country they currently are.
It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their
feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no
excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living
standards for their people.
Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt
that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.
What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters
(most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his
immigration plan.. *gasp*
It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader
- which Trump is.
He will be an excellent President.
One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico
was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners
and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.
The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater
what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs
to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office
impeachable.
Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable.
That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany.
I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.
So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average.
He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them
that nothing has changed but it obviously has.
"... I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. ..."
"... With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers. ..."
"... The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals. ..."
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him.
In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA.
With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
Any society that tolerates this systemic exploitation and corruption as "business as usual"
is not just sick--it's hopeless.
In noting that our society is sick, our economy exploitive and our politics corrupt, I'm not
saying anything you didn't already know. Everyone who isn't being paid to deny the obvious in
public (while fuming helplessly about the phony cheerleading in private) knows that our society is
a layer-cake of pathologies, our economy little more than institutionalized racketeering and our
politics a corrupt auction-house of pay-for-play, influence-peddling, money-grubbing and brazen pandering
for votes.
The fantasy promoted by do-gooders and PR hacks alike is that this corrupt system can be reformed
with a few minor policy tweaks. If you want a brief but thorough explanation of
Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform, please take a look at my book (link above).
If you want an example of how the status quo has failed and is beyond reform, it's instructive
to examine the pharmaceutical industry, which includes biotech corporations, specialty pharmaceutical
firms and the global corporate giants known as Big Pharma.
I hope it won't come as too great a surprise that the pharmaceutical industry isn't about cures
or helping needy people--it's about profits. As a Big Pharma CEO reported in a brief moment of
truthfulness,
We're in Business
of Shareholder Profit, Not Helping the Sick
Here's an excerpt from the article:
"Already this year, Valeant has increased the price of 56 of the drugs in its portfolio
an average of 66 percent, highlighted by their recent acquisition, Zegerid, which they promptly
raised 550 percent. Not only does this have the unfortunate side effect of placing the price of
life-saving drugs out of reach for even moderately-insured people, but it has now begun to call
into question the sustainability of this rapidly-spreading business model.
Since being named CEO in 2008, Valeant has acquired more than 100 drugs and seen their stock
price rise more than 1,000 percent with Pearson at the helm."
"... The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands me! ..."
Never let it be said that Britain's leaders miss an opportunity to inflame
fear and loathing towards migrants and refugees. First David Cameron warned
of the threat posed by "a swarm of people" who were "coming across the Mediterranean
… wanting to come to Britain". Then his foreign secretary Philip Hammond upped
the ante.
The chaos at the Channel tunnel in Calais, he declared, was caused by "marauding"
migrants who posed an existential threat. Cheer-led by the conservative press,
he warned that Europe would not be able to "protect itself and preserve its
standard of living" if it had to "absorb millions of migrants from Africa".
With nightly television coverage of refugees from the world's worst conflicts
risking their lives to break into lorries and trains heading for Britain, this
was rhetoric designed to stoke visceral fears of the wretched of the Earth emerging
from its depths.
Barely a hint of humanity towards those who have died in Calais this summer
has escaped ministers' lips. But in reality the French port is a sideshow, home
to a few thousand migrants unable to pay traffickers for more promising routes
around Britain's border controls.
Europe's real refugee crisis is in the Mediterranean. More than 180,000 have
reached Italy and Greece by sea alone this year, and more than 2,000 have died
making the crossing, mostly from war-ravaged Libya. The impact on Greece, already
wracked with crisis, is at tipping point.
On the Greek island of Kos, 2,000 mostly Syrian and Afghan refugees were
rounded up on Tuesday and locked in a sports stadium after clashes with riot
police, who used stun grenades to maintain order. Numbers reaching the Greek
islands have quadrupled since last year.
But nothing in Europe matches the millions who have been driven to seek refuge
in Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan or Jordan. Set against such a global drama, Calais
is little more than deathly theatre. Britain is not one of the main destinations
for either refugees or illegal migrants – the vast majority of whom overstay
their visas, rather than stow away in the Channel tunnel.
Last year 25,870 sought asylum in the UK and only 10,050 were accepted. By
contrast, Sweden accepted three times as many and Germany had more than 200,000
asylum and new asylum applicants. Nor is Britain's asylum seeker's benefit rate,
at £36.95 a week, remotely the magnet it is portrayed. France pays £41.42; in
Norway it's £88.65.
What does suck overwhelmingly legal migrant workers into Britain is a highly
deregulated labour market, where workplace protection is often not enforced
and which both gangmasters and large private companies are able ruthlessly to
exploit.
