Monday, April 8, 2019

The Evil Trump

If you have a public forum where policy is discussed, I have no idea why you wouldn't object to this abhorrent Trump position on family separations.



From CNN:
Trump pushed to close El Paso border, told admin officials to resume family separations and agents not to admit migrants...

Two Thursdays ago, in a meeting at the Oval Office with top officials -- including Nielsen, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, top aides Jared Kushner, Mercedes Schlapp and Dan Scavino, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and more -- the President, according to one attendee, was "ranting and raving, saying border security was his issue."

Senior administration officials say that Trump then ordered Nielsen and Pompeo to shut down the port of El Paso the next day, Friday, March 22, at noon. The plan was that in subsequent days the Trump administration would shut down other ports.

Nielsen told Trump that would be a bad and even dangerous idea, and that the governor of Texas, Republican Greg Abbott, has been very supportive of the President.

She proposed an alternative plan that would slow down entries at legal ports. She argued that if you close all the ports of entry all you would be doing is ending legal trade and travel, but migrants will just go between ports.

According to two people in the room, the President said: "I don't care."...
According to multiple sources, the President wanted families separated even if they came in at a legal port of entry and were legal asylum seekers. The President wanted families separated even if they were apprehended within the US. He thinks the separations work to deter migrants from coming. 
Sources told CNN that Nielsen tried to explain they could not bring the policy back because of court challenges, and White House staffers tried to explain it would be an unmitigated PR disaster.
"He just wants to separate families," said a senior administration official.


  1. I agree! And deport them back to their homeland. At least someone is serious about border security.

    1. An advocate for commie border security for our resident communist? Color me surprised.

  2. Do you believe CNN anonymous sources?

  3. Stop the incentives and you stop the migration! Kobach has it right - cut off the funds going back to Mexico.

    If you can't acknowledge the border is a disaster in all respects you are just not being honest and are catering to groupthink. Trump may not be responding perfectly but he is trying to do what he can do both legally and politically to help solve the problem. Or just continue to call him a racist and a monster. Then you will be invited to all the parties.

    1. The only 'incentives' that matter are a good economy and the hope of greater freedom. Perhaps that's what you and your fellow Trumpistas want: a closed and zombie economy with little trade with the outside, negative interest rates and an authoritarian regime protected by a police state. Hopefully you won't get to enjoy that.

      Trump is not solving the problem, he's making it much worse by not processing the assylum-seekers' petitions. He makes it much worse by acting unhinged, by throwing off-the-cuff threats like closing the border or increasing tariffs on cars coming from a country he negotiated a deal with last year, to great self-acclaim.

      Most of us will continue to call him what he is because it's evident, through his words and his deeds. It is you who doesn't want to accept your dear leader is a monster because that would mean accepting you're a monster. And being a coward, you then prefer to obfuscate. Well, I'll trust my 'lying eyes' over your Trumpista word, thank you very much.

    2. No, OldMexican this is about boundaries and the concept of private property. A country exists for the benefit of its people. A government's first and only real function is the safety and protection of its citizens. That's it. You cannot offer benefits to all individuals from other countries who want to come here. Companies are using taxpayer money to subsidize paying workers minimum wage or less wages to these immigrants for basic services - displacing citizens. That is not a free market - it is a fixed one and it benefits the very few controlling it.

      Should we remove all boundaries globally? Open borders, no walls, fences, or doors, or locks? Of course not!

      If you don't think is displacing the labor market of citizens is a problem - or the child and human trafficking is a problem, or the overload on services is a problem, or the flood of drugs is a problem - you're just not being rational.

      Do we want America to more resemble Mexico, a poverty-stricken third-world country? I don't think that most of those who immigrated here legally or illegally would like that, do you?

      Ignoring that and calling us a bunch of racist xenophobes doesn't help the situation - it only leads to more extremism and violence. We do need to fix these issues and they can be fixed for the benefit of all - but not by ignoring them like you do - or using hate-filled language.

