December 28, 2018

I'm surprised by the readers of The Washington Post — they're so Trumpian on illegal immigration.

I'm reading "Father whose son died in custody knew bringing him would ease entry into U.S." in The Washington Post.
Agustin Gomez Perez was 47 and in debt, and that path would only deepen his obligations.... He and his wife chose 8-year-old Felipe Gomez Alonzo for the journey because he was one of three sons, and the couple had only one daughter together....

Federal officials say they must screen migrants before releasing them, and have been overwhelmed by a record surge of adults crossing with children....

Smugglers often charge less than half the price if a child goes along, knowing that migrants can turn themselves in to border agents and will soon be released....

Gomez Perez was in debt from a long-unpaid electric bill and other expenses. Add in the smuggler’s fee, and he owed more than $6,500. He expected that he’d pay it off after working in the United States....

[The sister] said her father told her Felipe suddenly worsened. His “stomach hurt, that he couldn’t breathe.” “My father started to cry,” she said, recalling his words. “It can’t be. Don’t abandon me here. We have a dream to fulfill.”...

She said the family would ask the U.S. government for two things: Return Felipe’s body so that they can bury him in Guatemala, and let his father work in the United States so that “my brother’s death won’t be in vain.”
I've excerpted the parts of the article that might make a reader want to blame the father. Was the boy exploited? Was he regarded as expendable? There's plenty else in the article that might make you want to blame the U.S. government (mainly for not giving quicker medical treatments). I would also think many readers would mostly feel sad that a boy died and bemoan poverty generally. So I was surprised at how harsh the comments were against the father. I didn't expect this at The Washington Post. This is the most liked comment:
This child's siblings in Guatemala are alive and well. The child was dragged to the US using money that could have paid the father's overdue electric bill, which is not a reason to grant asylum.
That is responded to by another well-liked comment:
Thank you. I am liberal myself but I get tired of people who shut off their critical thinking when it comes to brown people. This guy made a spectacularly risky decision, and his child paid the price. It's on his head. This is, of course, on the assumption that the U.S. wasn't negligent in the kid's care - which is certainly possible. Nonetheless it's his father who endangered him.
The second most well liked comment is:
This is human trafficking with children being used as pawns. Our charity is being abused. We're being scammed.
A well-liked response to that is:
The father refused medical treatment. And dragging that kid all those miles is child abuse. I blame the father and the smugglers.
The third most well-liked comment is:
As much as I disagree with Trump on pretty much everything, you can not pin that on the US government. It is the parents who endanger their children bringing them on a hazardous trip. Just as you cannot hold Europe responsible for the drowning of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. That's confusing cause and effect.
Also:
If we are responsible for the child's death it is because past administrations created the expectation that children are the golden ticket at the border.
And:
So there was no asylum claim. The kid was literally a human shield.
Reading these comments, I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016, when Trump was painted as a racist for saying the situation at the border had to change. I think, for all the press resistance to Trump's fight against illegal immigration, minds have changed. It seems that Democrats are no longer using the idea that it's racist and hateful to want to control immigration. I feel there's been much less talk about the suffering of the children, but when a child dies, like this poor boy, it will be reported, and it gives us an opportunity to see how Americans are reacting to a sad story about a child. I'm amazed at the reaction in The Washington Post. It's so Trumpian!

334 comments:

1 – 200 of 334   Newer›   Newest»
Fernandistein said...

I'm *pretty sure* that people have a basic human right to electricity.

And putting 2 and 2 together, this guy is an alien who doesn't like electricity, so perhaps he's one of the aliens that blew up that transformer.

YoungHegelian said...

Of course we're being scammed. The economies of Mexico & Central America are now based on having the US as their cash-cow, with remittances being the largest "industry" even for Mexico! How could that economic reality have a good ultimate outcome?

Gahrie said...

It seems that Democrats are no longer using the idea that it's racist and hateful to want to control immigration.

What is your evidence for this? The comment section in a NYT article? What are Nancy and Chuck saying? What is AOC saying? What is the MSM saying?


iowan2 said...

I'm impressed. You slogged through the comments at WAPO. 5 or 6 years ago I subscribed and commented often. Then I got ghosted. Which was fine, because the comments have devolved into nothing but 3 year olds, smearing their own feces all over place.

That said, I would think these comments represent about 95% of the United States citizens, and non citizens alike. The only hold outs are those paid to push a narrative. Even those people know in their heart whats right.

Eleanor said...

Feeling sad about someone's predicament and taking responsibility for it are two very different things. I don't know anyone who wants to curb illegal immigration who wants children to die. The sight of hungry little children on those tv ads for charities couldn't help but move all but the coldest of hearts, but that doesn't mean we want to adopt them and bring them into our homes. Help them out where they are, maybe, if the charity turns out not to be another scam.

gilbar said...

She said the family would ask the U.S. government for two things:
Return Felipe’s body so that they can bury him in Guatemala, and
let his father work in the United States so that “my brother’s death won’t be in vain.”


I agree with the dad!
I too would like to ask the U.S. government for two things:
Pay my burial expenses, why should I have to pay for my expenses, can't the government?
Give me a high paying job, so i can buy more stuff

gilbar said...

hey? it just dawned on me; what do LLRs think about Trump (and our) border?
I want to hear a LLR tell us what we should do!

rhhardin said...

You've got to kill off a little girl to get any traction. Boys aren't in favor.

Browndog said...

My local news tell me every day that "another child has died in U.S. custody", and that 'leading democrats are calling for an investigation.

I was shocked to discover that the rural N. Michigan media market was just as propagandized as the metro-Detroit media market.

I can't remember the last time I was able to stomach more than 10 minutes of television news of any sort. It's depressing.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"Give me your tired, your poor, your terminally ill..."

gilbar said...

rhhardin said... You've got to kill off a little girl to get any traction. Boys aren't in favor.

I'd think that you'd Lose traction...
How about: You've got to kill off a little girl, to grease the wheels?

pacwest said...

Even the true believers are getting enough information from non Pravda sources that they are beginning to grasp the economic realities of the immigration + welfare benifits equation it would seem.

David Begley said...

The United States owes no duty or even a moral obligation to let everyone on Earth to move here. It’s that simple.

Hagar said...

How many hundreds, if not thousands, of children have died in this artificially induced migration? But these two, deaths are the subject of total outrage in the press.

As Stalin said, 10 deaths is a tragedy, ten million is a statistic.

Even just these two appear to be a result of the US border authorities simply being overwhelmed. I saw one article overflowing with outrage that the border patrol had just turned a thousand or more "refugees" loose because they had no room left anywhere to hold them for "processing." The reporter obviously felt they should have been provided with hotel rooms and meal tickets on Uncle Sam and not just turned loos to fend for themselves in a hostile place like the US.

This has become totally insane.

EDH said...

You mean to tell me the relentless propaganda is not having its intended effect?

But we put our best people on it.

gilbar said...

Browndog said... I was shocked to discover that the rural N. Michigan media market was just as propagandized as the metro-Detroit media market.

I think you'll find that most media are owned by the same few companies... Companies with agendas

traditionalguy said...

Maybe reality is replacing mythology. The Propagandists of Hollywood carefully constructed a Nazi Racism Enemy in the minds of middle class American Citizens for the last 50 years. But now those citizens are starting see the reality that Socialism only works until the day it has given away all of their money and community assets to stuff all future elections with illegal immigrant replacement voters imported in furtherance of the most racist goal of them all, which is depopulating the USA of the Whites who built it. Suddenly people don't want to become like the Dutch South African Farmers.



Gabriel said...

Immigration is one of the handful of issues where the vast majority of the political class is diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the population. Consequently our immigration laws are designed to be contradictory and unenforceable: for example, hiring an illegal immigrant is perfectly legal laregly because it is a violation of Title VII to refuse to hire anyone you suspect may be illegal. You may only ask for documents after you hire, and if those documents are rejected by the government you are under no legal obligation to fire--quite the contrary since you can be sued under Title VII.

Canada, on the other hand, means it and it is virtually impossible to work illegally in Canada, since they do actual checking BEFORE the hire as well as after. Every gas station in the US has the capability to swipe a card to see if it is real, so why is a Social Security card just a piece of paper? Because those who do not want any meaningful restrictions on who can work, have decided it shall be that way.

My family has quite a few legal immigrants. I've spent a great deal of time and money complying with US immigration law. I have very little sympathy for illegal immigrations getting the same outcome that we did, and none at all for those who endanger their children to try to get that outcome.

FIDO said...

If polling is to be believed, MOST people including many rank and file Democrats, are for stronger borders (just not necessarily the Wall).

The Democratic LEADERSHIP would rather slit their throats than give on the issue for unknown reasons.

For comparison:

In 2016, Obamacare cost $110 BILLION for the year. Unlike stronger border security, almost no one wanted that program.

