Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Goodlatte, left, and Cantor, right.
Immigration patriots inside the Beltway report that, despite deceptive noises, the GOP House Leadership version of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is not dead—Speaker John Boehner is just lying low after his plan’s disastrous roll-out and will resume the offensive after the primaries. In Virginia, that’s June 10, and two key Boehner lieutenants there do indeed have challengers: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Richmond-area 7th district and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte in the Shenandoah Valley’s 6th district.
Cantor has spouted awful Conservatism Inc. boilerplate about legal immigration and both he and Goodlatte also support some form of Amnesty for the millions of illegals who have crossed the border to do the jobs Americans won't do, from slashing suburban soccer moms and tearing their hair out to murdering potential prosecution witnesses who will testify in gang trials. Cantor’s KIDS Act, which would give Amnesty to the illegals brought here as children, is particularly mendacious: apart from the inevitable fraud, it inevitably means Amnesty for the parents as well. How could one offer the former without the latter?
On immigration, Cantor’s opponent, Dave Brat, sounds like he’s been reading VDARE.com: “Cantor is following the agenda of the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce—pursuing policies that are good for big business, but come at the exclusion of the American people,” he told Watchdog.org’s Virginia reporter. He called Cantor’s support for Amnesty an example of “crony capitalism,” the website reported, and noted what everyone knows by now:
It’s incredibly unpopular. It lowers wages, adds to unemployment, and the taxpayer pays the tab for any benefits to folks coming in. This is not equal treatment under the law. People who are waiting in line [to immigrate] are fuming.
And reprising the thoughts, no doubt unintentionally, of the dear departed Sam Francis, Brat told the website, “[a]t every turn, the GOP establishment is favoring the elites.” Brat knows what anyone with anyone sense knows: “A change in immigration policy means Amnesty.”
That’s what The Richmond Tea Party, which is fed up with Cantor’s move to the left, wants to hear, according to Watchdog.org:
Larry Nordvig, executive director of the Richmond Tea Party, says Brat has his group’s “100 percent” backing.
“Cantor is actively pursuing Amnesty,” Nordvig charges. “He participated in [link added] the ‘Becoming America Tour’ this summer with radical left politicians. He also had his chief of staff host a ‘summit’ with representatives from rabid Amnesty groups, like La Raza and the ACLU.”
GOP challenger rips ‘crony’ Cantor on immigration, By Kenric Ward February 6, 2014
Virginia Right agrees. “Frankly, Cantor is an embarrassment and a spineless representative,”
Question: If Obamacare officials cannot prevent accused embezzlers from infiltrating their offices, how can they protect enrollees from grifters, con artists and thieves in the federal health insurance exchange system?
Is Obama’s Cultural Marxist America worse than Communist Eastern Europe? In Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Tomas, a renowned Czech surgeon, pseudonymously criticizes the Communism regime. After the Soviets crush the 1968 Prague Spring, the Party uncovers Tomas’ identity and has him fired and blacklisted. He is reduced to working as a window-washer.
But is even that option open to Frank Borzellieri, who legally changed his last name to Bella, coupling it with his middle name Mario, after being fired in 2011 as principal of a New York Catholic school solely because political opinions he had publically expressed years earlier were rehashed in a New York Daily News “expose"—but has now been fired again as a principal of a Pennsylvania Catholic school after another MSM expose revealed his history? [Ex-Bronx principal fired from Pennsylvania Catholic school after identity revealed by Edgar Sandoval and Corky Siemaszko, New York Daily News, January 28, 2014]
It is critical to realize that, although Bella is blamed for speaking at American Renaissance conferences—legal last time we looked—the only speech crimes he is specifically alleged to have committed are quotations from columns he wrote for a Main Stream Media outlet—the Queens Ledger—while he was an elected official.