The case, reported in the Guardian, of the entirely legal Lithuanian farm
workers – who are suing a Kent-based gangmaster supplying high street supermarkets
over inhuman working conditions, debt bondage and violent intimidation – is
only the extreme end of a growing underbelly of harsh and insecure employment.
If ministers were remotely concerned about "rogue employers driving down
wages" by using illegal migrants, as they claim, they would be strengthening
trade unions and rights at work. But they're doing the opposite. And they're
using the language of dehumanisation to justify slashing support for asylum
seekers' children, locking up refused applicants indefinitely and targeting
illegal workers far more enthusiastically than the employers who exploit them.
But what risks dividing communities can also turn them against such anti-migrant
crackdowns. In recent months, flash protests have erupted in London and other
cities against UK Border Agency attempts to arrest failed asylum seekers or
undocumented migrant workers. In areas such as Elephant and Castle, riot police
have been called in after UKBA vans were surrounded and pelted with eggs by
angry locals and activists trying to prevent the detention of people seen as
part of the community.
The chaos at Calais and the far larger-scale upheaval and suffering across
Europe could be brought under control by the kind of managed processing that
northern European governments, such as Britain's, are so keen to avoid.
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.'
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.' Photograph:
Yahya Arhab/EPA
But that would only be a temporary fix for a refugee crisis driven by war
and state disintegration – and Britain, France and their allies have played
a central role in most of the wars that are fuelling it. The refugees arriving
in Europe come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia
and Eritrea.
With the recent exception of the dictatorial Eritrean regime, those are a
roll-call of more than a decade of disastrous western-led wars and interventions.
In the case of Libya, the British and French-led bombing campaign in 2011 led
directly to the civil war and social breakdown that has made the country the
main conduit for refugee trafficking from Africa. And in Syria, the western
funding, arming and training of opposition groups – while fuelling the rise
of Isis – has played a crucial role in the country's destruction.
If the current American and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen
continues, expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months
to come. So the first longer term contribution Britain and its allies could
make to staunching the flow of refugees would be to stop waging open and covert
wars in the Middle East and north Africa. That is actual marauding.
The second would be a major shift in policy towards African development.
Africa may not be leading the current refugee crisis, and African migrants certainly
don't threaten European living standards. But as a group of global poverty NGOs
argued this week, Africa is being drained of resources through western corporate
profit extraction, extortionate debt repayments and one-sided trade "partnership"
deals. If that plunder continues and absolute numbers in poverty go on rising
as climate change bites deeper, migration pressures to the wealthy north can
only grow.
There is a genuine migration crisis driven by war and neoliberal globalisation.
Despite the scaremongering, it hasn't yet reached Britain. But it's a fantasy
to imagine that fences, deportations and better security can protect fortress
Europe. An end to the real plunder and marauding would be more effective.
ID0049691 nadel 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Why don't you start with yourself? How many of your ancestors like millions
of other Europeans, went to Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand
and elsewhere to "settle" there over the past centuries? Now that the tide
is turning you and your likes do nothing but whine and accuse others of
being "left wingers". The left wingers seem to be the only people left with
human feelings.
Beastcheeks 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Thank you Seamus - a beacon of light amongst the marauding dirge of mass
media ignorance and hatred that characterises the current mainstream British
position. When I read many of responses to your reasoned arguments - I hang
my head in shame. Mass delusion and hatred not dissimilar to Nazi Germany
I'm afraid. The very fact you have to spell out the obvious truth - that
you can't bomb the hell out of people and then cry foul when they come to
us for safe refuge - beggars belief. I am well and truly disgusted and am
in the process of relinquishing my British nationality. No longer am I willing
to tolerate such ignorant intolerance in my name.
rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:51
Shias are not joining ISIS ... but the vast majority of Sunnis are not
joining it, either !?
Kurds are Sunnis - they're fighting ISIS.
Sunni tribes in Iraq are collaborating with Shia (often Iranian) militias
to fight ISIS.
Even fellow Sunni Jihadists in the al-Nusra Front (& affiliated brigades)
regard ISIS as ignorant nihilists and want to have nothing to do with them.
Your thesis about a Shia + Sunni conflict driving the wave of migration
into Europe is, simply, flawed.
Its utter nonsence, in fact.
Moreover, Shia and Sunni have lived amongst each other, largely, in peace
during that 1400 years. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, most
suburbs of Baghdad were mixed and a significant proportion of families shared
a dual Shia + Sunni tradition.