The Federal Government spends $500 MILLION per HOUR. So the Dems have shut down the government for 10 hours of federal spending.

Food Stamps spent about $5.5 BILLION per month.

Medicare cannot account for (lost or misspent) One Hundred and Forty BILLION dollars in one year. So Trump is asking for 1/28 of what Medicare lost in the couch cushions.

So the cost is negligible. This is a principled decision: a hill that Pelosi is willing to die on (how IS Ginsburg these days?)

Anyone who says we can do Medicare for all but can't afford a Wall is an idiot.

gilbar said...

Gabriel sums it up nicely... My family has quite a few legal immigrants

EXACTLY The Problem with legal immigration! You end up with people like Gabriel!
Now, with undocumented american refugees from central america.....

DrSquid said...

how many US kids died in ER's during December? How many had a cabinet secretary visit the facility in the aftermath?

Dreadful outcome to their attempt to escape a wretched life in Guatemala, but they should not have come here.

mockturtle said...

Looks like there is a point at which people's brains kick in and interrupt the narrative. There is hope.

Fernandistein said...

so that “my brother’s death won’t be in vain.”

Donate his body to a US medical school. Or give you money. Tough choice.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Why not GoFundMe by some concerned?

Sebastian said...

"Agustin Gomez Perez was 47 and in debt, and that path would only deepen his obligation"

As other reports have made clear, the "migrants" have no clue about actual asylum laws. Their claims are scams.

But what's the downside? So far, the worst that can happen is deportation. Why not try?

I'm not sure we can increase the cost to the scammers. But we can increase the cost of exploiting the scams--by businesses, schools, and NGOs. We should.

Still, the comments are a bit heartening. Maybe some Dems are coming to their senses.

Fernandistein said...

how many US kids died in ER's during December?

How many US kids were "separated from their parents" when their US citizen parents were arrested and jailed?

"An estimated 809,800 prisoners of the 1,518,535 held in the nation’s prisons at midyear 2007 were parents of minor children, or children under age 18. Parents held in the nation’s prisons—52% of state inmates and 63% of federal inmates—reported having an estimated 1,706,600 minor children, accounting for 2.3% of the U.S. resident population under age 18."

Oh.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...

Reading these comments, I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016, when Trump was painted as a racist for saying the situation at the border had to change.

I don't think the American culture or public has changed. I think Trump was painted as a racist by those with a megaphone, but that American culture actually isn't that far left.
In fact, I first realized Trump had a chance when a Chinese woman (now an American citizen) was sitting next to me on a plane -- waaayyyy before I was taking Trump seriously even as a candidate--- and she said Trump was saying things about illegal immigration that everyone thought and no-one dared to say.

Gahrie said...

Gomez Perez was in debt from a long-unpaid electric bill and other expenses. Add in the smuggler’s fee, and he owed more than $6,500. He expected that he’d pay it off after working in the United States...

Hey...wait a minute....I thought they were all refugees fleeing Central American violence!!

This guy admits to paying someone to smuggle him into the United States for economic reasons? And that he used his child as a prop to help him enter and stay here? The family's response to the child's death is "please let my Dad stay in the US so he can send money back to us?

Narrative fail.

Is this the type of immigrant that is going to make the US a better place?

Mr Wibble said...

In fact, I first realized Trump had a chance when a Chinese woman (now an American citizen) was sitting next to me on a plane -- waaayyyy before I was taking Trump seriously even as a candidate--- and she said Trump was saying things about illegal immigration that everyone thought and no-one dared to say.

Jonah Goldberg wrote about the idea of the Rectification of Names, making words correspond to reality. If they don't, people can no longer know what is right or wrong and what is expected of them, and so they eventually revolt.

Reality on the ground shifted a while ago, but the political class hasn't changed, and in fact has attempted to manipulate words in order to control political discourse for their own benefit. Trump is the rectification of names. Even when he was uncouth, or imprecise, he was much closer to the truth than other politicians, and a lot of voters understood this.

gilbar said...

Gahrie misspoke.... And that he used his only child as a prop to help him enter and stay here?

No No! NO! he's got TWO other sons (plus a daughter); so this kid wasn't the heir, he wasn't even the spare: he was extraneous

Dave Begley said...

Illegal immigration is mostly about illegal aliens voting illegally for Dems in 2020. With Motor Voter and absentee ballots, it is a piece of cake.

Talk about interference in our election by foreigners!

Hagar said...

If you were a citizen of a failing state in Meso-America - not necessarily poor, apparently many "refugees" pay the traffickers $(US)5-10,000 - and heard about these goings on in the US, what would you do?

This migration is being organized and funded from inside this country and the primary aim seems to be importing another permanent underclass that will dependably vote Democrat for a long time.

Jess said...

With so many illegals around, those so willing to admit them are finding they're not what they expected. Not only do they not speak English, they disrespect the laws, their criminals came too, and they cost tax dollars, which they don't contribute enough to pay the costs. Otherwise, they're finding out what those living in border states found out decades ago.

It's reached the point where philanthropy is meeting NIMBY. For those that promoted illegal invaders it's a just return. They caused the problem, and they should suffer the consequences.

Si Habla? No? You need to learn, since we demand you take care of us, and accept our culture.

CJinPA said...

What does it say that we have to glean the opinions of the populace through comments on articles, rather than through professional journalism itself?

If the majority really is open to changing immigration, the massive effort to demonize Trump on the issue must be seen in a completely different light than simple "bias."

FYI Zogby poll:
A majority of the country, including 51 percent of Hispanics, back President Trump’s move to send troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to block the swelling caravan of Latin American migrantsfrom entering, according to a new survey.

EDH said...

The story of the legal immigrant cop allegedly killed by an illegal alien on a license plate free beer run is a juxtaposition that kind of sums the whole thing up.

His California police colleagues spoke with the clarity of many of the WaPo commenters.

This battle is not shaping up the way Democrats had hoped.

Tommy Duncan said...

Pelosi and Schumer would be wise to fund the wall now. This is a losing issue for Democrats. We are early in the election cycle. Settle this issue now before it bleeds into 2020. Take advantage of short memories and "old news".

But they won't fund the wall because their base is rabidly against anything Trump wants.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Immigration is among the few topics where one is likely to find significant pushback against the Wapo- or the NYT-approved narrative from their normally über-NPC commenters. Perhaps this is an issue where reality has rudely intruded on otherwise comfortably en-bubbled lives.

PackerBronco said...

If there has been a change in the public's attitude towards immigration, it's due to the realization that the Democrat party is essentially in favor of open borders.

Boca Condo King said...

This is all about cheap labor.

For example, in South Florida, Fast food workers earn more than construction workers.

As Gabriel above points out in Canada you cannot work if you are not in the country legally.

I traveled in Canada a while back and I noticed that even at the smallest hot dog stand, when the employees found out I am from Florida they all had either traveled to FL regularly or had a winter condo here. No cheap labor in Canada...

We swim in a sea of cheap illegal labor that has screwed the working class in this country.

Keep in mind that the father of the poor child is looking to work for cash under the table at a rate far lower than any US legal resident would accept.

Imagine if all the jobs held by Illegals were done half as well for twice as much by American schmucks.

john said...

The Gomez's travelled at least 1,300 miles through Guatemala and Mexico to get to the US border. Along the way they received shelter, food, clothing and transportation, but did Mr. Gomez ask for or receive help for his son before he got to the border?

Ralph L said...

The usual WaPoo commenters went on vacation since the govt shutdown.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Remittances to Mexico are the second largest source of finance after petroleum. Go figure.

Howard said...

You guys make my point on religion. You not Christians, you Pagans lusting after the blood of children

CJinPA said...

NY Times Dec. 21:

"None of Us Deserve Citizenship
On what moral grounds can we deny others rights, privileges and opportunities that we did not earn ourselves?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/opinion/sunday/immigration-border-policy-citizenship.html

It's not that they want open borders, they just want no borders. Get it right.

daskol said...

Did people change their minds since 2016, or are they freer now to express their opinion? Trump's election may have initiated a preference cascade: once he'd shifted the discourse on illegal immigration, people who'd previously felt lonely in their opinions realized they were not.

Chuck said...

Althouse how could you fail to understand a fundamental difference between intelligent and articulate comments on the Washington Post website, and the language of Donald Trump?

I read those comments as you selected/edited them, and thought that they all reflect my own views. They are articulate, literate, measured, careful. And in that sense, they are not "Trumpian" at all.

A "Trumpian" statement would have sounded nothing like any of those comments. A Trumpian statement would have been an ignorant rant about drugs and rapists and criminals. Indeed, Althouse; you have noted (perhaps accidentally but I think it is no accident) that among the best-liked comments were those from people who specifically distanced themselves and their immigration views from the views and especially the language of Trump.