Bella served three tumultuous terms on New York City's District 24 School Board from 1993-2004 (when the board was abolished and power centralized in the Mayor’s hands). Under its president Mary Cummins, a political liberal although depicted by the New York MSM as a raging reactionary, the Board fought off attempts by Schools chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez to promote homosexuality to children as young as six, via the so-called “Rainbow Curriculum.” [Queens School Board Suspended In Fight on Gay-Life Curriculum, By Steven Lee Myers, NYT, December 2, 1992]
Yet it appears that tens of millions of Europeans share her feelings about the European Union, which they believe has arisen to rule over them.
And Feb. 9, the Eurocrats heard a fire bell in the night.
In a referendum backed by the Swiss People's Party, a clear majority voted to impose quotas on all immigration, even from other European nations.
Though Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it has signed the Schengen Agreement on freedom of travel across European borders. Now it wants to be rid of Schengen—and any more immigration.
The Swiss vote was not just a shocker for the champions of "one Europe." It has given a tremendous boost to the populist parties on the continent. Hailing the Swiss vote, many are demanding similar referendums in their own countries.
Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Front, is praising the "great courage" of the Swiss and has launched a petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot in France.
"Similar calls have come from the Dutch Freedom party leader Geert Wilders, who is ahead in several recent polls; the Austrian Freedom party, which showed strong gains in September's national elections; the Danish People's party ... and Sweden's Democratic party," writes the Financial Times.
In Norway, the Progress Party, which is part of the government,
As a Democrat and (in my opinion) a liberal, I have been very critical of the Roman Catholic Church. But I am deeply impressed by a recent post at Mangan’s, a site previously unknown to me, and subsequent reader comments.
It would be an understatement to call the writers at Open Borders immigration enthusiasts; they make the Democratic and Republican parties look like pikers. And even they have found an organization that appears at least as enthusiastic about immigration as they are: the U.S. Catholic Church: The Coming Catholic Movement for Freedom of Migration.
This quote is from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241. [VDARE.com emphasis added]
Mangan’s continues acerbically:
Got that? The "first duty" of government is not, to provide for national defense against armed invasion, nor protect its citizens from crime, not even to provide a social welfare safety net. No, it's to facilitate the entry of any foreigner who wants to enter the country.
This is actually more of the opposite of what a government should do; if it's going to allow foreigners entry at all, then the government should be charged with strictly vetting them.
Somehow I doubt that Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, two doctors of the Church who wrote on the proper functions of government, would agree.
But these days we can safely ignore those two, because, er, because they lived so long ago.
The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Open-Borders Church, January 26, 2014,
What I found especially encouraging was that this post attracted excellent commentary from its readers.
In all, there were 35 comments. Of course, I found some inane or even vaguely
[Peter Brimelow writes: This is an adaptation of a talk I gave on December 15 to the Intellectual Minds Conference at London’s Syon Park Hilton, organized by Andy and Emma Curzon. My thanks to everyone involved.]
Peter Brimelow’s speech starts at 42m20s.
Click here to go to that point in the video on on YouTube.com.
As some of you will be able to tell from my accent, I am actually an immigrant/ emigrant myself. I was born in the U.K. but about 40 years ago my twin brother and I decided that all was lost here and we moved ourselves to the Anglosphere’s last redoubt—the U.S.
Now, of course, we think that all is lost there too! But we’re going to go down fighting.
Actually, what the last 40 years have really taught me is the truth of a wonderful book about screenwriting in Hollywood, Adventures in the Screen Trade written by William Goldman. The central point of this book is that, as he puts it, nobody [expletive deleted] knows what’s going to work in Hollywood. They just don’t know whether a movie is going to make money or not. Similarly, no-one [expletive deleted] knew that the West was going to win the Cold War. After the fall of Vietnam in ’75, it was a universal if unspoken assumption among the American Conservative movement, in which I was by then deeply involved, that we were going to lose and that the Red Flag would one day wave over the world.
But it didn’t happen.
Now I know that none of you Millennials here believe this, because you’ve never heard of the Cold War. No one under 40 knows anything about the Cold War, except possibly my wife Lydia [Brimelow], who’s heard me going on about it a great deal.
