September 23, 2017

Immigration updates on many fronts

First, some sabotage that flew under the radar of the Trump movement at the time: in April, DHS suspended Trump's executive order to come up with a regular report on how bad the sanctuary cities are behaving.

That article is from the LA Times, but all the mainstream media reported on it. The Trump movement did not notice it because it came just days after the Syria strike which signaled a return to regime change, and created confusion about who was really running the Trump administration's foreign policy (turns out: Deep State). We were preoccupied with more pressing matters.

That executive order came from the pre-coup phase of the administration (Jan 25), and was intended to "name and shame" sanctuary cities by providing details about how the local police departments that refused to cooperate with ICE had led to this, that, and the other horrible crime, or had let some despicable criminal off the hook.

It was Trump's attempt to use the bully pulpit to whip up popular anger against sanctuary cities, to which the politicians would have to acquiesce at least a little bit, or else face the angry mob.

Pentagon junta member General Kelly was in charge of DHS at the time, and killed that executive order less than two weeks after its implementation in late March. The excuse is that some of the data was inaccurate -- well then, I guess we can't just write reports with accurate data, we have to terminate the program altogether. (It is still "suspended," more than five months after first getting the axe, so it's as good as dead.)

The lesson: the Pentagon is a globalist organization that sees its job as managing a multinational empire, not defending the core nation, when those two goals necessarily conflict. They care more about not-shaming radical Islam than they do about shaming the crimes that sanctuary cities have allowed to happen against Americans by foreigners.

Previous updates have pointed out that there has been no data released to support the claims by ICE that, while deportations have been lower than under Obama, they have shifted to interior deportations rather than meaningless "deportations" that turn people back at the border.

You'd think that an administration -- and a President -- intent on proving that it's fulfilling the campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration, would be releasing hard numbers. Something Trump could brag about, like he does with stats on illegal border crossings.

But ICE has been releasing even less data than it was under Obama, including what eventually happens to people who are the subject of a detainer. Do they actually get deported, or not? Neither the open border nor the build-the-wall side will know.

The excuse is that in the lame duck period, Obama changed the rules about what will be released through FOIA requests -- but it's not like Trump hasn't been President for eight months. Plenty of time to roll back a single regulation from the very end of Obama's term.

Clearly the globalists running DHS do not want the information getting out there, because it will show that the ramp-up in detainers being issued has not resulted in more illegals getting deported. And that there has not been a massive shift toward deportations from the interior vs. at the border. They would brag about that data, if it existed, not hide it and refuse to release it.

Illegal border crossings have doubled since April, so now they're only down 25% from last year, instead of 70-some percent in the first months of the administration. The initial "Trump spook" effect has worn off, and pretty soon those levels will be back to what they were under Obama.

Would-be illegal immigrants have figured out that the government writ large is still not enforcing immigration laws, despite the hardliner President ordering them to. Foreigners see a weak system here and take advantage of it.

At the rally supporting Establishment candidate Luther Strange (the first Trump rally I did not watch), the President revealed that the non-wall options are the only ones in the running for the "build the wall" contest among contractors.

I warned loudly about these non-wall bids months ago -- if the government is so intent on building a wall, why are there two separate tracks of bids, with one group being walls and the other group not being walls?

A lot of Trump supporters who didn't read past the headline, or follow up on exciting stories, only heard about the recent announcement of the four prototypes chosen from the wall track of bids. They didn't read the stories from the week or so after, announcing that four prototypes were also chosen from the non-wall track.

At this late date, how can these non-wall bids even still be in the running?

And yet, Trump tried to soften the blow during the rally by saying that the wall needs to be see-through. How about we "just ask Israel" if border walls need to be see-through? Or have a look at the Great Wall of China? Cameras and watchtowers work just fine.

This was not an off-the-cuff remark, as he said the same thing during Air Force One remarks on Sep 12, with the same risible rationalization about "what if Mexican cartels launch heavy bags of drugs over the wall and the patrol agents don't see it coming and they get hit on the head?"

We can take these remarks to mean that Trump has been informed by the Establishment that there will be no Wall on the southern border, but only some kind of fence, easy enough to slip bodies and contraband through, easy enough to cut a big hole through, etc. Just something empty, meaningless, and symbolic so that he can say he "built a wall".

Does the Establishment really think that the legions of rabid Trump supporters are going to forget Trump's repeated visual imagery from the campaign -- "precast concrete plank" that would tower 30, 40, 50 feet high, so high that once you get up there, you're not coming down easily?