Honestly, I enjoyed reading this blog post and I appreciate your own editing that went into the post. But in calling those well-received WaPo comments as "Trumpian," I think you drew the exact wrong lesson from all of it.

There are principled, unbigoted, conservatives who can articulate a measured message about immigration, reform and border security. Trump is not that guy. Trump's message is fear, prejudice and ignorance. Trumpists are to conservatism in the 21st century what the John Birch Society was to conservatism in the 20th century. William F. Buckley had to drive them out and rebuild conservatism. What the Birchers were doing back then is just what we see from Trumpists whining about "the Deep State" today. The Birchers had been claiming that 50% of the U.S. government were communist sympathizers; that Eisenhower was a secret communist. And of course Buckley was as much of a determined anti-communist and cold warrior as any of them. But he wasn't crazy, and he wouldn't tolerate the craziness of ignorant emotional rubes.

iowan2 said...

I think this might be the hill President Trump has decided to die on. President Trump is not a politician. Obvious yes, but the media and Dem leadership, keep treating him like one. Think of all the chances President Trump has taken in his lifetime, how many failures he has endured. He has rolled the dice repeatedly. He has more winners than losers. You and I would feel like a loser. Not the President. Didn't pan out? Must be Tuesday. Oh well.
President Trump is not forced to do anything until a bill hits his desk.
I see McConnell folding. Sending a bill to the House, they approve it and send it the the White House. Only then is the President on the record. What does the President have to lose? I remind you he is not a politician. He is a private citizen that occupies the Oval Office. If, a big if, if there is a political price to pay, President Trump will stand for re-election, the voters will decide. No matter what, the President will continue on with his life. Republican and Democrat politicians cannot say the same thing, they have a political price to pay. It could cost them their Power in DC. Something they can't imagine not having.
Who has something to lose in this standoff? Not the President. He is standing on the principle of securing the border for the safety of the United States.
Democrats and Republicans are standing on the principle of cheap labor, and new voters.

Marty said...

Thanks, Comrade LLR, for your usual clarity about your own straw man argument.

daskol said...

Also Chuck, you should look up the Overton Window, and note how Trump flung it wide open to all these principled, articulate comments you so admire.

Laslo Spatula said...

"You not Christians, you Pagans lusting after the blood of children".

You can tell us: did writing that feel just as good as masturbating into a freshly laundered sock still warm from the dryer?

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Trump's message is fear, prejudice and ignorance. Trumpists are to conservatism in the 21st century what the John Birch Society was to conservatism in the 20th century."

Now, this: this is more like a writer masturbating into a sock he took off of a sleeping homeless guy in the subway.

I am Laslo.

iowan2 said...

Just read chuckles post. Short take. Chuck refuses to accept Salvador Dali as a real artist. His stuff doesn't follow the rules.

gilbar said...

i'm glad that now we know what LLRs want,
they want to say they want everything that Trump wants, they just don't want them to actually happen

chickenlittle said...

Darkness dies in democracy.

Qwinn said...

Birchers claimed 50% of the fed gov were communist sympathizers?

Why'd they lowball it?

William said...

I don't think it's right to endanger the life of your child to help get out of debt. This is not a complicated ethical dilemma......If, by building the wall, we discourage just one parent from risking the life of their child by making such a perilous journey, won't the expense be worth it?

Leslie Graves said...

Cruel.

Qwinn said...

I used to have a generally positive view of Buckley, but Chuck is rapidly changing my mind.

Shouting Thomas said...

A "Trumpian" statement would have sounded nothing like any of those comments. A Trumpian statement would have been an ignorant rant about drugs and rapists and criminals.

You're still fighting against the reality that Mexicans and their government/cartel Uniparty have created a society that is drunk on drugs, rape and criminality.

One of my favorite movies of the past few years is El Infierno, directed by the very great Luis Estrada. Watch it. The great artists of Mexico know that their society has descended into hell.

Or, if you like, listen to the greatest of the narcocorrida bands, Los Tigres Del Norte. They are the Rolling Stones of Latin America. Glorification of the narcotrificantes has corrupted the soul of Mexico, in particular destroying their children.

The reality is that a wild orgy of macabre violence has been playing out in northern Mexico for the past 15 years. Over 100,000 murdered by the government/cartel uniparty in the past 5 years. Trump is right and you're refusing to recognize reality.

Mexicans are capable of agency, you know. They are responsible for their actions and their culture. Right now, both are fucking messes.

Begonia said...

Trump-hating bleeding heart liberal here. I'm also married to a Guatemalan. I lived in Guatemala when I met him, and have been to Guatemala many times since marrying him.

I was absolutely appalled at Trump's decision to separate children from their families at the border.

I also agree with all of those comments that you just listed, except maybe the one that blamed the Obama administration for the mess.

My Guatemalan husband and I were talking to our (half-Guatemalan) son about this this morning, and his exact words were, "they are using their kids as human shields". We do not believe that what the parents are doing is justified in any way. However, we can still square that belief that children deserve to stay with their families, and not suffer for the poor decisions of their parents.

Aside from all that--here's what's crazy. From what I read in the Guatemalan press, it seems that there has been a recent surge in families just up and leaving for the United States. When I say recent, I mean, in the past month. AFTER Trump's decision to separate families. AFTER the tear gas at the border on the Honduran families.

The most recent article about Jakelin Caal's hometown, in Guatemala's biggest newspaper says that "en los últimos días unas 200 familias de todo el municipio se han ido en busca del sueño americano." In the last days 200 families from the whole township have left in search of the American dream. (Article here https://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/alta-verapaz/san-antonio-secortez-la-aldea-de-jakelin-caal-donde-pobladores-migran-por-falta-de-desarrollo)

You know that saying, "there's no such thing as bad press?" I wonder if the same thing is happening in these very poor, very uneducated communities. People and smugglers hear talk about how others are using their children, and, not really understanding the consequences or the outcome, they think, "other people are doing this, I should do this too". It just seems so weird. I should think that Trump's actions would depress the use of children as human shields, but the exact opposite seems to be happening.

narciso said...

Yes shouting Telemundo has a whole cartel hour from 7-10 PM, this is how they chose to brand themselves.

FIDO said...

Shorter Chuck: Trump is showing us exactly how impotent and feckless we were with our 'measured and sane' comments. We did dick for decades and no one trusts us any more because we are impotent and feckless.

Trump has moved the goalposts on immigration 900% further than Chuck and prior Republican 'sane' people.

Chuck, you have a choice. IF (and I want to bold that) you are on board for tighter border security, you can help by adding your voice.

You would rather bitch in high dudgeon about Trump's couth than actually get anything done.

The perfect (and the hypocritical idiot) is the enemy of the good.

gspencer said...

"Was the boy exploited? Was he regarded as expendable?"

Irresponsibility on your part does NOT convert itself into responsibility on my part. I will not suffer liberalism's many, many techniques to saddle onto me your stupidity and refusal to accept consequences from your decisions.

Crazy Jane said...

Newspapers cannot grok that Americans are very supportive of legal immigration and not so much of unchecked illegal immigration. People just want an immigration policy that is enforced; they aren't even that particular about the details.

The LA Times teaser on its own piece (news article, not op-ed) called the boy's death a "searing emblem" of Trump's immigration policy.

Think about it: If I made a 10-year-old kid walk from LA to Denver and the kid died there, would that be a "searing emblem" of the Colorado governor's healthcare policy?

Bob Boyd said...

"I'm amazed at the reaction in The Washington Post. It's so Trumpian!"


In the immortal words of Winston Wolf

Ann Althouse said...

"She said the family would ask... let his father work in the United States so that “my brother’s death won’t be in vain.”"

If that worked, people bringing a child to the border to get in would know that if the child died they'd not only be free of taking care of the child, they'd gain legal status. It's a terrible incentive to add to the already bad incentive.

Big Mike said...

There are principled, unbigoted, conservatives who can articulate a measured message about immigration, reform and border security.

Where? Until Trump came along they kept a low profile for fear of what the media would say about them. That’s when they weren’t hiring illegal immigrants themselves to mow their lawns or provide cheap diaper-changing and nanny services so the wife could get back to the office as soon as possible after the baby was born.

BTW, who mows your lawn, Chuck? You could provide proof that they’re legal?

Trump is not that guy.

Oh yes he is.

n.n said...

A baby, a child, a life deemed unworthy. Also, diversity and immigration reform that produces collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout.

Howard said...

Triggering Laslo into a straight response is the best verification of a Bullseye.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, impeccable logic.

Ann Althouse said...

