Immigration – fact and fiction

The immigration issue is, worldwide, setting up to be the moral crux of our time.  And since it’s the most politically charged, it’s the most fraught with lies and agendas.  One thing I’d like to do is clear up the air on various aspects of the issue.  There’s endless details, endless lies circulating, so this will be the first on many articles.  I’ll try to touch on some basic issues.

The major lie out there is that Republicans are against immigration.  I hear Democrats, pundits, Super Bowl advertisers constantly repeat “immigrants made this country great!”  No shit, sherlock.  This isn’t stupidity on the part of Democrats, it’s an absolute lie.  It’s a way to frame the debate to make anyone who actually wants to return to an orderly immigration system as some sort of xenophobic bigot.

It’s a lie and a scare tactic, and so far it’s working quite well.  Beware anyone who says this line.  They have an agenda to push, and that agenda is eliminating borders and immigration law.

A subsequent issue that really made me lose my faith in the Democrats is the leftist charge against Obama having a record number of deportations.  This is a flat out lie.  It came about when Obama redefined the act of deportation to mean anyone turned away at the border.  As the article points out:

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

Okay, so first off, this makes an absolute lie of deportations. Technically, the practice started under George W Bush to give a formal record to those caught crossing illegally.  But immigration activists have twisted it into a total lie of what’s really happening.  Deportations have actually gone down significantly under Obama.  And more so, the Democrats are increasingly backing down on immigration law.

 

We’re also constantly sold that immigration is good for our economies, that immigrants put in more than they take out, revitalise bad neighborhoods, etc.  This is true, to a point.  And I think we’re well past that point.  More people means a bigger economy provided they do find jobs and contribute.  In earlier days immigrants got very little aid, and most of it was through private and community charities.  These days the state hands off most of the aid.  We are being pushed to give driver’s licenses, benefits, we grant them virtual immunity from deportation.

It’s gotten to the point where it’s not enough to be okay with all this.  Trump just saying we want to deport the criminals is raising mountains of wild protests calling for his impeachment and his head.  And the lies and fear mongering … just endless.  There is no Muslim ban, hordes of jackbooted thugs are not amassing to run through the barrios and pull out anyone who can’t identify their papers.  Trump’s main plan is to seal the borders, properly vet those coming in, and boot out the criminal illegals.

But we can understand why this rancor over such simple things.  Because they signify an about-face from our current trajectory.  If we were to continue on this dissolution of immigration law for just a few more short years, a citizen will be indistinguishable from anyone hopping the fence.

And that’s the point.  Across the Atlantic, the refugee crisis is the biggest specific lie of our time.  The photo op of the mother and daughter fleeing persecution is absolute lie.  By the UN’s own statistics, in 2015 75% of “refugees” were adult men, 12% were women, and 13% were children.  If you figure kids had the same gender split, you’re looking at close to 90% men.  Probably even more than that if you assume the UN at least partially skews statistics to suit agendas.  The pictures of migrants streaming into Europe looks more like an invading army than a huddled surrendered mass.

I say “refugees” because they’re really not refugees.  Europe has found a lovely loophole to bring in mass of third world labor to refresh their economies.  It involves a combination of three things: 1) use the refugee status to allow anyone to come over the border from a war-torn country into a neighboring stable country 2) have zero monitoring to distinguish refugees from migrants 3) use the EU’s open border policy so that once a migrant is in any EU country, they can freely move into any other EU country.  This is how people from North Africa and the Middle East can so easily wind up all the way in Sweden.

I mention this because our immigration issue is related to Europe’s.  The people pushing for open borders for Europe are pushing for them here.  Make no mistake.  It is the most important issue of our time.  It will determine whether you have any rights and privileges as a citizen in 20 years or not.

Right now, it seems the Republicans are our only fighting chance.

 

SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch

Earlier this week, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This move was largely expected. He’s mentioned Gorsuch on the campaign trail, as well as finding someone in the direction of Antonin Scalia.