I guess we'll see. Obviously the partisan Republicans will go with just about anything that any Republican President does. But the actual Trump supporters who were there from the very beginning in summer 2015? The iffy and alienated white working class from the Rust Belt? I don't see them cheering for Jeb Bush policies just because they're being sold by the persona of Donald Trump.

It's time to start framing the non-wall as a sabotage of the President and his voters by the Establishment, Deep State, etc., to get them angry enough to demand and even protest for a real wall. Rationalizing some ridiculous fence as the Platonic ideal of a border wall will only result in the cheerleader squad getting dunked on endlessly by the worst liberal shills.

We shouldn't make their jobs easy, and we shouldn't betray the American voters just to save face.

P.S. -- to lighten the mood, have a dark laugh at the roll call votes for the 1986 amnesty. House votes and Senate votes.

Republican President signed it.

Republican-controlled Senate passed it, with R's more in favor than D's. Although majorities of both parties were in favor, 20% of R's voted against, but 40% of D's voted against. Democrat Senators voting against amnesty: Gary Hart, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Bill Bradley.

Dem-controlled House passed it, with D's now more in favor than R's (partisanship). Still, some notable exceptions: Harry Reid voted against amnesty, and so did John Kasich in perhaps his only good vote ever.

If the Dems can re-orient back toward the working class -- a very big if -- I trust them to build a real wall before Republicans would. The GOP is simply too controlled by the Chamber of Commerce and the large farm owners who insist on feudalism as their business model. If Americans won't become serfs, then the immigration system must have open borders and/or unchecked guest worker levels.

Foreign labor flooding in means the death of unions, and with them the evaporation of millions of reliable Democrat voters -- who will not be replaced by reliable immigrant voters, since immigrants don't vote, Hispanics don't vote, and Hispanic immigrants really don't vote.

First the Republicans failed to learn that lesson -- they alienated far more Americans than they gained by pushing amnesty for illegal Hispanics. Now it may be the Democrats' turn -- they will destroy more of their own rock-solid voters than they will bring in through illegal Hispanics (who don't vote).

September 15, 2017

DACA amnesty in exchange for trade wars?

No sane person will claim that Trump got a good deal by promising amnesty for the DACA people, and perhaps more via their families who can and will be brought in, without getting a single concession from Democrat leaders on the issue of immigration -- deporting millions of non-DACA illegals, building the wall, lowering legal immigration, harsh penalties against employers hiring illegals, or de-funding sanctuary cities (Sessions proposes to only take away one-half of 1%).

Obviously, if that's the extent of the deal, then Trump got schlonged big-league.

However, most commentary has not discussed the big news that the other, opening topic at the dinner with Chuck and Nancy -- and excluding Ryan and McConnell -- was trade and China policy. Economic nationalist Commerce Secretary Ross was sitting in on the talk, albeit with Wall Street chaperon Globalist Gary Cohn.

And unlike their blanket dismissal of helping the Republican-controlled White House cut taxes for the rich ("tax reform"), the Democrat leaders did not flat out reject whatever Trump proposed they help him with regarding trade and re-industrialization.

Why would they? Their party has a far better record than the GOP, who seek a return to a pre-industrial agricultural economy where the people are peasants and servants. Schumer has voted against most of the anti-factory / pro-mega-farm trade deals, and Pelosi may have voted against some of them too. On the big one, NAFTA, Schumer voted against, but Pelosi voted in favor. Majorities of Democrats in both houses at the time voted against.

Bringing back manufacturing would mean millions of new voters for Congressional Democrats -- union members -- and in crucial states that cost them the presidential election, namely the Rust Belt.

Giving amnesty to the DACA people was already in the works, since the entire trend has been towards weaker immigration control than under Obama, reflecting both the Obama holdovers as well as the Bushie originals and the boarding party Bushies who now control the government.

The only question was, would Trump get anything in exchange? The Republicans sabotaged every move he made toward "America first", from foreign policy to immigration to trade. OK, no deals to be made there -- how about trying to get something good from the Democrats, who are in a weaker bargaining position than the Republicans?

Trump himself is in the weakest negotiating position any President has ever been in, since he does not have any history in politics -- no connections, no built up goodwill, no favors owed, no trust from the other politicians. Nor does he hail from one of the elite power factions that control society, like the military or the banks, who are the only groups outside the government itself that the politicians would take orders from.

Nobody in government faces consequences from not carrying out his orders, so they are free to either ignore him or outright sabotage him. And that's exactly what we've seen so far.