The moral I draw from this is that Cultural Marxism can be defeated just like the classical Marxists were.
(One of the variables that nobody knows about, in fact, is demographics, or population growth. Nobody really knows why fertility rates fluctuate. There was this amazing period after the Second World War when the Baby Boomers happened. For a period of nearly 20 years, women did have well above-replacement fertility all over the Western world. It is something that seems to happen after wars, so maybe we need a good war! The point is we don’t really know what’s going to happen with fertility rates; we don’t really know what will happen next.)
The title of my talk is a reference to the famous poem that Bertolt Brecht wrote after the ’53 risings against the Communist government in East Germany. It goes:
After the uprising on the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writer’s Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts.
Then Brecht concluded:
Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
How many of you have heard of this poem? [Almost none, I was surprised]. Well, I’ve been talking about this poem for 30 years. I think it makes a great point because it’s exactly what is happening in the Western world. The governments are dissolving the people and electing a new one—specifically in this case, in the U.S. and the U.K.
Many libertarians dogmatically assume that the right to cross borders is a Good Thing and they don’t think about it much more than that. But it’s vital to grasp that what we are looking at here is a government policy—the US and UK governments determine who can come in (now primarily non-traditional and Third World) and how many can come in (a lot—much more than was ever anticipated).
When Senator Teddy Kennedy put through the ’65 Immigration Act, they said that immigration may increase by a couple hundred thousand, and that it would die away. In fact, it has been a million a year since then—the greatest influx in American history. The same in the U.K. There was a serious study [PDF] done in 2003 when they were thinking about possibly stopping the Poles from coming in after Poland joined the European Union, which they had the right to do. The Home Office estimated that the flow would be miniscule. But in fact, a half million Poles moved to the UK—the largest immigration into U.K. in the last thousand years.
In both the UK and the US, “Electing a New People” has
Does Kentucky Senator Rand Paul think slavery was “not so bad,” and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made partial slaves of us all? The New York Times wants you to think so. It recently resorted to the oldest trick of slanted reporting to make a political enemy out to be something he is not—something Leftists do instinctively when they are alarmed about someone. If the Senator is not a certified enemy of the Republic, at least he is good pals with people who are. [Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance, By Sam Tanenhaus And Jim Rutenberg January 25, 2014]
Part of that “mixed inheritance” is, of course, libertarianism, which Leftists have never liked anyway. The NYT’s Tanenhaus and Rutenberg say Paul was “steeped in a narrow, rightward strain of the ideology.”
But the other part of the mix is even worse!— “Provocative theories on race, class and American history”!!!
These “provocative theories” allegedly come from a libertarian organization called the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Some scholars affiliated with it have said naughty things.
Tanenhaus and Rutenberg write:
Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act [of 1964]. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”
Just to make sure you are sufficiently shocked, Tanenhaus and Rutenberg explain that views like this “champion the Confederacy.”
Of course, Professor Block speaks for himself, not for Rand Paul. But there is nothing Leftists like better than sniffing out the fact that someone they don’t like actually had lunch with a former neighbor of the girlfriend of a man whose father once voted for George Wallace.
Rand Paul is a libertarian and Walter Block is a libertarian, so if Walter Block says something the NYT doesn’t like, then Rand Paul might as well have said it, too.
But this is what Prof. Block actually wrote about slavery:
Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to "associate" with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.[Chris Selley Is a Pussy Libertarian; I’m Not, February 25, 2013 ]
Dr. Block has commented that he can’t decide whether it was “stupidity or maliciousness” that explains the NYT’s claim that he thinks slavery was “not so bad” and that he “champions the Confederacy.”
He now also says he thinks slavery was “one of the worst things that man has ever perpetuated against man.”
Nevertheless, entirely aside from the NYT’s using Prof. Block to discredit Rand Paul, it is refreshing to see anyone writing about slavery or the 1964 Civil Rights Act from something other than the now-obligatory Cultural Marxist perspective.
