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).


  1. "If the Dems can re-orient back toward the working class -- a very big if"

    Monopoly busting of the media/news, I think it may be the only way...

    Aside, I think my ordeal is mostly over as of this morning thanks to help from someone who is incarcerated. I hope. Even if I'm correct, I'll never be completely free. So, I have skin in this game (like so many others now).
    And I think the monopolization is why we have kidnapping gaslighters instead of the investigative guys of the Vietnam era.

    1. Of course, there's always "wishful thinking", but will try to make lemonade from lemons if so.

      Great post and keep on this beat. God bless.

  2. So painful to read.

    I discovered your blog last week (I'm french). I was so enthousiast by our common views (protectionnism, minimal wages, and anti-immigration).

    And now...

    Just a question : do you believe DJT is under control or is he sincerly betraying us ? (I mean "us", white western people)

    I want to believe he believed in MAGA. My hope is : he wait for midterms and a congress controlled by Bannon's trumpian representatives and senators.

    -Maybe I'm wrong, because they have often deep and good analysis, but actually, CTH disgust me a lot. All they do is stupidly calling worried trumpian as "cruzbots" !!!

    second question : what are the real thought on those ways for Heartiste ? (I can't comment on his site, dunno why) (that was the way I discovered your site : heartiste=> epigone> you)

    3d question : you often say than McKlinley was the beginner of the republican progressive era. But recently, I read on wiki than it was under Benjamin Harrisson than this polici arrives, with sherman act and big protectionnist tarif level. What's wrong for you about Harrisson ? He don't appears as a old way conservative, IMO.

  3. Just as another commenter, I would say that Trump isn't betraying us so much as it is he's been effectively turned into little more than a powerless figurehead; the emperor under the control of shogun Kelly and the Pentagon bakufu as it were. As is pointed out, Trump's wishes are repeatedly ignored, countermanded and scoffed at. His agenda (as Ag has repeatedly pointed out) undermined by his lack of political capital among the swamp creatures that infest Washington D.C.

    The problem, too, is that so far the Bannon movement is amounting to... Roy Moore in Alabama, a culture warrior dinosaur both in views (wannabe theocrat who cares more about fags and being able to display the Ten Commandments than anything else) and in age (70 years old). Not exactly the most auspicious start when we should be going after the likes of Rand Paul or Tulsi Gabbard, those who would share in our MAGA mindset at least in part and would certainly work to keep us out of foreign wars. Hopefully Moore does nothing else but send a message and embolden the Bannon movement to build a coalition of true populist figures. If it turns out to be Tea Party 2.0, exciting the Cruzlim types while leaving the MAGA supporters lukewarm, then it will be disappointing.

  4. "-Maybe I'm wrong, because they have often deep and good analysis, but actually, CTH disgust me a lot. All they do is stupidly calling worried trumpian as "cruzbots" !!!"

    It comes from being psychologically stunted - they want to believe that Trump is some comic book superhero who will magically make everything all right, and that they themselves won't have to make any initiative and can stay in a cocooned state. The very term "God Emperor" comes from the "Dune" science fiction series, which shows how unrealistic their mindset is.

    In fact, in his latest post, Heartiste illustrates the juvenile mindset of his commenters by photo-shopping Trump's face onto comic book superheros such as Thor and Superman.

    Heartiste is actually an older GenXer, and seems to mostly be condescending to his commenters(maybe for money - see that Donate button on his site?)

  5. Curtis, I think he deserves his money. Unfortunatly for me, he write with tons of neologisms and "urban dictionnary lauguage", wich make difficult for me to learn his lessons (I'm VERY bad on seduction), but I love his mind. I love your american alt right because it's a positive trend, conquering, and not, as the old right, and the far-right here in Europe, wasting his time complaining about "how strong are the evil" etc.

    2016 was great because, for the first time since...maybe the 18 century (or the 20/30' of the 20 century), true culture, humour, laugh and ascent was on the right side.
    Cleverness too.
    That's why I don't want to give up hope. Even if this trump administration is so desapointing. Money, demography is on the left side, but some spirit trend is on ours.
    And, after all, two entire countries, in Europe, had kill the Left : Poland and Hungary (NOT Russia. Russia is strongly anti-nationalist, and bigly soviet-nostaglic, but they use a false "patriotic" language (and a ton of money) to subvert a lot of nationalists parties (our french national front, by exemple).

    Sorry for this answer. I speak about too much things in the same post, and my english is very bad.

  6. btw, a video I made after the election. Even if I think my selection of pic is great, I have completly making shit with the sound. Hope you'll enjoy it whatever ;)

  7. OT
    Lord,you gotta do a search of comments at Unz's for Ron's (and even Giraldi's, which I found hilarious); I stayed faaaaarr away from there during the Plame affair. When I saw Ron putting the hottest articles at the forefront to get attention: lulz. In high dudgeon, that man, but he's right about this: no upper-tier paper touched it; I suspect a Hillary basher, though, could have serviced a narrative or two and would not have been so lucky.

    I guess the differences between us just come down to autonomy and how much each group has. But I'm not going to argue with the history-majoring physicist polymath about *this*, lol! Eat glass first!


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."