Since Trump is in no position to dictate terms, he will have to give more at the negotiating table -- being the one who invites the other party, asking them what they're willing to do rather than repeatedly threatening to walk, and making larger and longer-lasting up-front concessions.

Still, he wouldn't be dealing with them if he wasn't getting anything at all -- and he knows that more phony "border security" isn't going to accomplish anything on immigration. But if he gets their help on trade, where the GOP is resolutely opposed, that could at least amount to something.

With no effective authority inside Washington, and therefore having to surrender on the nationalist front, at least for now, Trump faces the choice of which wing of the victorious open borders army to sign a peace treaty with. It's either "amnesty in exchange for more wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan," or "amnesty in exchange for a potential trade war against China or Mexico".

It is the opposite of 4-D chess -- it's called trying to make the best of a bad situation, where you have no power and are at the mercy of two groups who hate your guts, but who you may be able to play off against each other to receive relatively less harmful treatment.

The junta controlling the White House has been sent by the Pentagon, not Wall Street. At least the Democrat leaders do not represent the faction that has held Trump hostage since April. He can work with them more freely, in a quid pro quo fashion, whereas his own party's factions have escalated a military takeover almost since he took office.

We still don't know whether anything concrete was agreed to on trade, let alone if the Democrats would actually honor their word after wringing amnesty for the DACA people, and then some, out of the immigration hardliner President.

But it sure as hell beats the alternative of trying to get anything good from the Republican side of the aisle in the inevitable amnesty of the DACA group.

September 8, 2017

Is amnesty suicide for the Dems or for the GOP?

Now that the DACA people are going to be amnestied, the next move by globalists will be to broaden it to other groups who are slightly lower on the sympathy scale, potentially including all 20 million illegals by the final round.

Immigration hardliners argue that mass amnesty is suicide for the GOP, since immigrants lean so heavily Democrat. They are trying to argue to Republican party leaders that, even if they despise their voters, they should at least back off of amnesty in order to ensure their own survival as a major party.

This is a naive argument, which explains why it is never listened to by the GOP. Most immigrants, legal or illegal, are heavily concentrated in safe states -- mostly deep blue ones like California and New York, but also deep red ones like Texas and Utah. Millions more newly legalized citizens with voting rights in California will be no big loss to the GOP there, as the party effectively no longer exists in that state.

What about turning red states like Texas into blue ones? That also will not happen, because most of these immigrants are Hispanic, and Hispanics do not vote, even when they are eligible. This covers blue state cases as well -- they will not get even further blue, as their Hispanic immigrants will not vote either.

The most recent year of good voting data is for the 2012 presidential election, as studied by the General Social Survey, the gold standard in social research (large national probability samples going back to the 1970s). Let's review the cold hard facts on voting participation. We will stick just to people who are even eligible to vote, assuming the best-case scenario for immigrant advocates who want them to be able to vote.

Among immigrants -- those residing outside the US at age 16 -- only 46% voted, vs. 71% of native citizens.

Among Hispanics -- regardless of race or immigrant status -- only 44% voted, vs. 73% of non-Hispanics.

Within the Hispanic population, only 28% of immigrants voted, vs. 51% of native citizens.

Again, those are all considering people who are already eligible to vote.

The voting rates for all groups are lower in the West South Central region, which is basically Greater Texas. So the largest red state is in no danger of being flipped blue by low-voting Hispanics, immigrants, or Hispanic immigrants.

The only large state that could be affected is the swing state of Florida -- but then Florida has always been a swing state, back when it was mostly white, and right up through 2016 with its heavy Hispanic and immigrant population. So the GOP may reason that it has little to lose there if there are more immigrants.

An earlier post showed that large non-citizen populations do not affect how a state votes, but rather how much of a force multiplier it has. The number of Congressmen sent to the House is determined by resident population, not citizen population, so that states with lots of immigrants get more Representatives in Congress than they should. That is reflected in their weight within the Electoral College when it comes time to choosing a President as well.

But the GOP has already given up trying to be a national party that can field viable candidates for President. They lucked into the presidency in 2000 when the full Florida recount showed that Gore won among voters. They could have legitimately won in 2004, although who can say how much of that was due to the incumbency effect that resulted from the botched election of 2000. But maybe W. Bush could have been the Republican Jimmy Carter and won by a hair, serving only one despised term during an otherwise unbroken string of victories for the other party.

Of course Trump did better than W. Bush could have ever dreamed of, but he ran against the GOP, and the GOP did everything it could to stop him, and continues to subvert him well after he's taken office in the White House. So they still have no pretensions of being a national party to contest the presidency.