Slavery, of course, is thrown in our faces as America’s “original sin”—as if we invented it or were the only people in history to practice it. It is now the sin than which none is blacker, and anyone who, like Prof. Block, looks at it objectively is a loathsome opponent of human decency.
(When the NYT article appeared, 18 of Dr. Block’s fellow teachers at Loyola wrote a letter to the campus paper to say they were “outraged,” and to urge the university to “to condemn and censure Professor Block.” Apparently they didn’t know he has been writing on
[See also by Peter Morrison: Peter Morrison Report: Immigration, Abortion, The DOMA Disaster—For Texas, Red States No Way Out But Secession]
In a few short weeks, Texans will cast their primary votes for the US Senate race, and this will be one of the most important elections in our state's history. That's because 2014 is shaping up to be a very important year in politics for both Texas and the entire country.
Obamacare has now become the law of the land, and tens of millions of people have been shocked to discover the devastating impact this socialist abomination is going to have on their health and their pocketbook, all in the name of helping the "poor and underprivileged." In addition, we're seeing yet another big push for Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, disguised as "immigration reform."
Who we choose to send to the Senate this fall may well determine how both these issues play out. John Cornyn is our current Senator who's up for re-election, but he's being challenged in the primary by Rep. Steve Stockman.
If conservatives want to have any chance of repealing Obamacare or stopping Amnesty in its tracks, we need to send John Cornyn packing, and replace him with Rep. Stockman. While John Cornyn has a conservative voting record on some issues, when it comes to illegal immigration and Amnesty, he has been either missing in action or actively working against conservatives.
Not long ago, newly-elected Senator Ted Cruz made a valiant effort to prevent Obamacare from being funded. Instead of supporting him in his efforts, John Cornyn opposed him—he actually worked behind the scenes to encourage other Republican Senators to shut down the filibuster. [Exclusive–Source: McConnell, Cornyn Whipping Votes Against Ted Cruz, by Matthew Boyle, Breitbart, September 23, 2013]
There's simply no excuse for this betrayal. Ted Cruz knew that our freedom to make our own choices when it comes to health care was at stake, and he took a stand to preserve that freedom. Instead of fighting for our freedom right beside Ted Cruz, John Cornyn did everything he could to sabotage his courageous stand.
As a result of Cornyn's betrayal, America may be stuck with Obamacare. A lot of people are hoping to see it overturned when a new Congress comes in, but that's a real long shot. It's possible it might happen, but it will be an uphill battle.
One thing's for sure—we won't be able to count on John Cornyn
John Derbyshire Says The 21st Century May Belong To Japan—Because It’s Biting The Demographic Bullet Now
With a hat tip to the Human Stupidity blog, I have just been watching the BBC documentary “No Sex Please, We’re Japanese.” It’s a one-hour program broadcast in Britain last fall\ in which a reporter visits Japan to do a quick run around the place touching all cultural bases. In what follows I tag quotes from the program with square brackets showing minutes and seconds into the video clip. [Click on the numbers to go to that point in the video.]
The reporter in this case is Anita Rani, a thirtysomething Briton of Indian (mixed Hindu-Sikh) parentage.
Ms. Rani is presentable enough and does a decent job on the documentary, though from within the standard-issue multicultural journo-liberal mindset. My only grumble is that her speech sounds are occasionally irritating. She eschews lateral plosion so that “hospital” and “candle” come out as “hospi-tull” and “can-dull,” and she tortures the vowel of “you” into a triphthong: “yieuw.” These faults are common among Brits born after 1965, though, and it is probably fogeyish of me to mind them.
Japan is interesting to immigration patriots for an obvious reason: it is immigration-restriction heaven. Asked what we think an ideal U.S. immigration policy would look like, we tend to say (I once actually heard Peter Brimelow say it): “Like Japan’s!”
Demographic decline. We begin with a trip to the far-north town of Yubari, which has lost most of its population since the last coal mines closed twenty years ago.
Not very surprising, I thought, but certainly melancholy. We see some old photographs of crowded streets at festival time; now the streets are empty.