Rj H 13 Aug 2015 10:42
There are some good and bad points to all this as demonstrated on this
comments thread. There seems to be no real consensus and blame is shifted
from one side to the other (whether political, social, class or economic).
The only thing we (indigenous population) might all agree upon is; upon
stepping back and looking at the current state of the UK (formally Great
Britain) most of us will come to the conclusion that something has gone
wrong and the country and the UK is not enjoying good health. That fact
alone should demonstrate that those in charge are not doing their jobs properly.
Poor leadership across 40 years has damaged this country. A country that
once governed FOR its people now governs contrary to the majority of its
people's wishes. Those at the top are not capable (or indeed willing) to
look out for those at the bottom. We as a population are being hit and abused
by a government that cares only for the wealth and power of a select few.
Never have so many been owed so much by so few. The government has reduced
the people's voice to a hoarse whisper. We need to regain our voice and
SHOUT back that we won't stand for this situation any longer.
blueanchor rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:36
"How is Islam responsible ...?".
Aren't the battlelines across swathes of Islam's heartland in the Middle-East
drawn up broadly on Sunni v Shia lines? For instance I don't think you'll
find any Shia joining Isis. What you have now is an eruption of the Islamic
sectarian dispute which has been running on and off for 1,400 years, and
people are fleeing to escape it.
musolen David Hicks 13 Aug 2015 10:35
No, you're right, of course we don't, that's the point.
One sided trade deals are negotiated with massive distortion favouring
the big multinational corporations but listen to the IMF and all you hear
is we have to 'open up our markets to enable free trade'.
The US has more trade embargoes in place than any other nation and EU
is close behind and the irony doesn't even register on the faces at IMF
and World Bank trampling the world spreading their Neo-Liberal rubbish.
My point was that to have capitalism, if you are an advocate of capitalism
you have to accept those free movements of goods, money and people.
Paul Torgerson Rob99 13 Aug 2015 10:35
Well at least there is one person on here who has not swallowed the right
wing xenophobic crap. But the right wing press is doing a great job of brain
washing the populace. Examining the facts indicates a humanitarian problem
that will not in any way disadvantage Europe even if they allow ALL these
people to settle in Europe
wasson Bicbiro 13 Aug 2015 10:34
So you think if the UK minimum wage was lower than Poland they'd still
come? I'm afraid I'm going to have to to disagree with you there bic. They
come because they can earn in a week what they earn in 3 months in Poland.
Simple as.
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:32
If you know anything about Lawrence of Arabia (since you brought him
up), you would know that the British were collaborating against the Ottomans
by inciting Arab tribes to revolt against them.
The Ottoman state was seen as an Islamist bulwark against European colonialism,
especially, British imperialism.
So i'm not sure why you think the British would have undermined the Saudis
and handed territories they had seized back to the Ottoman Turks - against
whom the British were collaborating - (using the Saudis) !?
You need to understand and embrace this part of recent British history.
Because anyone that doesn't understand (or acknowledge) their history is
not to be trusted with the present.
bugiolacchi dragonpiwo 13 Aug 2015 10:28
UK is not part of Shengen. Non-EU migrants who work, live, travel freely,
and prosper in the rest of Europe need a visa to cross the few miles of
water between us and the continent.
As per the ID cards, every time they interview an 'illegal' immigrant,
one of the reasons given for coming here is that it is the only country
(in the world?) where one does no need to identify themselves when asked
(a 'utility bill' my socks...) and can drive without a driving licence or
car documentations with them, but to 'present' them later. A Christmas invitation
if one wants to 'blend' in the background'. Again, a 'utility bill' as an
idea.. hilarious!
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:19
The 'Gazzeteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman & Central Arabia' authored by
John Gordon Lorimer has now been declassified by the British government
and provides significant insight into the relationship between Abdulaziz
al Saud and the British colonial authorities.
The memoirs of HRP Dickson in his 1951 book "Kuwait and Her Neighbours"
provides further details on how Britain supported the rise of the Saudi
monarchy as de facto colonial agents of Pax Britannica.
Dickson was British envoy to the Gulf emirates and an aide to British
High Commissioner for Iraq - Sir Percy Cox
Dickson recounts this exchange between Sir Percy and Abdelaziz al Saud
during the conference in al-Aqeer in November 1922:
The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British
High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started
begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother.
I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand,
you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give
up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my
kingdom, if your grace commands me!"
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee July 8, 2015