And although making Congressional representation reflect citizens only, rather than any old residents, could give Republicans better numbers in Congress, it also might not. The main shift would be fewer reps from the Sun Belt, with its enormous immigrant populations, and more reps back to the Rust Belt, where hardly any residents are immigrants.

In some Rust Belt areas like Ohio and Indiana, that would give more Republicans to Congress. But it would also mean more reps from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York. Maybe those new districts would go to Trump-style Republicans -- but that's a nightmare for the GOP leadership. Otherwise they would go to Democrats. Almost certainly not would they become new corporate-friendly warmonger Republicans that the leadership desires.

So the GOP can rationally argue there is little downside to its electoral prospects from giving amnesty to all illegals and even throwing the borders wide open. At least up until the point where immigrants do begin to overwhelm the safe red states in voting numbers (different from resident numbers, since immigrants don't vote).

What about the upside? Well, the GOP is all about cutting labor costs to employers to boost corporate profits. They represent various specific sectors like the Pentagon and energy and agriculture, but they also represent a sector-general class of managers and investors. This managerial and investing class will continue to make a killing pursuing the off-shoring policies it has been getting for several decades now. Instead of off-shoring, it can also bring the cheap foreign labor here through immigration.

In addition to making managers and investors in general happy, the GOP program of open borders and free trade will also make one of its major elite factions happy -- agriculture. These mega-farms are highly profitable not only because of heavy subsidies from the government, but also because they hire cheap foreigners to toil in the corn fields, dairy pastures, and meatpacking plants.

The free trade agreements have all served to remove manufacturing from the US and give it to the other cheap countries, while improving agricultural exports from the US and wiping out the farms of the newly industrialized cheap countries. "Trade" is not general, it is specifically taking the form of American food traded for manufactured products from the cheap countries (clothing, cars, electronics, etc.). That's why Trump always used to complain that while Asia sends us cars by the shipload, "all we send them is beef".

From the GOP's perspective, car companies and auto workers unions do not contribute to the Republican coffers or political capital within Washington, while the mega-farms of agribusiness do, so why would Republican leaders try to make Detroit happy instead of Omaha? Especially when these large-scale farms and ranches all lie within the Great Plains, where the reddest of red states are found, while manufacturing plants are in purple states at best, and deep blue states at worst.

The Republican party's grand vision is to reverse the Industrial Revolution and have a nation's residents toiling in the fields, or performing menial servant labor waiting on people with money. They want us to go back to the feudal ages, where the GOP will enjoy the support of the landed aristocracy.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense that they would want to import hordes of field-toilers and servant-peasants from parts of the world that never launched their own Industrial Revolution. Especially when there is no electoral downside. Any self-preservation argument to the GOP leadership is doomed to failure, because they know better than you do what is good for their own preservation. They will only chuckle at your naivete.

* * * * *

On the other hand, large-scale immigration is a disaster to the Democrat party, whether they know it or not.

Sure, you could say as I just did about the GOP, "They would know better than you what is in their own interests as a party," but then the Democrats just got wiped out in a historic upset, losing many states that were solid blue for decades -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, a district in Maine, and essentially Minnesota (spoiled only by a third-party conservative).

So far, zero states have flipped from red to blue due to demographic replacement by immigrants. Rather, it has been white liberal yuppie carpetbaggers who have recently flipped red states blue. They are a far larger population size, they are all eligible to vote, and they turn out at high rates.

But now we've seen six medium-sized states defect en masse from the blue column, showing that it is the Democrats who are truly out of touch with what preserves their party. Not immigrants, but the (white) working class in the Industrial Midwest, who have much higher labor union membership rates than others around the country. Like yuppies, union members are already eligible to vote, are organized politically, and turn out at high rates. If you lose enough union rank-and-file support, kiss the Midwest goodbye.

There are about 15 million union members today, equal to estimates of the illegal immigrant population. Which group is more important to keep, if their interests are opposed and will not come as a combined bloc?

Back to the GSS statistics: for eligible voters, 81% voted among people who are union members or are married to one, vs. 67% among non-union households. And they are not clustered in deep blue or deep red states. Compared to non-union voters, union-linked voters were more likely to come from blue safe-havens like the Mid-Atlantic and Pacific regions, but also from the East North Central region (OH, MI, IN, IL, WI), and presumably the Great Lakes by extension.