Ms. Rani visits a shuttered school.
Then the maternity ward of a hospi-tull—sorry, hospital. Our reporter consults a staff member:
[06m37s]: She: “How many women in Yubari give birth now?” Answer, in Japanese: “In Yubari City it’s zero.”
Off to Tokyo, where now we see streets bustling with traffic and humanity.
[09m29s]: But even in crowded Tokyo they’ve noticed a change.
Ms. Rani consults a Japanese demographer, who tells her:
[11m21s]: Year after year the number born is declining; and it seems like the speed of population decline is accelerating, and it’s going to continue for many years to come… In about 50 years we will lose one-third of the population.
“That’s a catastrophe for Japan,” observes Ms. Rani. “So why are the Japanese having fewer children?” She cuts to the chase:
[14m22s]: Couples are thought to have very little sex. In one survey just 27 percent of them reported having sex every week—way less than us Brits. It appears that relationships between Japanese men and women are becoming increasingly dysfunctional.
That leads naturally to the next cultural base: the otaku, nerdy young males (mostly) who are obsessively interested in animated movies, shows, and video games.
Otaku. Ms. Rani meets two otaku (it’s the same in singular and plural) who have virtual girlfriends: anime figures in a game called Love Plus, on the screens of iPhone-size gadgets the guys carry around with them.
The otaku are very attached to their cyber-sweethearts.
[16m40s]: As she’s at high school she picks me up in the morning and we go to school together… After school we meet at the gates and go home together… When I go beyond the game and bring her to this side, I put her in the basket at the front of my bicycle. When I arrive where I’m going I take her out and we take pictures of each other.
The otaku who’s been telling us this is 39 years old— “but 17 in the game.” The other otaku is 38 (though 15 in the game), and… married.
[18m51s]: Ms. Rani: “What does your wife think about this, Nurakan?”
Nurakan: “Basically I’ve kept it secret from my wife. I’ve lied about it so I have to keep on lying.”
Ms. Rani: “If you had to choose between your wife and Rinko [the virtual cutie], who would you pick?”
[Long pause, laughter.] Nurakan: “I do my best not to get into that situation.”
I think we are supposed to find this creepily sexual, but it came through to me as rather touching. As Nurakan explains:
[17m48s]: “I think I was most passionate about love when I was at high school… At high school you can have relationships without having to think about marriage.”
The take-away here: the burdens of adult life weigh more heavily on Japanese men than on anybody elsewhere. This has been noticed by every observer of the culture
The Swiss get it! The majority of citizens in this small country recognize that the so-called “right” to migration is devastating this idyllic nation surrounded by the increasingly authoritarian European Union.
Unfortunately, as a February 10 article in the Wall Street Journal makes clear, the European Union will use economic sabotage to strike back against this exercise in democracy.
Switzerland was warned Monday of potentially serious repercussions in its relationship with its biggest trading partner, the European Union, after Swiss voters backed a cap on immigration in a referendum.
The outcome of Sunday's vote potentially undermines close ties with the 28-nation bloc that are crucial to the Alpine nation's economic success and that of its influential financial-services sector.
Switzerland now is highly unlikely to honor a pledge to scrap quotas for migrants coming from the EU's newest member, Croatia, on July 1—a move that would in turn trigger the suspension of other accords by the EU. Treaties governing relations between the two sides contain a guillotine clause that invalidates the entire package if one of component is terminated."
Swiss Migration Vote Threatens Europe Ties |European Officials Say Switzerland Can't 'Cherry-Pick' From Treaty Obligations; Concerns Raised About Economic Impact, By Vanessa Mock in Brussels and Neil MacLucas, February 10, 2014
Back home in the United States, our own illegal immigration invasion has always been subsidized by the cheap labor lobby. Similarly, many Swiss business groups were concerned first not about their country’s future, but about their company’s bottom line. The difference: in Switzerland, citizens can overcome the corpocrats.