"What is your evidence for this? The comment section in a NYT article? What are Nancy and Chuck saying? What is AOC saying? What is the MSM saying? "

I can't listen to and read everything, but that's my impression. I'm not hearing something. Why don't you offer evidence that it is being said? Maybe you haven't stopped and noticed what's NOT happening. That can easily slip by. I think the current talk from the Democrats is about how they don't like the procedure for including funding in this bill and without more specific plans and cost projections. If I'm wrong, you should be able to challenge me by pointing to actual stuff. I'm the one relying on the absence of something, which I can't point to.

And get it right: It's not the NYT. It's the Washington Post.

Hagar said...

No wall necessary if the existing US laws against expending US welfare funds for supporting anyone not a citizen of the US and prosecution of employers hiring anyone not legally entitled to employment in the US were enforced!

Darkisland said...

Over 100,000 murdered by the government/cartel uniparty in the past 5 years.

And they have strict controls on legal ownership of firearms.

Think how much worse it would be if they had our 2nd Amendment rights.

John Henry

Gabriel said...

@Howard:You guys make my point on religion. You not Christians, you Pagans lusting after the blood of children

No commenter here has expressed any desire for children to die--except maybe those arguing that the death of a child should be a get-into-America-free card, since any policy that allows for that will end in more children dead.

I would say that rather than desiring the death of children, they are simply not thinking through the incentives they would set up.

n.n said...

Emigration reform in Honduras, Guatemala, etc. Allow the Mediterranean to process the men, women, and children forced onto the trail by social justice adventures. Tear down the walls and close the abortion chambers in all "federated" markets. Stand against diversity, and other PC doctrines, including racism, sexism, anti-nativism, etc.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

There are principled, unbigoted, conservatives who can articulate a measured message about immigration, reform and border security.

We tried them. Jeb! failed spectacularly. Rubio probably cost himself the Presidency (or at any rate a very good chance of defeating Hillary to become President) by joining with Schumer's scheme for "comprehensive" reform. George W. Bush's softness on the issue and willingness to get rolled by Dems cost him support he needed on his right and helped stall out his momentum for his other legislative priorities. Reagan's '86 general amnesty is widely seen as one of his worst moves and a substantial stain on his legacy (especially considering the large long-term effects).

The ONLY people willing to approach the issue on terms even close to those of a solid chunk of the traditionally-Republican voting base are the populists. The issue was right there and the base could not have been more clear, for YEARS, in what they wanted, but our smart Republican establishment elites simply refused. Wouldn't be good for business, you see! The only shift they allowed was for their own messaging to move from downplaying or ignoring voter calls for a crackdown on illegal immigration to a full on embrace of Dem/Media talking points painting anyone holding that position as a vicious racist.

Complaining about the fact that the populists aren't smooth talkers is silly. Of course they're not. You should complain instead that the non-populists, the smart elite Establishement types, refused to talk about the issue at all (except of course to second Dem positions and brag about their willingness to act in a bipartisan manner to give the Dems whatever they want on the issue). That refusal left the field open to someone like Trump--you gave him the issue and gave him the ability to say he was the only guy taking it seriously and agreeing with most of the Republican base about the problem, and that was the entire basis of his initial popularity!

Your "principled, unbigoted Republicans" refused to listen and refused to fight, and that allowed Trump to happen. The fact that you guys STILL can't learn from that is just pathetic.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

How has mandatory E-Verify use not been a key Republican legislative goal? How easy would it be to paint opposition to that as an embrace of illegality--to shift the narrative from images of poor little kids to actual lawbreaking and the willingness of the other side to disregard the law??

chickenlittle said...

And get it right: It's not the NYT. It's the Washington Post.

Coke, Pepsi, What difference does it make?

tim in vermont said...

My IRL interactions with liberals for the past year and a half bear out the sense that most of the resistance to effective border control is pro-forma loyalty signaling.

Qwinn said...

Not to mention, what evidence would be required for an adult to prove that a dead child was even theirs? As far as I can tell, none whatsoever. So feel free to kill someone else's kid for your free passage. What could go wrong with incentives like that?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

You spoze even liberals, who yes are led by the nose by the Maddow-Clinton fake news system, are a bit annoyed about illegal immigration, too?

tim in vermont said...

The problem with E-Verify is that Republicans want the cheap labor and Democrats want the votes. It’s overdetermined that it would be doomed. Even people who won’t directly hire illegals are more than happy to see downward pressure on wages for employees who have to compete with illegals directly.

Pookie Number 2 said...

You would rather bitch in high dudgeon about Trump's couth than actually get anything done.

That criticism of Chuck is spot on. Of course, Chuck himself is too dumb (or too venal, or both) to understand this, but the good news is that his constant bitching makes his “thoughts” (I know, I know) automatically-ignored background noise.

But the bad news is that power always implies the potential to corrupt, and the mindless self-delegitimization achieved by Chuck, CNN, and other water-carriers for the Democratic Party weakens one essential restraints on corruption.

tim in vermont said...

You guys make my point on religion. You not Christians, you Pagans lusting after the blood of children

Howard is recycling the old blood libel. I prefer Strumpit though, as a commenter. Strumpit at least shows some imagination.

tim in vermont said...

There are principled, unbigoted, conservatives who can articulate a measured message about immigration, reform and border security.

I don’t see where Trump is bigoted, and I don’t see anybody else standing up for unskilled labor that has to compete with illegals.

Michael McNeil said...

You guys make my point on religion. You not Christians, you Pagans lusting after the blood of children.

Ha ha. Oh, I'm sure Jesus (were he here during his original ministry, say) would be completely naive and unseeing (not!) about the kind of cynical manipulation that is presently leading to the deaths of children en route or while crossing the U.S.'s southern (desert) border.

But, as we know from Fen's law, the Democrats don't really believe their own propaganda either — they're just, in their typical Alinskian fashion, using the issue as a lever in an attempt to propagandistically force their opponents (us) to live up to what they think we believe.

tim in vermont said...

I think the current talk from the Democrats is about how they don't like the procedure for including funding in this bill and without more specific plans and cost projections.

A.K.A. a holding action. A hudna.

Gabriel said...

@Hagar:No wall necessary if the existing US laws against expending US welfare funds for supporting anyone not a citizen

Every green card-holder signed a document saying they would never become a public charge.

Every green card-holder is also required to have that card in their possession at all times and present that green card to any government official who asks to see it at any time. It is a crime for them not to.

Darkisland said...

Blogger Begonia said...

I was absolutely appalled at Trump's decision to separate children from their families at the border.

First, how do you know the children are being separated from their families at the border?

There are instances where the children are "rented" or borrowed or just picked up loose off the streets and have no relation to the so-called "parent".

Should these children be separated from the person claiming to be the parent? I certainly think so.

How do we determine that? Seems to me that the children should be separated long enough (a day or two max) to determine the relationship.

Then, if they are not blood relatives, the adult should be prosecuted for kidnapping, child abduction, child abuse and/or anything else that might apply. Efforts should be made to reunite the child with their parents.

If the adult is the parent (or at least guardian) they should be reunited and both should be held in custody together until asylum is granted or until they are deported. Not released to be lost.

I would be fine with a tent city for this.

I've been to Guatemala several times for work. Wonderful people, as long as you stay away from the one who want to murder you. I only met the first kind.

It is a beautiful country, I've enjoyed my time there.

But it is still a shithole. If I lived there I would be trying to leave too.

According to New Yorker magazine, in 2009, fewer civilians were reported killed in the war zone of Iraq than were shot, stabbed, or beaten to death in Guatemala, Wikipedia

Guatemala population 17mm, Iraq population 38mm

John Henry

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...

If that worked, people bringing a child to the border to get in would know that if the child died they'd not only be free of taking care of the child, they'd gain legal status. It's a terrible incentive to add to the already bad incentive.


Yes, of course, but note that you're thinking logically. The fact that incentives matter means those people who set the incentives (bring kids on the dangerous journey 'cause it'll make success in staying more likely) are partially responsible for the harm caused. That's logic, but that means that the Media coverage of Obama era policies and those policies themselves are partially to blame for the suffering and death of these children. We can't be allowed to believe that!

You frequently remind us to not forget that what really matters is how things FEEL, Professor. The coverage is designed to provoke an emotional response. Look at the kids in cages! Look at the families being separated! Look at the sad little faces, the poor poor people! Ignore the fact that most of the immigrants are young able-bodied men and ignore the fact that the motivation for immigration are personal and economic--think about the kids!

We have to use the standard of ugly. Is it ugly to point out the realities of the situation--that the parents and smugglers and corrupt officials in these nations are responsible for harm to children? If it's ugly to point that out then it won't be. The shift, then, is either in people finding it less ugly or people overcoming objections of it being ugly to notice.

It's important to figure out which is actually happening.

n.n said...

Republicans want the cheap labor and Democrats want the votes

Overlapping and converging interests. Although, Republicans don't seem overly concerned for votes, and Democrats want labor arbitrage, gerrymandered votes, redistributive change, and diversity politics.

Mike said...

