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.


  1. There are only two ways to deal with DACA:

    1. "We'll continue giving DACA people their residential and work privileges, conditional on removing X million other illegals per year".

    X must be in millions.

    Start with those who are the biggest burden -- anyone convicted of any degree of crime or misdemeanor. Then anyone on any form of welfare, including Medicaid and Medicare. Then anyone who earns less than $30-40K.

    Each of those waves could take a year or two, and DACA privileges would be preserved for each wave.

    2. "We'll continue DACA privileges, conditional on a moratorium for immigrant visas, and a 100K per year cap on non-immigrant visas."

    This attacks the problem of keeping America American, just from the forward-looking perspective of preventing more immigrants, vs. removing the 10s of millions already here.

  2. So on a tangent, Cernovich published his piece about Trump being on virtual house arrest, Kelly deciding what Trump can and cannot read, listening to his calls, etc. and reiterated it when he was interviewed earlier this week on Breitbart News Daily. Naturally a lot of people started jumping on him, especially the Breitbart commentariat composed largely of cultural conservatives/Cruzlims, about how ridiculous that was. Now Maggie Haberman in the NYT has a story out about how any calls to people like Lewandowski Trump makes are done via the White House switchboard where Kelly listens in to all of them and how Kelly has outright removed Breitbart and The Daily Caller from the list of news sources Trump gets info from.

    It's making me feel a bit black-pilled that ending DACA will wind up as much of a vial of snake oil as the other immigration stuff: headlines that will tout "President Trump Ends DACA" triumphantly from Fox News, HuffPo melting down with, articles with pictures of crying Squatemalans, etc. that will rile up the left and cause the MAGA crew to crow but in the end will be meaningless when enforcement is selective and even then it's a crapshoot whether it's followed through on. I mean what more can you really hope for when Obamaite Kevin McAleenan is heading Customs and Border Protection? Or when the guy feeding Trump his info about immigration is the same guy who, as head of DHS, gave out H-2Bs like they were candy?

    At this point it seems like an uphill battle and that we may have to cede the first half of Trump's first term a bit (although still putting pressure on building The Wall and posts like this to help gather information on the failure of an enaction of America First immigration goals) and focus heavily on getting out the globalist and traitorous Republicans up for re-election in 2018. Even if we can't take down Ryan himself, filling other spots with Anti-Ryan America Firsters will do as much to hobble his agenda as filling the administration with Obama holdovers and globalists has hobbled Trump's; an eye for an eye.

  3. For others, here's the Cernovich reporting that Anon is referring to:

    Yeah, it's definitely an uphill battle now, but like I said that will probably be true during the non-election years when there's a lower level of the collective action potential of the people (Trump / Trumpists' only leverage).

    I wouldn't worry about black-pilling, though. First, because it's not our emotional states that matter, it's achieving the goals we set out to achieve. If people feel bummed when they lose, that's natural and part of the process to motivate them to figure out why they're losing and change that so they can start winning.

    But second, because like you said there are going to be many more campaigns and hopefully other forms of collective action for the people to take.

    The most important thing in the meantime is to shake the delusion that Trump is the God-Emperor. The aware people picked up on that over the course of the April Establishment hijacking.

    But perhaps more important is why he's not God -- it's not so much what he doesn't know, or what values he doesn't have, since he knows plenty and has plenty of good values. It's what he can will into being -- he lacks omnipotence.

    That points the way forward -- we need more people with political capital. Or a swarm of newbie Trump loyalists, where they all look out for each other, even though they don't have much political capital within the Establishment.

    Political capital is socially constructed, so if all these new Trump supporters treat each other as being rich in capital, then they are, at least to one another, if not to the Establishment.

    One of the most important races to help out with is Josh Mandel in Ohio, taking on Sherrod Brown for Senator.

    He's already the GOP candidate, although maybe there will be a pro forma primary. Trump should tweet or re-tweet the guy already and start wearing down Brown early.

  4. Also please pick a pseudonym if you're going to comment regularly. It makes it easier for people to remember who you are each time.