Does this sound familiar, folks? A solid 60% of US citizens have been against present levels of alien influx for decades. Nonetheless, the American majority is ignored by both Congress and the White House. The Swiss referendum is how an actual democracy should function.
Swiss citizens have made clear they require their government
…to renegotiate the treaty with the EU that guarantees free movement of workers. About 64,000 EU citizens have settled in Switzerland every year over the past decade, according to the Federal Office for Migration.
It wasn't immediately clear how the Swiss government would implement the new limits—the referendum calls for quotas within the next three years.
But senior EU figures made plain that Switzerland wouldn't be able to dismiss elements of the trade package that it later decides it doesn't like.
"Cherry-picking from its relationship with the EU isn't a durable strategy for dealing with Europe," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Michel Barnier, EU commissioner for the single market, said in an interview that the vote is likely to have heavy consequences. "We'll probably need to reconsider our approach with Switzerland in a general way." Mr. Barnier said."
Naturally, since all EU nations are feeling the pinch of alien migration, they are anxious to keep all doors open.
The larger question: whether there a comfortable limit on the alien percentage in any given country. The most ext
With all the smirking on the left about their electoral victories, it's important to remember that Democrats haven't won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn't turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration.
The House Republicans' "Standards for Immigration Reform," for example, contains this fat, honking nonsense: "One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents."
As the kids say: WTF?
That may be a pleasant-sounding sentiment, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our country's history. Not the first thing. Did Republicans really think they could palm off the idea that our forefathers fought and died at Valley Forge so that illegal aliens wouldn't have to live in the shadows?
Yeah, it was a long shot. We didn't know you guys had read the Constitution. We'll be quiet now.
Apart from the fact that protecting children from the mistakes of their parents has not the slightest connection with the nation's founding, it's a ridiculous concept.
Yes, children suffer when their parents break the law. Also when their parents get divorced, become alcoholics, don't read to them at night, feed them junk food and take them to Justin Bieber concerts. None of that is the child's fault.
But it's not the country's fault either.
If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to "punish the children," there's no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven—insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.
How do you think kids feel when their father has to "live in the shadows" because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?
Why not just forgive the crimes of all perpetrators who have kids? At a minimum, shouldn't we allow criminals to defer their sentences until their kids turn 26
The Fulford File | Deportation Has FALLEN Under Obama, Dammit—But Now The Treason Lobby Wants To Abolish It Altogether
And plans are afoot to break it still further, because the Boehner/Obama amnesty drive appears to have stalled.
It’s part of a twofold Treason Lobby attack, coordinated in the usual suspicious way: the repeated claim that the Obama Regime has been deporting a record number of people [e.g. Barack Obama, deporter-in-chief, Economist, February 8, 2014]; and the aggressive assertion that, given the success of DACA for young illegals—Obama’s not been impeached, has he?—he can stop deportations, effectively extending his Administrative Amnesty to every illegal in America.
Here’s a typical article, by Treason Lobby apparatchik Sally Kohn (note her full disclosure buried in the text):
The White House is deporting more than 1,100 illegal immigrants per day. Why Obama can—and should—stop sending away would-be Americans.
Currently, President Obama and his Administration are deporting more than 1,100 aspiring Americans every single day. That’s 1,100 mothers and fathers and hardworking folks who come to the United States because our economy desperately needs them, our businesses aggressively recruit them, and yet our laws have not kept pace with that reality.
The White House argues that it does not have the legal authority to stop or reduce the number of deportations in America—that the only possible recourse is passing comprehensive immigration reform. But last week, advocates with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) filed a 41-page rulemaking petition with the Department of Homeland Security presenting compelling legal analysis of how the Administration can use its executive authority to dramatically reduce or halt deportations (full disclosure: I have consulted with and supported the activities of NDLON). Most notably, the White House has already used this authority, enacting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program last fall to give temporary relief to young immigrants known as Dreamers. The White House could very clearly, and very legally, apply such deferred action to other undocumented immigrants. [Links in original]
Obama Could Legally Stop Immigrant Deportations, By Sally Kohn, Daily Beast, February 11, 2014
Kohn [Email her] thinks all this is horrible, and that Obama has a “clear legal authority” to “unilaterally halt or reduce deportations “ which would be “welcome relief from letting Republican hand-wringing ambivalence drive the immigration debate.” (It’s called democratic debate, Sally.)