You guys make my point on religion. You not Christians, you Pagans lusting after the blood of children.

Who is discussing religion here? We are debating government policy, the effect of laws and people’s reaction to them. This is Caesar’s area of responsibility not Christ’s. Maybe you're confused by your ignorance of Christ’s teachings, but He was big on what we call “personal responsibility” and treating our fellow humans with compassion. But government has a responsibility to protect the rule of law. It’s a blunt object not a tool of compassion. Learn the difference between the State and the citizen. Maybe you won’t come off as such an asshole.

tim in vermont said...

A "Trumpian" statement would have sounded nothing like any of those comments. A Trumpian statement would have been an ignorant rant about drugs and rapists and criminals.

What is deeply ignorant, or worse, plain stupid, is the idea that we can abandon controls of our borders and think that there will be zero rapist, drug runners, and other assorted criminals coming in. The whole point of immigration control is to sort through the entrants.

Change my mind.

Nonapod said...

I should think that Trump's actions would depress the use of children as human shields, but the exact opposite seems to be happening.

Well, that it seems to keep happening is pretty disturbing. Maybe the people doing this
imagine that there's some magic number of dead kids that will change the American public's opinion? But it seems pretty monstrous to basically kill children in an attempt to engender sympathy, and judging from the WaPo comment section, it seems like it's not really working.

If that worked, people bringing a child to the border to get in would know that if the child died they'd not only be free of taking care of the child, they'd gain legal status. It's a terrible incentive to add to the already bad incentive.

Exactly. I'm hopeful that people in these (evidently) ultra violent Central American murder states are capable of learning that dragging children to their doom isn't actually an effective tactic. But I have no idea if such information reaches the ears of people in those areas unfiltered or unpropagandize. Maybe they only recieve the equivalent of the contents of the WaPo article and not the content of the comment section?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The idea that if you step foot across the border, just like that, you and your entire family can BE here, can STAY here. Insanity that cannot be sustained.

tim in vermont said...

Blogger Mike said...

Who is discussing religion here? We are debating government policy, the effect of laws and people’s reaction to them.


You are talking either to a moron or a incompetent provocateur/troll. I am sure you know that. I always say though that weak trolls like Howard have the opposite of their intended effect, by not being able to counter arguments except with obvious appeals to uninformed emotion, they just strengthen the thinking they purport to oppose.

Darkisland said...

My son went with a medical mission to Guatemala 10-12 years ago. He was kidnapped and held hostage.

The group was in a van, somewhere out in the country and was passing through a village when they were stopped. They were taken out of the van and kept from proceeding. They were treated well, fed by the villagers and entertained so, other than not being free to leave, it was a pleasant experience.

The reason for the kidnapping was because there was a problem with the water supply that the govt would not fix. Apparently it is (was?) a practice to capture some tourists and hold them hostage until the govt agrees to fix the problem.

After about 10 hours they were allowed to leave.

What scared the shit out of me is that eventually someone in the govt will decide that the villages can't get away with this any more and go in shooting. Hostages always seem to get caught in the crossfire when this happens.

John Henry

Gabriel said...

@Hoodlum:How has mandatory E-Verify use not been a key Republican legislative goal?

E-Verify does not prevent the hiring of illegals, by design. E-Verify does not obligate an employer to fire an illegal, by design. By design, E-Verify does very little.

a) You may not ask about work eligibility before the time of hire. You must hire the person first before you use E-Verify. Consequently, it is perfectly legal for you to hire an illegal using E-Verify.

b) By design, E-Verify does not tell you that your employee is ineligible to work. So as an employer you do nothing illegal by keeping that employee regardless of what E=Verify comes back with. In fact, you have the legal right to keep that employee employed.

Why would a system be set up that way, unless it was intended to pretend to do something that it does not?

Shouting Thomas said...

Trump isn't inarticulate. He's blunt.

Blunt statements seem impossibly crude to those indoctrinated in the circumlocution of the Diversity mandate.

Which is to say, all of us.

daskol said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Next thing you know, Chuck and Nancy are going to find out that 99.9% of Americans agree that these countries are “shitholes” and that the ones who feigned outrage believe it the most.

Curious George said...

Ha this post made r/The_Donald

Darkisland said...

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Dulles' CIA coup in 1954. I often hear Guatemala's shitholery attributed to that and it is all the US fault. Were it not for that, Guatemala would be another Wisconsin.

Well, the coup didn't help. Neither did the way the US treated Guatemala before or since. But the truth is that Guatemala, like most all the Spanish colonies, has been a shithole for 500 years. It was a shithole before we got there, it will continue to be one and there is damn little we can do about it.

John Henry

daskol said...

tim in vermont said...

I don’t see where Trump is bigoted, and I don’t see anybody else standing up for unskilled labor that has to compete with illegals.


Before he ran for president and adopted the Dem Party immigration position, Bernie Sanders opposed illegal immigration on the grounds that it depressed already low wages for low-skilled labor in the US. Among socialists who advocate for the labor class such as union supporters, as opposed to identity politics progressives, this is the default perspective on immigration. There just aren't so many of them left now that the ethical standard for most leftists is based on intersectionalism and social justice equality rather than needs.

tim in vermont said...

Before he ran for president and adopted the Dem Party immigration position, Bernie Sanders opposed illegal immigration on the grounds that it depressed already low wages for low-skilled labor in the US. Among socialists who advocate for the labor class

Caesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration on the same grounds. Bernie was also very pro 2A and opposed ethanol. Vermont has the most 2A friendly gun laws in the US of A and you can get ethanol free gas in just about any town. I like that about this. state.

iowan2 said...

That criticism of Chuck is spot on. Of course, Chuck himself is too dumb (or too venal, or both) to understand this,

No this has gone on too long. He's getting paid to spout the narrative. This morning I did my self imposed penance and flipped on Morning Joe. His 7am monologue was almost identical to Chucks twaddle. Trump bad,Trump stupid, Trump crude. wa wa wa wa. The only people that complain about President Trump and the Shut Down, attack the Presidents style.Avoid framing the debate in real world terms, ie, The President attempting to secure the safety of the United States and enforcing laws already on the books vs. The status quo. Turning a blind eye to the lawlessness for cheap labor and new voters.(poor brown kids dying are acceptable collateral damage)

The only people fighting against President Trump, and border security, are those paid to do so. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Begonia said...

Nonapod, I can assure you that the people in Raxruha, Alta Verapaz, and Nenton, Huehuetenango are not getting their news via newspaper (online or in print), tv, or cable.

They do not have money for newspapers or tv. And only richest families might have solar panels for electricity and satellite dishes for TV. Besides, they don't speak Spanish very well because they speak in Kekchi, Chuj, or Popti.

The Guatemalan families we've seen on the news are from the remotest, most uneducated parts of Guatemala. It appears they are getting their news from rumors and talk.

In contrast, Honduran caravan seemed to be made up of people who were from cities, who were a bit more educated, and could read and spread news on facebook...but they also seemed to be completely oblivious to Trump's policy. It was clear from our perspective that there was no way that Trump would let them in, but when you read the interviews with the Hondurans, they seemed to think that a hope and a prayer would be enough.

By the way, when my husband was in Guatemala last month, he saw a group of Honduran migrants who were asking for donations to help them return to Honduras.

daskol said...

So then opposition to illegal immigration, and perhaps also to large-scale low-skilled immigration, is to be found across the political spectrum. That people across that spectrum are now expressing it is not so much a change of heart, but rather a result of the heartening effect of Trump's impact on what is considered acceptable vs. deviant discourse.

tim in vermont said...

Maybe the liberals who believe that we shouldn’t have borders should get up an invasion force, head down there and impose a working government and working economy on those guys. Watch the movie Bananas for inspiration. As for the rest of us, we were told that what goes on there is none of our business.

rwnutjob said...

But, but, but Trump!
"Abusive detention conditions are also a concern. Human Rights Watch released an analysis of the US government’s own investigations into the deaths of 18 immigrants in custody from 2012 to 2015, revealing dangerously substandard medical care in 16 cases, contributing to the deaths of seven people. Other organizations have documented similar problems in facilities across the country, indicating severely inadequate oversight over a detention system of 200-plus facilities, including privately run facilities and local jails."
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/united-states#

narciso said...

Right when ubico took in power in 36, when Estrada Cabrera did in the 19th century whose fault was that.

Mr Wibble said...

It's not that they want open borders, they just want no borders. Get it right.

It's the "citizen of the world" poison. The upper-middle class of the Western world have all merged culturally. A stock broker in NYC has more in common with an investment banker in London than he does with the mechanic in upstate NY. And so they think that since their class is all alike, that people everywhere are alike. Who cares if we import more poor Guatemalans? They're no different from our poor...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I hear obama has a 10' wall around his house.