I’m going to keep this short since there’s no shortage of opinions out there. There’s two issues going on here. First is his actual qualifications and opinions. He was approved to the Appeals Court in 2007 by a bipartisan 95-0 vote, which included both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

He wants to keep an independent judiciary, which means keeping it out of politics.  He’s spoken a lot about the politicization of the bench and the harm it does.  He also errs on the side of religious freedom, which in the extreme can blur the line of church and state.  But overall, a relatively moderate guy.  The Economist has a good even handed review of him with more details.

But this leads to the second issue.  And it almost seems like the 95-0 vote was a major reason in picking him.   One wonders if picking him was to show just how rabidly partisan the Democrats have become.   See, the New York Times does not have such a favorable view of him.

It would be one thing if they went with Gorsuch’s actual record.  It would be another thing if this was an independent columnist.  Instead, the entire editorial board put “Stolen Seat” right in the headline, and say the Republicans “took a seat hostage”.

Bollocks.

I was still hanging on to my Democrat credentials when the GOP refused to confirm Obama’s replacement.  But even in my most Democrat days, I was aware of what advantage the other side has and respected them for using it.  It doesn’t work in your favor, and you lose a battle, but to practically imply they’re traitors for it?

This is emblematic of what has become of the entire established left.  Which is really too bad, because they raise some issues about Gorsuch which could be discussed in society as a whole.  Even though they are consensus in the GOP.

Instead they buried their arguments in partisan rhetoric.  If the Democrats’ arguments in the confirmation mirror the New York Times, they will only hand the GOP the ideological victory.  And therefore a judicial victory – to match their victories in the executive and legislative branches.

 

Who Is Milo Yiannopoulos?

In case you missed the news last night, Milo Yiannopoulous was set to speak at UC Berkeley about the seemingly inane subject of cultural appropriation (you know, like The Matrix appropriating Jewish messianic themes). His talk was cancelled once riots broke out on campus and masked “antifa” protestors charged the hall he was to speak at.  You can watch his response on Youtube.

Now people have been focusing mainly on the violence that has erupted, and whether our universities are still safe havens for divergence of opinion.  But as I’ve said in previous articles, before the violence come the lies.  And the lies about Milo and many others have come hard and strong, from both our elected leaders and the mainstream media.  He’s been repeatedly smeared as a hate speaker, a white supremacist, Alt-Right.

Just Google him if you want more links, there’s too many to count.  I’ve been following Milo now for over a year.  He’s been none of these things.  Milo has frequently rejected association with the Alt-Right or Richard Spencer.  He’s consistently said we should take pride in our Western values, not our ethnicity, and this is what brought him from the UK to the US, a modern day Tocqueville.

I will tell you what I do know about Milo, based on what I’ve seen of him:

First off, he is a professional provocateur.   In that he says things that are knowingly outrageous, yet true and funny, as a sort of rebellion against PC rules of what people can and can’t say that people believe have gone too far.  His rule is “be twice as funny as you are offensive.”

One of his main forums of speech is feminism.  And he distinguishes between classical feminism, the idea that women have equal rights as men, and modern “third wave” feminism which he sees as a serious decay of it.

He’s also spoken out against victim culture and grievance culture, and says they are the logical result of identity politics.  Which I’m inclined to agree with.  Identity politics requires a permanent grievance which can never go away.  I pointed out before, as a country we need to stick to grievances themselves, and to values to unite or distinguish ourselves.

He’s also spoken out against Islam.  I saw him become really politicized after the Orlando shooting which targeted a gay nightclub.  He questions whether our issue is radical Islam, or whether Islam in its current condition is really compatible with Western values.

I could go on, but the gay issue is an interesting point that takes us back to UC Berkeley.  Free speech isn’t just a right not to be oppressed by the government for one’s opinions.  It’s the right to speak without fear of violence from society at large.  Last night was a failure, by a major University of all institutions, to provide that assurance.  Much like France has failed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists’ safety from Muslim terrorists.

In fact, our leaders seem to be on the other side of this fight for Western values.  I actually haven’t heard of Richard Spencer’s association with the term Alt-Right until Hillary Clinton made this fringe figure a household name.  Until then I defined it much more broadly as an internet-fueled popular reaction to establishment leftist orthodoxy.  But this nebulous meaning of the word allowed her and the mainstream media to smear as many people as possible by association with him.