But let’s put this in perspective.
- The claim that Obama has deported exceptional numbers of illegals is, simply, a Big Lie, as VDARE.com has pointed out repeatedly. See, for example, National Data | Obama's Big Lie—Illegal Alien Deportations Have NOT "Shattered Records" by Edwin S. Rubenstein, August 30, 2011.
By any measure, deportations have been flat to down since the late Bush years
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has issued a report with the sleeper title, “Source of Payment for the Delivery: Births in a 33-state and District of Columbia Reporting Area, 2010”[PDF]. But that’s not the only reason the Main Stream Media did not pick the CDC report up—its bad news about our current immigrant inflow is just not “fit to print”.
As the CDC puts it:
The majority of mothers with self-pay were born outside the 50 states and District of Columbia (55.8%), compared with 18% of privately insured mothers and 27.1% of mothers on Medicaid. The vast majority of uninsured Hispanic mothers (86.7%) were born outside the United States and District of Columbia. [Emphases added]
Simply stated, of the 742,401 immigrant birth-mothers included in this report, only 18% had private health insurance. The remainder funded deliveries using Medicaid (27%)…or they were not insured at all.
(Note that the insurance data come from birth certificates and are therefore 100% reliable. Birth certificates from only 33 states are included in the report on insurance because the federal government revised birth certificates in 2003 and in 2010 and not all states were using the new form with insurance information. But California and Texas—the biggies—were included in the report.)
Will Obama’s Affordable Care Act make a difference? Will granting Amnesty to illegal alien women make a difference?
No—because of the demographic composition of immigrants coming to the U.S. under current and proposed law.
From the CDC report: “Hispanic mothers (8.2% of Hispanic births) were more than twice as likely” as any other racial or ethnic group to be uninsured. Hispanic women
It’s becoming one of the more amusing rituals of American political life: a naïve white liberal Notices (or even implies) the Hatefact that crime is disproportionately black and is instantly lynched by his/ her own kind. Last year, it was Philadelphia Magazine’s Robert Huber, whose Being White in Philly cover story actually caused the black mayor of the city, Michael Nutter, to write to the Philadelphia Human Rights Commission demanding action be taken. This year, it’s Tracey Halvorsen, a white Baltimore woman who just published an article [Baltimore City, You're Breaking My Heart| This is why people leave, Medium.com, February 7, 2014] in which she went to the very edge of the racial abyss in describing why the 63.5 percent black city is dying—only to turn tail under pressure.
Halvorsen appears to be the epitome of Stuff White People Like liberals. Her Twitter profile reads: President & Chief Visionary Officer at Fastspot. Artist, animal lover, writer, joker, traveler. Life's short, have fun. Perhaps to establish her PC credentials, she made it clear that she’s a lesbian.
Maybe Halvorsen’s passionate philippic was provoked by the murder earlier in the week of 51-year-old Kimberley Leto, a white female bartender. Leto was murdered in her home by two black males, aged 16 and 14—the 14-year-old, only an eight grader, asked the judge to be allowed out on bail to visit his daughter. [Police arrest teenagers in Ellwood Avenue homicide: Kimberly Leto found dead inside Patterson Park home, WBALTV.com, February 3, 2014]
Halvorsen’s piece didn’t even mention race, but it’s 100 percent about the problems the black community causes in Baltimore, exacerbated by complete black control of City Hall:
Life takes you places, you follow a course that isn't completely of your own making. One day you wake up, and it’s really all up to you. So where do you want to live? I happen to live in a city. Baltimore, to be specific.
And I'm growing to absolutely hate it here.