Why? We are told by the hack press the the Schumer and the Pelosi that walls don't work.

tim in vermont said...

The stability of Republicans’ share of the Latino vote frustrates Democrats, who say actions like Trump’s family separation policy and his demonization of an immigrant caravan should drive Latinos out of the GOP.. - AP

Danno said...

A2- Reading these comments, I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016, when Trump was painted as a racist for saying the situation at the border had to change. I think, for all the press resistance to Trump's fight against illegal immigration, minds have changed.

Or the newspaper comments have been taken over by Putin and Russian bots! /sarc

Original Mike said...

Althouse said..."It seems that Democrats are no longer using the idea that it's racist and hateful to want to control immigration."

The democrats are claiming building the wall would be "immoral". Those aren't air quotes. That's what they are actually saying.

Democrat voters may be changing, I don't know. But if you are referring to the politicians, you are mistaken.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

why can't corrupt leftwing dictatorships in central and south America - work like socialist Ocasio-Cortez-Sanders magic?

tim in vermont said...

Human Rights Watch released an analysis of the US government’s own investigations into the deaths of 18 immigrants in custody from 2012 to 2015,

Why did Obama thirst for the blood of illegal immigrants?

tim in vermont said...

Democrat voters may be changing, I don't know.

Talk to the liberals you know in your own life, and you will see that Chuck and Nancy are pushing this stuff down from the top. It’s not coming from the grass roots unless that grass is astroturf.

Nonapod said...

@Mr Wibble. That, and generally they don't have to live with any negative consequences of the borderless world that they advocate since they're protected by their wealth. If you have plenty of money, you can just move to an elite enclave, you can provide your own private security, access to the best healthcare, and your children can afford the best education. The woes of the lumpenprole don't touch them, so they can safely moralize about how xenophobic and heartless it is to oppose unfettered migration.

Howard said...

John Henry, don't you earn a good living from US economic imperialism in Latin Shitholes?

daskol said...

These comments are why the NYT seldom allows comments on controversial issues: surfaces "deviancy" in their readership, for other readers to see.

Amadeus 48 said...

Interesting analysis, Althouse.
I have found that my liberal friends have a very hazy idea about what they think our immigration policy should be. They say it should be like Canada's policy without any idea what Canada's policy is (hint: Canada has much higher standards than the US for legal immigrants. It helps to be rich or well-educated or to have immediate family members--grandparents, parents or children but not siblings--living in Canada).
This guy was obviously an economic migrant who foolishly and unfortunately used his son as an entry ticket.
Maybe we should have an open border on the south so that all of Central and South America's poor can come here to depress wages and soak up resources. California has 12% of the US population and about one-third of US welfare recipients, so you can see how well we are doing with our current policies.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Pelosi is a walking astro-turf.

Crazy Jane said...

Begonia: Thank you for the context.

Gospace said...

After reading the post, it appears that Trumpian has an actual definition.

Trumpian (defn): Recognizing reality despite it's unpleasantness and/or implications.

Begonia said...

narciso--If you know Ubico and Estrada Cabrera then you know whose fault it was--the United Fruit Company. same old, same old. Can you think of any corporation that has had such a huge impact on the United States government? Imagine if a foreign government controlled the single railway, refused to pay fair share of taxes, and asked the government to bust its strikes. I think there is plenty of blame there for the current state of Guatemala.

But in answer to darkislandpr, i didn't bring up Dulles/CIA golpe because I didn't want to drag the conversation to that place. I'm more interested in why central american migrants seem to be ignoring the message that Trump is trying to send.

John said...

I'm surprised so many support the government restricting who a business owner can hire. If we have a problem with illegal immigration each employer should be able to choose to hire an American or not. Leave these choices up to the individual business and don't enforce a top down government solution to this problem.

This big government is the solution to every problem has to stop.

Laslo Spatula said...

I am open to looser immigration laws once every black American child lives in a home above the poverty line prior to any government assistance.

Harlem before Honduras, perhaps.

I am Laslo.

Martin said...

I don't think there has been such a change in culture since 2016--the polling always showed majorities in favor of strong border security as a precondition for discussion of immigration policy--how many to admit, how they are selected, etc. I think these comments show where even many liberals are coming from in the absence of politicians and ideologues framing the debate for them.

In part, Trump's 2016 performance reflected the GOP base finally realizing that the GOP establishment had been lying to them on this issue, and would continue to do so. That is a large part of why the GOP primaries boiled down to Trump vs. Cruz, all the others wanted open borders no matter what they said.

I take seriously Ben Shapiro's distinction between liberals and leftists. Liberals in the tradition of FDR and JFK are fine--we disagree on many things but we share a basic desire for what is best for the country, and we can negotiate.

The left, no. In Obama's phrase, they want to "fundamentally transform" the country, and you can see room for improvement but you don't want to "fundamentally transform" something you love.

Kevin said...

What are Nancy and Chuck saying?

“Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will not fund Trump's "immoral, ineffective and expensive wall."

If the wall is immoral, there is no way to fund it.

If the wall is immoral, the Dem’s position should be to tear down what’s already been built.

Martin said...

Re immigration in 2016--that's why Rubio never had a chance and Bush flamed out before he even launched.

johnhenry100 said...

Trumpit,

Very little of my income derives from Latin countries.

Less than 1-2% of my earnings over the past 10-20 years came from outside the US.

I'll accept work anywhere but I don't seek out non-us work.

I just spent 2 weeks in Costa Rica. It is certainly not a shithole. Kind of like Wisconsin with worse traffic.

John Henry

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"WHEN YOU DECIDE TO REMOVE THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN NATIONS, YOU DECIDE TO ALLOW COLLUSION IN ALL ITS MANY FORMS:"

Why is it OK for illegals to cross our border?

Why is it OK for Hillary to make money off Russians (in secret) and/or to even talk to the Russians? In the age of Trump, it is now illegal to talk to Russians. Why? Did the democratics make a new totalitarian law that we must submit to?

Amadeus 48 said...

"If the wall is immoral, the Dem’s position should be to tear down what’s already been built."

Being a Dem means never having to say you are sorry. They all voted to strengthen the border and end chain migration in 2013 when Obama was president. See S.744--Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Kevin said...

I believe Trump’s “suckers” line to the troops in Iraq was the beginning of his 2020 communications strategy.

He has to expand the thinking behind America First beyond his current base. To do that, he can tie his actions to righting the ways our generous and welcoming country has been taken advantage of for some time.

It works for trade agreements, NATO, the border, fighting endless wars and a host of other issues

Even the most generous among us don’t want to be played for fools.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Why does Meryl Streep have a wall around her home?

walter said...

"recalling his words. “It can’t be. Don’t abandon me here. "
The nerve of that kid.

CJinPA said...

No wall necessary if the existing US laws against expending US welfare funds for supporting anyone not a citizen of the US and prosecution of employers hiring anyone not legally entitled to employment in the US were enforced!

If we had the Will, we wouldn't need the Wall.

So, Will we have the Will, without which we Will need the Wall?

Will we Willfully Will to our children a wonderful Wall, wonks?

Gabriel said...

@CJinPA:If we had the Will, we wouldn't need the Wall.

There's no Wall because no Will.

Matthew Sablan said...

It is sad a child died. It is only natural to want to find out if it was avoidable. Where and when did he contract what killed him?

Matthew Sablan said...

Also. Kids in cages stopped shortly after we learned that was an Obama policy and that there were years of unreported abuse if children that did not see the light of day until Trump's administration cleaned house.

CJinPA said...

Bernie Sanders, on open borders, 2015:

It would make everybody in America poorer – you’re doing away with the concept of a nation-state, and I don't think there’s any country in the world that believes in that.

Within a year, he would abandon every stance outlined in that statement. Immigration politics is pretty much the only politics that matters these days.

Original Mike said...

"Before he ran for president and adopted the Dem Party immigration position, Bernie Sanders opposed illegal immigration on the grounds that it depressed already low wages for low-skilled labor in the US."

That actually argues that the base drives immigration policy, not the other way around.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

John: I'm surprised so many support the government restricting who a business owner can hire.

You know you're a beep-booping libertardian when you're surprised to discover that most people (including most conservatives!) aren't beep-booping libertardians.

Now, I assume you were trying to be ironic here, John, but it doesn't work because you're not engaging with any substantive immigration-restriction arguments, just the FAUX NEWS!-viewing conservative in your head.

Or maybe not. Lefty, libertardian - you come across as simple-minded enough to be either.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Honestly, I enjoyed reading this blog post and I appreciate your own editing that went into the post. But in calling those well-received WaPo comments as "Trumpian," I think you drew the exact wrong lesson from all of it.”

I believe it’s because some folks have a need to elevate everything Trump says and make it sound normal. Why, is the question. How does it reflect on the person doing it? Do those people who have turned themselves into Trump’s translators and apologists care what we non Trump Cultists think? I doubt any cult member cares about the outside world.