  5. So it looks like what's going to be pushed by the GOP is the RAC Act that requires "young undocumented adults who came to the U.S. as minors to be either employed, in higher education or in the military" introduced by Thom Tillis and Carlos Culerbo, a pair of Democrats who happen to be in the wrong party. Tillis is openly pro-amnesty even and this plan is, of course, amnesty in so many hidden terms. From Breitbart:

    "The reported bill in the works would create a “path to permanent residency,” better known as an amnesty, to 800,000 illegal aliens who received work permits under President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order. If similar to a companion bill introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), up to 2.5 million young people would be rewarded with green cards and citizenship if they are able to get a college degree, serve in the military, or keep a job.

    “It really is the conservative dreamer bill,” a congressional source told McClatchy."

    What a crock. It's basically just a means (as said in the Breitbart article) of enshrining DACA and waving away the air of unconstitutionality by making Congress vote it in instead of Obama signing an EO. My state's governor -- Rick Scott -- is all for it too and I'm glad he's gone in 2018; hopefully DeSantis runs because otherwise the likely choices are Clintonite John Morgan or whatever Generic R the Republicans put up (who likely gets trounced by Morgan).

  6. AB.Prosper9/3/17, 8:18 PM

    The GOP as a party is just Democrats a few years ago with an insatiable appetite for cheap labor thrown in. Of course they are going to screw legacy Americans

    They also don't give a crap about American cities as witnessed by the absolute rate of urban decay and the staggering poverty in cities, for example pre flood Houston where 80% of public s children are below the poverty line and get aid oh and only 8% or White forgot that

    This should surprise no one. Right now the fight is at the primary level where it might be possible to get enough of the GOPE out and replaced with populists to make change , throw in whatever comes after Trump or Trump's second term and you have a chance

    I'm not big on Black Pilling people but if it fails, understand the only way they'll change is either if the US collapses or we have a civil war

    We are not there yet but we are at the beginning of the last cycle before boom, Gen Z gets a say in things too as they become voters and the social mood shifts but time is counting down

    Don't count in an aging center right mild populist like Trump to fix it for you, work on the primary elections and prepare for the worst. Get armed, get hard, get supplied,get organized and get good

  7. I no longer believe in the "two parties are the same" view that I used to.

    It's true that both are elitist and globalist, have no concern for running society properly, want to replace the American population with a foreign one, etc.

    And it's not just the marginal social-cultural stuff where they differ.

    Each major party is a coalition of oligarchic factions, so they're not the same set of concrete interests. Democrats are controlled by Wall Street, media, higher ed, etc., and Republicans by the Pentagon, energy, mega-farms, etc.

    So would you rather get screwed by Wall Street or the Pentagon? Each will inflate a giant bubble for its sector when they take over the executive branch. But I'd rather have malinvestment in banking than malinvestment in war. Both can lead to fat-tailed blow-ups, but only one of those can literally wipe all of America off the face of the Earth, in a worst-case scenario.

    Or not even the worst-case, which would be the entirety of homo sapiens getting killed off -- where only America gets wiped out is less extreme of an event than that.

    It's also more of a national pride-killer and morale-sucker to see decade after decade of failed wars, compared to failed economic bubbles (real estate, dot-coms, dot-coms round 2, etc.).

    And Democrats do at least keep their base somewhat happy, even if it's just breadcrumbs. The GOP base gets absolutely NOTHING in return for their vote.

    If the GOP sabotages the Trump candidates, I'll vote Democrat not only out of spite, but because they will truly be the better choice between two horrendous elitist globalist parties.

  8. And it really is down to "the party governs" rather than "the President governs" or "the Speaker of the House / Senate Majority Leader governs" (imagine a Trumpian as SotH -- he'd get sabotaged as much as Trump is).

    So even though we voted for Trump, who was for fundamentally re-directing the Pentagon and military, we're getting not only no change in direction, but an intensification in the same direction they were going in under Obama -- more intense now that the Pentagon's party controls the executive.

    Trump will probably get re-elected no matter what, but after that, it may not make sense to vote GOP again -- definitely not if Pence is the candidate in 2024. Then it will be all about getting a Bernie / Gabbard type Democrat out of the primaries and into the White House.

    The Pentagon is simply more dangerous than Wall Street when it comes to who will wreck America the most. They have to either be kept out of power altogether, by voting Democrat for Pres, or by putting the most anti-militarist Republican in as possible, like Trump -- but with actual political capital, and preferably from within the military himself, like General Flynn, who could push back against the globalist imperialists.