I’m tired of hearing about 12 year old girls being held up at gun-point while they walk to school.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-12-year-old-girl-robbed-20140206,0,5595591.story [VDARE.com note: URLs in original]
I’m tired of saying “Oh Baltimore’s great! It’s just got some crime problems.”
I’m tired of living in a major crime zone while paying the highest property taxes in the state.
I’m tired of hearing about incompetent city leaders who are more fixated on hosting the Grand Prix than dealing with thousands of vacant buildings that create massive slums, and rampant crime.
I’m tired of being looked at like prey.
Halvorsen went on to supply more devastating details.
They don’t call it “The City that Bleeds” because
Weekly Standard's Kristol: I need a GOP Presidency SOON!
A quite extraordinary piece has just appeared in the NeoCon vehicle The Weekly Standard. The Wages of Immigration By Jay Cost Feb 17, 2014 amounts to an unprecedented admission that mass immigration is bad for working Americans – and that condoning it is going to be bad for the Republicans.
…the Senate bill and House principles offer no protection for the wages and employment status of existing workers. This fact, often overlooked by critics of comprehensive reform, is its greatest weakness...
The legislation would particularly increase the number of workers with lower or higher skills but would scarcely affect the number of workers with average skills. As a result, the wages of lower- and higher-skilled workers would tend to be depressed slightly (by less than 0.5 percent) relative to the wages of workers with average skills… the burden would fall particularly on the low end of the socioeconomic scale.
Cost explicitly recognizes the redistribution effect of heavy immigration
…there are policies that can increase growth without broadening the middle class—and if the CBO’s analysis is correct, the Rubio bill is one of them. Wages would fall, unemployment would rise, and according to the CBO, per capita gross national product would fall by 0.7 percent in 2023. Thus, even as the aggregate economy would be larger, the average American’s share of that prosperity would be less than without the Rubio reform.
Of course the fact that excessive immigration puts heavy pressure on working Americans has been a long term theme at VDARE.com, discussed for instance
National Data | The Jobs Report Is Getting “Weird,” But January Looks Like A Cold Employment Market For Both Immigrants And Americans
Was it the weather? The economy? The statistics themselves?
Depending on which numbers you look. at the January Jobs Report was either very disappointing, really fantastic—and/or just weird, a possibility we can dare acknowledge because a card-carrying Main Stream Media Big Foot, Derek Thompson [Twitter] of The Atlantic, has been also been saying it recently [7 Fascinating Nuggets From Another Bewildering Jobs Report |The first Friday of each month just keeps getting weirder, February 7, 2014].
Each month the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks businesses how many people are on their payrolls, and then asks ordinary folks how many people in their household were working.
Over time, the two reports have tended move in tandem. But not this January.
The Employer survey was widely viewed as disappointing, with only 113,000 jobs created. [Payroll Data Shows a Lag in Wages, Not Just Hiring, By Nelson D. Schwartz, NYT, February 7, 2014] After December’s pathetic job figure (75,000) most economists were expecting a rebound closer to 200,000. But, be it weather or a weaker economy, the Employer survey reports slow job growth.
By contrast, the Household survey was quite strong. Employment was up by an amazing 638,000, the labor force increased by 523,000, and the unemployment rate fell to 6.6%. The labor force participation rose, albeit from the lowest level in the past 35 years.
As usual, only VDARE.com looks at the immigrant impact on the job data. About 90,000 immigrants enter the US labor force each month, often exceeding job creation. But this fact has still not entered the MSM employment-story template.
What we find in January is a deviation from the long-run trend: the immigrant share of household employment fell in January for the fourth consecutive month. More importantly, the number of immigrants holding jobs fell significantly:
- Total employment rose by 638,000, or by 0.44%
- Native-born American employment rose by 707,000 or by 0.59%
- Foreign-born employment fell by 69,000, or by 0.29%
Certainly it does not yet threaten the major trend: the chief legacy of Barack Obama seems likely to be the displacement of native-born Americans by immigrants.
This January marked the fifth year of the Obama era. The tilt against native-born American workers during this period is made clear in our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI):
Native-born American employment growth