  4. Hi OldMexican, middle aged Mexican here, and a dual citizen.

    I don't know all the details of the family separation policies. But my sympathies are definitely reduced if a foreign "family" (many of whom are not nuclear families, but migrants bringing their nephews, children of a friend, or some other cynically convenient child; and yes, mules and malcontents are sometimes among them) attempts an illegal border crossing and suffers the robotic unsympathetic response of the state. What did they expect? Should they really be allowed to magically cross and get welfare, housing, etc.?

    Is the State the new replacement for Jesus and the Church, paying support from their own funds? (hint: no). Yes, family separation for any prolonged period is nasty and immoral. The logical solution that a private property owner would do is expel a trespassing family as quickly as they came in (perhaps after showing some hospitality, on a personal basis). No need to detain and all this nonsense. But federal laws and typical government bureaucratic permanence and all of its contradictions disallow this.

    Asylum treaties are complex and none of the media soundbites, nor your opinion, reflect that complexity. Please answer this one simple question - why cannot Central American citizens seek asylum in the closest country that does not carry the "threat" that justifies their asylum? That would often be Mexico or just another Central American nation. Or how about going south to Columbia? Is it really sensible that if you are under a treaty regime, an asylum seeker can pick and choose? (if you live in a crappy barrio in Queens, do you get to go to Park Avenue and claim asylum?)

    You need to be more skeptical about the elitist opinion molders you are allying yourself with. These people don't give a flying hoot about migrants. They decry family separation, because they want those people to disappear into the country, and one day emerge citizens when asylum or amnesty is offered. They only care about growing voters, and retaining power. They don't want to solve any "immigration issue". They want to get elected on the conflict; if the conflict ever ended, they would find a new one.

    Read Bionic mosquito. There is no libertarian solution when the State arrogates itself to control the borders as a cartel. There is no easy answer. So no one side can righteously preen about its moral standing vs. the other. My own position is based on an analogy - suppose the government takes over the "border" to your home or your neighborhood. Do you want them to simply allow a stream of humanity, pitiable they may be, into the parks and onto your porch - perhaps even board 1 or 20 in your bedroom? Do you want them to impose their living costs on you, and any habits they have towards the property of others? If the state gets strict on security, it results in other injustices. But surely that risk doesn't justify vitiating the concept of a property line border.

    For the Walter Block acolytes on this issue, know that I am a Hoppean; and there are other forums for that debate.

  5. The elephant in the room that no one talks about is the question of why "libartarians" are for open borders. (Although it's interesting that Ron Paul campaigned toward the Paleo position.)

    Ann Coulter recently tweeted the following article by Jewish writer David Cole.

    I first heard this theory explained (& very well documented with Jewish sources) by Dr. Kevin MacDonald.. to me it explained why "libertarians" (whose intellectual forefathers are mostly all jews) are for "open borders."  

    Excerpt from David Cole:

    What is Congressmuslim Ilhan Omar if not a golem? For decades, leftist Jews have been the biggest boosters of flooding the West with Third World immigrants. “Hey, here’s a plan—let’s dump a hundred thousand Somalis in the whitest parts of the U.S. That’ll save us from Fargo Hitler!” Inundating the West with nonwhite immigrants is seen by Jews as an insurance policy against “white supremacy.” The idea is that these immigrants will act as a wedge, diluting “white power” while remaining small enough in numbers to be manageable.

    “Can we please finally start acting like we’ve learned the lesson of that story?”

    Jews have done this elsewhere—playing two groups against each other as a way of assuring Jewish security. “Let’s play Hamas against the Palestinian Authority. Let’s play ISIS against Assad.” To be fair, this is not a uniquely Jewish strategy. Arguably, the British did this kind of thing to perfection during their colonization craze, playing different ethnic groups and castes against each other for their own benefit. But for people who pride themselves on having an abnormally high IQ, we Jews can be among the most retarded of geniuses, because that strategy no longer works. It used to work when the masterminds, be they Brits or colonial Americans (playing different Indian tribes against each other), could control the flow of information. But today we live in a world in which even the lowliest bark-eater in the Kalahari can have internet access. It’s not as easy to fool entire groups of people anymore (individuals, sure, but not an entire race, ethnicity, or faction). I don’t care how little one might think of Third World intellectual acuity; even a dog will eventually figure out that you’re not really going to throw the ball after ten or twenty fake-outs."

  6. Only losers and schmucks are worried about immigrants.