CJinPA said...

Gabriel said...

"There's no Wall because no Will."

True. As was noted, we COULD enforce our border without a wall, if we wanted to.

Gahrie said...

And get it right: It's not the NYT. It's the Washington Post.

But you're obsessed with the NYT and read it everyday..don't you?

From your beloved NYT, Dec 18 2018:

Their closing argument couldn’t have been clearer. Republicans were blaring racist statements and ominous images of immigrants, calling them murderers, rapists and invaders. They hoped these ads, run by Republican candidates up and down the ticket, would resonate with white Americans who would save their House majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/business/media/midterms-campaign-ads-trump.html?module=inline


Washington Times, Nov 13:

A stunning 61 percent of Democrats labeled Republicans as “racist/bigoted/sexist” when asked which words they would use to describe the other party,

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/13/democrats-label-republicans-racist-bigoted-sexist-/

Today:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/12/28/leftists-lose-their-collective-hivemind-over-report-gop-latino-numbers-shockingly-high-still-support-trump-707519

Richmond Register, Today:

President Obama's administration dealt with previous caravans quite successfully. Border agents processed the people seeking asylum from terror in their own countries, placed them with relatives or other hosts, and few problems ensued. In contrast, President Trump's detention camps, his separation of families, and the recent death of a seven-year-old girl have horrified the civilized world. Dehumanizing rhetoric and racism always foster tragedy.

https://www.richmondregister.com/opinion/brosi-and-powell-must-deal-with-immigration-properly/article_e3c59db1-0a4b-5831-a93a-3c1d8e2738b2.html

NYT, Dec 20, 2018:

For 50 years Republicans have battered the Democratic coalition, wielding the so-called southern strategy — built on racism and overlaid with opposition to immigration — to win control of the White House and one or both chambers of Congress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/opinion/trump-race-immigration-democrats.html

Huffington Post, Dec 26, 2018:

Donald Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do back when he kicked off his presidential campaign in 2015. In this, his second year of office, the president’s sick and deranged racist fantasies came to life through his xenophobic policies and the rise of his deportation force. And for immigrants, 2018 can be summed up in just one word: fear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-2018-trump-immigrants_us_5c1a76cee4b0ce5184b98729

Slate, Dec 26, 2018:

After embracing the Republican congressional agenda, Trump can’t run on building infrastructure and protecting retirement programs. But he still has racism. And another campaign of racial fear and resentment—against another Democrat trying to shore up their racial justice bona fides—sets up another election where white voters are polarized along their racial views.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/2020-democratic-primary-white-candidates-trump-racism.html

Vox, Dec. 27, 2018:

Anderson’s new book, along with her 2017 volume White Rage, shows how difficult it is to separate out our current political situation from the legacy of Jim Crow’s racial apartheid system. The Republican war on the fairness of American elections is, by its nature, a project that targets one of the core victories of the civil rights movement.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/27/18136625/2018-new-year-2019-scholars-experts

That was from a five minute internet search....


dda6ga dda6ga said...

"Bernie Sanders, on open borders, 2015:

It would make everybody in America poorer – you’re doing away with the concept of a nation-state, and I don't think there’s any country in the world that believes in that."

Frau Merkel has just stated: "Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”, according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.

Gabriel said...

@John:I'm surprised so many support the government restricting who a business owner can hire.

Are you okay with 6-year olds running lathes and convicted child molesters working in day cares? Is anyone? Then why are you surprised?

The government puts all kinds of constraints on who a business owner can hire and fire. Some make sense, some don't.

If you think hiring illegals is a great policy, then argue for it. It's already legal de facto because if you follow the law you cannot avoid hiring one since you can't ask before their hired.

So defend that position instead of one that no one actually takes, including you.

johnhenry100 said...

Quite right about United Fruit, Begonia. I alluded to them and others in my comment about us treatment before and after the coup.

So, did United Fruit make life worse for the average Guatemalan? Doesn't seem likely.

That's not a defense of UF, just recognizing that it was a shithole when they got there.

John Henry

CJinPA said...

If the wall is immoral, the Dem’s position should be to tear down what’s already been built.

I was thinking about this recently. If Trump loses re-election, or leaves after two terms, imagine the images of a Democrat administration tearing down whatever walls have been built, while at the same time trying to look like they care about preventing illegal entry. It will make for some fascinating footage.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I'm hopeful that people in these (evidently) ultra violent Central American murder states are capable of learning that dragging children to their doom isn't actually an effective tactic.

But it is an effective strategy. They are told by NGOs and local politicians where to go and what to say

They see news footage of hundreds of Guatemalans and Hondurans and their kids dumped out of detention because they were in detention too long.

They hear from family and friends who are living in the US (legally until they miss their asylum hearing) and getting jobs, schools, healthcare, etc.

I predict there will be even more coming for fear they will miss the opening.

The more talk about sealing the border and doing away with asylum for central Americans will cause even more people to come.

Build the dang wall.
--John McCain, hero to libs and cucks everywhere

Shouting Thomas said...

Do those people who have turned themselves into Trump’s translators and apologists care what we non Trump Cultists think?

I never have any difficult understanding Trump's blunt, straightforward statements.

You, however, are a jibbering idiot. Your thinking and writing are utterly stupid and useless. When you aren't deliberately lying for partisan advantage, you just talk stupid shit.

You're way too stupid to understand a straightforward, honest intellect like Trump's.

The problem here is that you are stupid and malicious. So, no, I am not particularly concerned with the thinking of an idiot like you.

John said...

most people (including most conservatives!) aren't beep-booping libertardians.

So, just to be clear, "most conservatives!" agree that American consumers can't be trusted to buy American so the government has to use its taxing (tariff) power to make their decisions for them. In the same way that American businesses can't be trusted to make the correct (in your mind) hiring decisions. In both cases, it's the duty of the government to make those decisions because the public and private business can't be trusted to do what's in the nation's best interest.

Gabriel said...

@John: In the same way that American businesses can't be trusted to make the correct (in your mind) hiring decisions.

6-year-olds running lathes, legal or no? Please answer.

Convicted child molesters working in day cares, legal or no? Please answer.

Gabriel said...

@John: It's not a choice between what we have, and libertopia as you picture it. It's a choice between one set of restrictions and a slightly different set.

I don't appreciate the straw-manning and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Unknown said...

Ha, Inga stopped by to complain that there aren't enough rapists and murderers in America and it's racist to not import a few hundred million more.

It's the only way to read her stubborn support of "no borders, nowhere!" Chuck is right on board the "no borders" train... he of the "I oppose open borders But....." and we all know that everything before the "but" is meaningless.

--Vance

John said...

6-year-olds running lathes, legal or no?

Legal. We should just let the free market work. I'm sure we can all agree that few (if any) consumers would buy a product from a company that uses child labor.

Gabriel said...

@John:Legal. We should just let the free market work. I'm sure we can all agree that few (if any) consumers would buy a product from a company that uses child labor.

Actually, since in China 6 year olds are running lathes and we're buying their stuff, then no I would say plenty of consumers are willing to which is why we have the law.

Now do the child molesters.

Jupiter said...

John said...

"So, just to be clear, "most conservatives!" agree that American consumers can't be trusted to buy American so the government has to use its taxing (tariff) power to make their decisions for them."

I don't speak for "most conservatives", but if the government uses its taxing power to make American businesses contribute to the costs of maintaining our economic infrastructure, why shouldn't it use its tariff power to make foreign businesses contribute? How is that different from a VAT?

CJinPA said...

US News & World Report on Trump's defense of nation-states before the UN in 2017:

Whether you accept or recoil from those positions, the foundation of all of them is a point Trump made in passing: that, as he put it, "the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition." That a head of state would make such an assertion to an organization of nation-states should seem hardly remarkable – *****except that this is, in fact, a subject of heated scholarly debate today***** and has somewhat surprisingly become the defining flashpoint of this moment in global history.

https://tinyurl.com/y7uu9we7

Note to Normals: What is considered standard for "scholarly debate" these days is considered utterly extreme among normal people. Trump has a way of bringing this to light. Other politicians opposed to the Left should try it.

Henry said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Also. Kids in cages stopped shortly after we learned that was an Obama policy and that there were years of unreported abuse if children that did not see the light of day until Trump's administration cleaned house.

That's just ... weird.

Back in 2014, the last time there was a surge in interdictions, the Obama administration did get heat for separating minor children from parents and they made up new regulations on the fly. The Trump administration could have learned from the Obama administration but chose not to. Instead they applied the exact same policy the Obama administration found indefensible. The Obama administration's 2016 decision to allow alternatives to detention was largely based on avoiding the moral and PR problems of separating minors from their parents.