Only Illinois is a deep blue state, and Indiana a deep red state. Ohio is usually a swing state, and although Michigan and Wisconsin voted reliably blue, it was not by a large margin -- enough for Trump to steal them away by appealing to Rust Belt working class whites.

As an inverse of the GOP, the Democrat party does not rely on the generalized corporate managerial and investing class, although it does have the backing of specific factions like Wall Street and Silicon Valley. It also relies on labor unions, and enough of them are still industrial unions rather than public sector service unions -- at least in the key Rust Belt states, rather than safe states like California.

Once those manufacturing plants are destroyed through off-shoring, the new workers in the cheap countries will not be joining unions, let alone voting in American elections for the pro-union party. So there goes millions of reliable Democrat voters. Even if the plants are kept in America, but operated by cheap foreign labor, the immigrant workers will not be unionized, and again -- bye-bye millions of reliable Democrat voters, in crucial states no less.

It is out of self-preservation that the Democrats have opposed the free trade deals for decades. Enough of them are neoliberals who vote with the majority of Republicans to push them through, and only neoliberals are allowed to become Democrat Presidents. But the majority of Congressional Democrats in both houses have opposed them, from NAFTA to permanent normal trade relations with China to CAFTA to South Korea to Trade Promotion Authority for negotiating the TPP.

Yep, the Republicans are so rotten that they make us find a few good things about the voting records of some of the most horrendous Democrats ever to serve -- Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, even Bob Menendez, voted against most or all of these anti-factory / pro-mega-farm deals.

It's not that the Democrats look after their constituents better than the GOP does. It's that the Democrats' constituents include large numbers of organized labor in high-paying sectors like manufacturing, whereas the GOP looks after the landed aristocracy in the Plains. The only sector with a large number of employees who vote reliably Republican, and whom the GOP looks after, is the military.

But that just means the GOP tries to inflate military bubbles so that more and more members of the military have "something to do somewhere around the world," rather than use them effectively for specific purposes when our national interests are clearly defined and large in magnitude. Most of that labor is not put toward truly productive use, and those guys could be creating far more value as engineers for an auto company, logistics experts for steel mills, and quality-control for tool production.

That is a large chunk of potential Democrat industry-related voters that could be stolen from the GOP if only the Democrats would more forcefully promote the re-industrialization of the economy, and demand an America-first defense policy to replace our failed and crumbling globalist empire.

* * * * *

It turns out that the Democrats have more to lose in the short and medium term from amnestying the millions of illegals, opening the borders, and off-shoring our manufacturing. That's why the GOP has always been the main vehicle for the cheap labor lobby. If the Democrats don't reverse course on immigration, they will lose the Rust Belt forever.

They are pursuing amnesty and open borders out of identity politics and multiculturalism, which is a crazy parasitic growth destroying their party. They are not doing it out of rational electoral calculations, let alone being part of the cheap labor lobby -- or else they would have signed onto all of those free trade deals.

On the one hand, it makes it more likely to get through to them since there is a rational basis for them to give up amnesty, vs. little rational basis for Republican leaders to give it up. On the other hand, if the party is emotionally hijacked by identity politics warriors, they may not be able to respond rationally. It's all still up in the air at this point, although the number of progressives coming out with "yeah but" arguments about immigration (Thomas Frank, Peter Beinart) is a welcome sign.

The Trump movement has already burned down the Republican party, which refused to serve the people. Now that Trump is beginning to cut deals with "Chuck and Nancy" rather than Ryan and McConnell, maybe the next phase of the movement will be rehabilitating the Democrat party. "Factories over foreigners" and "Medicare for all except those who must go back" -- that's how they win back the Midwest.

GSS variables: vote12, race, hispanic, reg16, region, union

September 6, 2017

Veto bill that only condemns violence from the Right

A bipartisan Swamp team is trying to send a bill to Trump's desk that only condemns hate and violence when it comes from the Right. They're still trying to win the game of getting him to disavow only one side, and protect the far more violent other side.

Trump should preemptively threaten to veto this bill unless it is amended to condemn hate and violence when it comes from the Left, calling out specific groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa, etc.

To give himself cover, he can cite the recent broad condemnation of Antifa by the mainstream Left, including Nancy Pelosi. The Establishment has already started to sour on its pet militia after a successful campaign to collectively blame the entire Left for Antifa violence, which has forced Democrats to disavow the paramilitary group by name.

Bonus points if he gets the bill to use the specific phrase "many sides" in its condemnation of hate and violence no matter which of the many sides it may come from.