  9. We thought that Hillary's would be the hawkish admin, but that turned out wrong.

    Sure, she'd have to do something in Syria -- just like already happened. And just like how Obama had to throw a bone to the major power group of the opposition party, by doing the 100,000 troop surge in Afghanistan his first term, while also however pulling out of Iraq.

    Even if Hillary is actually more hawkish than Trump, it doesn't matter because the President is not a dictator. It's their party that governs, and the coalition with Wall Street as the major faction is not going to blow all that taxpayer money (or borrowed Chinese money) on Republican-level war-mongering. They want that phat cash for THEMSELVES.

    Feeding at the public trough is zero-sum, so only one sector will get a giant bubble inflated, namely whichever one is in the White House.

    Hillary's admin would definitely have signed TPP, never dreamed of re-negotiating NAFTA, signed the Paris Climate Accords, and so on and so forth. But there would not have been a big militaristic bubble in foreign policy, just as there was not under Bill Clinton or Obama -- the reigning party chooses where the treasury malinvests its money, not the President.

    There are plenty of reasons that Trump was an infinitely better choice, but we should honestly remove the "no chance of imminent WWIII" from that list, while emphasizing that it has nothing to do with Trump but the party and the oligarchic factions his victory put in power.

  10. "And it really is down to "the party governs" rather than "the President governs" or "the Speaker of the House / Senate Majority Leader governs" (imagine a Trumpian as SotH -- he'd get sabotaged as much as Trump is)."

    I wonder if there's any comparison to be made between how things are looking and the Gilded Age where the Presidents seemed rather ineffective and more like figureheads while true power lay in the hands of the parties, the people who ran them and the political machines, and the oligarchic industrialists.

  11. And following that I wonder then if it might be possible that Trump ends up as more of a Grant figure: popular choice from outside the political system and overall good guy but who surrounded himself (voluntarily or know) with bad hombres in his administration who ultimately tarnish his Presidency and reputation while dragging the country into the gutter.

  12. Your points about the Pentagon are solid but I disagree on the grounds that the faster the US is militarily exhausted, the faster things will improve in the global sense.

    There will be some chaos but if the US were gone, odds are common sense will occur pretty fast and a new equilibrium will happen

    I also think the risk of nuclear annihilation is rather limited but that of civil war is greater.

  13. As u said, gen x and the millenials have been put off from military adventures by the iraq war debacle, which has shaped their political world view

  14. RINO Colorado senator Mike Coffman is going to be trying to introduce and force a vote tomorrow on the BRIDGE Act which is just enshrining DACA via congressional vote thus sidestepping the problems with Obama just declaring it. He's almost definitely got the Senate votes for it. House may be rougher but somebody on /pol/ pointed it out well:

    "The BRIDGE Act, which would extend DACA, could be voted on as early as tomorrow (Tuesday, Sep. 5). It will pass the Senate. To pass the House, however, it must get 23 Republican votes. Already, 13 Republicans have co-sponsored it (and will thus vote for it). Thus, it would only need 10 more Republican votes. Of the remaining Republicans in the House, the most likely Republicans to vote for the BRIDGE Act are those who are not yet co-sponsors, but (i) who voted against defunding DACA in 2015 (13 of them), (ii) whose predecessors voted against defunding DACA in 2015 (3 of them), or (iii) who have publicly stated Trump shouldn’t repeal DACA (2 of them).

    Thus, that leaves (at least) 18 possible Republican voters to cover the 10 needed votes. Unless we started putting pressure on those 18, it looks like the BRIDGE Act will probably pass"

    I strongly suspect this was the plan the entire time from the globalist leeches in the administration. Give the Trump supporters a bit of false hope but take so long on implementing the death of DACA that Congress has time to vote it in anyway.

    Now of course that sounds very out of touch but one of the tax plans being strongly considered is taxing 401ks to pay for corporate tax cuts. It seems as if the globalists think that they've won and effectively turned Trump into a non-entity so are thus free to pillage the country and globe at their leisure.

  15. Was the lawsuit by the state AG's planned to force Congress to approve DACA legislatively? Move quick to force Trump to drop DACA, then have Congress swoop in to rescue it, with no chance Trump would veto it because of how bad it would look?

  16. GOP won't fund Wall, round 57:


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."