They’ve taken these several layers of separation from one Richard Spencer and turned it into a way to smear every one who undermines the Democrat platform as a Nazi.  Which only proves Milo’s point, that we have no honest discussion right now.  Hearing him called a white supremacist or a hate speaker would be laughable to anyone who’s actually heard him speak.  But it gets disturbing once you realize nobody on the left is interested in hearing him speak, or even talking to him.

They are only interested in getting him out of the way, by any anti-democratic means necessary.

Our leaders are lying to people.  The mainstream media is lying to people.  They are feeding people with false information, and anyone who dissents is branded a Nazi.  This is what causes the violence.  This is what needs to be put out of business or voted out of office if we are to have an honest discussion again.  And we need an honest discussion if we’re going to have any reconciliation as a country.

That time Bill Clinton opposed illegal immigration

Here’s Bill Clinton, at his 1995 State of the Union address, sounding a lot like Donald Trump today.


We can draw one of two conclusions from this. First is that the Democrats are opposing Trump purely for show, and have no intention to actually stop him from fixing the illegal immigration issue. The second is they’re not, and are actually driven to dismantle immigration law. I’m of the opinion they want to dismantle immigration law, and that’s why I’ve defected to the GOP.

#MuslimBan – what it isn’t, and what it is.

First off, it’s not a Muslim Ban.  That’s a lie, let’s get that out of the way right now.  Trump issued a temporary (90-day) moratorium on entry visas to seven nations in the Middle East.

The interesting part is he didn’t even name these countries by name.  He listed the seven countries listed by the Obama administration as terror hotspots.  There are much more populous Muslim countries that are much more stable and have no bans.  The rule here is countries which have descended into anarchy or are in open hostility to the USA.

What the media took from it is it’s seven Muslim-majority nations, therefore it’s a #MuslimBan and we’re one step closer to that Nazi registry.  And they took it further, conflating entry visas with permanent residency, claiming anyone who’s been in any of these countries won’t be allowed back in.

Utter nonsense.

This is one of those issues that verifies the statement “a lie goes halfway around the world before the truth finishes putting on its shoes.”  I and many others are still trying to compile the facts of the case, and we’ve already missed waves of airport protests.

Amazing how people can learn what’s really going on so quickly, that they can get passionate enough about the truth to go take over airports!  Or… they’re just impressionable young Democrat tools who believe the lies they’re told.

But this false narrative didn’t stop there.  Democrats are already putting forward the SOLVe Act, which removes funding from Trump’s Executive Order.  Nevermind that this is pure showmanship that will never pass a Republican congress.  And I’m not sure how that would even work, as the Executive has full jurisdiction over diplomatic affairs.  It’s not like he wants to start a new agency or something, he’s just giving marching orders.

We don’t even have to go there.  Rep. Cohen of Tennessee, a co-sponsor of the bill, is calling it “unconstitutional”, saying “We do not have religious tests in this country.”  Except there is no religious test.  The incumbent of my district, Karen Bass, tweeted her support for this bill, retweeting another co-sponsor who said “no one should be denied entry based on race, religion or nationality.”

Okay, so we agreed race or religion is BS, and this executive order has nothing to do with that.  So your representative is already lying to you.  But nationality?  Since when are we not allowed to restrict entry based on nation of origin?

This doesn’t just make no sense.  It’s deeply disturbing.  And that’s what this #MuslimBan is… or, more appropriately, what the Democrat reaction to it is.  It’s yet another an attack on ALL immigration law.  Coupled with their opposition to Trump’s promises to fix our immigration system and make it legal again, the Democrats have taken a turn for the worse from their more American days.

They really are pushing for a borderless country.  They don’t want to deny anyone in here.  They don’t want to deny anyone employment or the vote.  They are committed to this, they are monomaniacal about it, they have all their social forces ready to push it.  And if we can’t stop it, we will have to deal with the consequences of it.