September 1, 2017

Globalists still winning on immigration, on all fronts

Time for another reality check on monthly immigration data and trends, with greater importance now that the DACA program is heading toward definitive action soon.

First, remember from this earlier post that we will be able to tell which side in the immigration battle is winning based on the immigrant group who first receives collective treatment from the government.

There are 20 million illegals -- too many to deal with individually, who must be dealt with as groups. Globalists seek to amnesty and citizenize all groups of illegals, nationalists to deport all groups of illegals. But constraints make each side rank immigrant groups from highest priority to lowest priority. Because the battle is public, each side chooses its most sympathetic and winnable cases first, its least sympathetic cases last.

The two extreme groups are the DACA people, who were brought into the country illegally as children, who bear little blame for being here illegally, and serious criminals, who chose to invade the country illegally and on top of that are a public menace.

The globalist ranking is to amnesty and citizenize the DACA people first, and serious criminals last. The nationalist ranking is the opposite: deport the criminals first, and DACA people last.

Criminals are not being deported as an entire class, only here-and-there as individuals, perhaps at a higher rate than under Obama, but not collectively.

The DACA people are going to get collective treatment soon, and it is going to be amnesty and citizenship rather than deportation. Although Trump may end the DACA program per se, he will not be deporting the "Dreamers". Rather, the political process by which they are amnestied and given citizenship will shift from an over-reach executive action given by Obama (DACA), and toward a normal legislative bill by Congress and signed by the President that will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Globalist Republicans in Congress are already crafting the legislation (see here and here). That will allow the globalists to win the first major battle on immigration (they already won the first minor battle by neutering the Muslim ban), while letting Trump save face in a loss for the nationalists by nominally "ending DACA" (while still giving them amnesty and citizenship rather than putting them in line for deportation, let alone actually deporting them).

Moving on to The Wall, the prototype stage is still delayed from summer until winter, and the globalists running DHS are still allowing half of the proposals to be non-wall solutions. Always read past the headline: "The four companies [just announced] each proposed concrete walls. DHS expects to announce contracts for four non-concrete wall prototypes next week."

Sorry, but the non-wall solutions should have been killed at the beginning. We didn't chant "Build Anything Other Than a Wall!" at the Trump rallies. The fact that they are going to make it through the finals means it is more likely than not that one of these non-wall proposals will win, given who runs DHS, although that is not fait accompli just yet.

As for legal immigration levels, the globalists controlling the State Dept have kept them as high as they were under Obama, no change from the last report to that effect. The July numbers for immigrant and non-immigrant visas are well within the range of the other months of the Trump administration. Recall that the #1 source of illegal immigration these days is people who get a non-immigrant visa (say, as a tourist) and then over-stay the time allowed, residing and working here permanently.

The monthly average for immigrant visas is now 48K vs. 49K last time; for non-immigrant visas, it is now 836K vs. 826K last time. Extrapolating to 12 months at these levels (and there are only five months left to reverse course), we can expect 572K immigrant visas and 10 million non-immigrant visas during the first year of Trump. These estimates are basically unchanged from the last report.

Both of those estimates are still above most years of Obama. For immigrant visas, only 2016 saw higher numbers; for non-immigrant visas, only 2015 and '16. The decrease from last year is marginal.

Since an earlier post on deportations, there is still no evidence that they have shifted from at-the-border turn-aways to within-the-interior removals. And the total of the two remains lower than under Obama. Sanctuary cities still face no de-funding (one-half of one percent of their budget, under the Sessions plan). Still no collective action to punish employers for hiring illegals. If anything, I've noticed that the illegals working at McDonald's and Wendy's have come back within the past several months, after a brief disappearance during the early months of the Trump administration, before the Establishment hijacking in April.

The only area where there may be improvement is refugees. They have fallen by double-digit percentages, although they are not a major category of immigration to begin with (in the thousands per month, rather than tens or hundreds of thousands that are brought in under immigrant and non-immigrant visas). I would also not be surprised if the State Dept globalists are not simply playing a shell game, and giving would-be "refugees" one of the two larger kinds of visas (immigrant or non-immigrant).

We will keep our eyes peeled for solid evidence that nationalists are winning on any front of the immigration war, but this year has been one of losses. That could change next year, with the mid-term elections heating up for globalist Republicans who find themselves vulnerable in a climate of immigration restriction.

That seems to hold for other fronts in the Trump movement's war against the Establishment -- losing year when there's no election, winning year when there are elections. After all, the Trump movement has close to zero supporters throughout the entire government, and elections are one of the few ways that the citizenry outside of DC has to collectively influence policy.