It is telling that when Trump decided to apply his zero tolerance policy, ICE knew exactly what to do. They knew that playbook because they had run with it before. It is also telling that the Trump administration completely ignored the reasons why the policy was abandoned. What he does has been done before, and it fails for him too.

John said...

consumers are willing to which is why we have the law.

So you're saying consumers and business can't be trusted and we need the government to control what choices they make. I guess we're all statists now. So much for freedom and free enterprise.

Jersey Fled said...

I am sad that this young boy died.

I am also sad that tens of thousands of unborn children die each year at the hands of abortionists.

Pelosi and Schumer are only sad about one of those things.

Gabriel said...

@John:I guess we're all statists now.

Again libertopia is not on the table even for you. It's a choice between two sets of contraints, not constraints and no constraints.

You have conspicuously avoided the question of whether it should be legal for convicted child molesters to work in day cares. I assume you are a statist who rejects freedom and free enterprise until you explicitly affirm your support for the rights of convicted child molesters to work with children.

John said...

You have conspicuously avoided the question of whether it should be legal for convicted child molesters to work in day cares.

That should be up to the day care and the parents not the government. I can't imagine any parent sending their kids to a daycare that doesn't do a background check on the staff.

Gabriel said...

@John:That should be up to the day care and the parents not the government.

Okay then... I award you the True Scotsman prize for Purity in Libertarianism, 2nd Class.

I can't imagine any parent sending their kids to a daycare that doesn't do a background check on the staff.

You can't imagine poor parents. They do this all the time. They have their children cared for outside the system of licensed and legal day care. I am personally acquainted with children molested as a result.

Now I understand that compliance with the law raises the cost of day care for everyone and that hurts the poor the most. I understand that the law doesn't guarantee molester-free day care either. I also understand why these trade-offs exist and why people still generally support these laws. It's not because they are statists who hate free enterprise. It's because they don't live in Libertopia, and it never existed. If it did exist I'd be delighted to try it out. But I'm afraid it won't without a New Libertarian Man to populate it. True Scotsmen would do in a pinch I suppose.

CJinPA said...

That should be up to the day care and the parents not the government. I can't imagine any parent sending their kids to a daycare that doesn't do a background check on the staff.

I remember when I used to make these arguments. I'd read Reason.com and find myself online arguing that we didn't need the FDA because companies that killed enough people with tainted food would drive away customers and would have a profit motive to not kill people.

It's a useful academic exercise, but also a luxury we don't have time for anymore. We have serious threats to capitalism and the Republic that require serious ideas.

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
Ha, Inga stopped by to complain that there aren't enough rapists and murderers in America and it's racist to not import a few hundred million more.

It's the only way to read her stubborn support of "no borders, nowhere!" Chuck is right on board the "no borders" train... he of the "I oppose open borders But....." and we all know that everything before the "but" is meaningless.

--Vance


Fuck off, Vance. Don't tell these people -- and don't try to tell me -- what I believe, and that I a for "open borders." I'm not. I favor a very broad range of tough immigration enforcement, and border protection measures. You're just a stupid fucking liar when you tell other people what you think my position is. Because you're wrong. And before you were wrong, you didn't even bother to ask me what my position was.

I didn't post here to get into one of your idiotic arguments, Vance. I posted to comment directly to Althouse. And I am not going to engage with someone like you who won't listen and who won't accept what my position is before even engaging in debate. Vance, you're not worth it.

And this is not just what I hate about Trump and Trumpism; it is what I hate about some of you Trump supporters. See you in court.

I oppose any and all things that sound like, or encourage in any way, "open borders."

Yancey Ward said...

Iowan2 at 8:58 a.m. CST:

Well explained, and I agree 100%.

I don't know if Trump will fight this particular battle to the end, but he is more likely to do so than any other president for all the reasons you gave.

Gabriel said...

@CJinPa:I'd read Reason.com and find myself online arguing that we didn't need the FDA because companies that killed enough people with tainted food would drive away customers and would have a profit motive to not kill people.

I still make these arguments, when the risk assessment math works out right. I'm not worried about unlicensed taxis such as Uber and Lyft. I'm much more worried about unlicensed neurosurgery.

It's not just a question of free vs unfree. It (free) times (probability of unanticipated harm) times (extent of harm) vs (unfree) times (probability of unanticipated harm) times (extent of harm) times (cost of compliance).


tim in vermont said...

"So, just to be clear, "most conservatives!" agree that American consumers can't be trusted to buy American so the government has to use its taxing (tariff) power to make their decisions for them."

Libertarianism really is a suicide pact.

Original Mike said...

John's not a libertarian. He's an idiot.

Gabriel said...

@tim in vermont:Libertarianism really is a suicide pact

More like an opiate. Used judiciously can do great good. Concentrating it and injecting it is pretty likely to kill you.

John said...

Question about Trump and Republicans. Have they introduced legislation to strictly enforce e-verify with severe penalties for employers who are found employing illegals? If not then the wall is just distracting propaganda, isn't it?

The Wall is just a way to distract the rabble why the donor class uses illegals to keep waged low.

tim in vermont said...

Do those people who have turned themselves into Trump’s translators and apologists care what we non Trump Cultists think

Since we are bombarded with the thoughts of the cult of Trump hatred just about 24x7 in everything from awards shows to sports broadcasts to sitcoms, I think it’s pretty clear that what really upsets the cult of Trump hatred is the existence of heretics who don’t conform to the One True Faith.

John said...

And Mike is obviously a "big government is the answer" statistic. The public can't be trusted and their government betters need to make their decisions for them.

Gabriel said...

@John:Have they introduced legislation to strictly enforce e-verify with severe penalties for employers who are found employing illegals?

It is not illegal for employers to hire illegals using E-Verify. It IS illegal to use E-Verify to refuse to hire an illegal.

You've created a straw-man E-Verify that does not exist. And I have learned that you have never used E-Verify to employ anyone. And now everyone here knows that too, and can judge your arguments accordingly.

tim in vermont said...

Question about Trump and Republicans. Have they introduced legislation to strictly enforce e-verify with severe penalties for employers who are found employing illegals? If not then the wall is just distracting propaganda, isn't it?

The Wall is just a way to distract the rabble why the donor class uses illegals to keep waged low.


I think that you will find that same comment above. The Republicans want the cheap labor, the Democrats want the votes, and the libertarians want to polish their knobs with good-think. It’s overdetermined.

Shouting Thomas said...

I oppose any and all things that sound like, or encourage in any way, "open borders."

And, yet, by some strange magic, all the policy positions you endorse ultimately result in "open borders."

Gabriel said...

@John: Have you ever actually legally employed anyone in your life?

It's a yes or no question...

Original Mike said...

No, I consider myself libertarian. We are in the straits we are in because the government has way too much power. You give people like me a bad name.

Gabriel said...

@john:The Wall is just a way to distract the rabble why the donor class uses illegals to keep waged low.

The comments here are pretty universally in agreement with this anyway. Where they differ from you is if that is how things SHOULD be.

CJinPA said...

Gabriel said...

Agreed. I do believe in questioning the government's role and every attempt to expand it. I also lament the time and political/ideological capital lost pursuing the Libertarian Utopia. When Socialism is in ascent, we need a unified, reality-based opposition.

walter said...

The "translators" reside on the Left with their selective quoting, "dog whistle" interpretations and language manipulations in an attempt at thought control.

John said...

Legally? Why should I let the government make my hiring decisions for me? I hired the best person (per $) for the job that I could find.

CJinPA said...

@john:The Wall is just a way to distract the rabble why the donor class uses illegals to keep waged low.

Isn't it drawing attention to that very problem?

Gabriel said...

@CJinPA:I also lament the time and political/ideological capital lost pursuing the Libertarian Utopia

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Me, I'm more about Chesterton's Fence. I don't go around putting fences up, nor do I tear them down without trying to understand why they are there. That makes me libertarian to all but the True Scotsmen.

John said...

We are in the straits we are in because the government has way too much power.

And your solution is to give it even more power? What sense does that make?

Paco Wové said...

"The Wall is just a way to distract the rabble why the donor class uses illegals to keep waged low."

That's a reasonable hypothesis. It is almost certainly true of most Republicans in national office, perhaps minus Trump and a few others – and it may be true of all of them.

Gabriel said...

@John: I hired the best person (per $) for the job that I could find.

So you broke the law, having never even attempted to comply with it. Noted.

So you are hardly in a position to argue what the law should be, since you don't know what it is nor do you follow it.

Others will judge your arguments with this in mind.

Original Mike said...

"And your solution is to give it even more power?"

No, it most certainly is not.

tim in vermont said...

Isn't it drawing attention to that very problem?

Don’t let the facts get in the way! John is on a rant!

John said...

Isn't it drawing attention to that very problem?

In a way specifically designed to divert the attention of low information voters away from the real solution to the problem. It's a way of pretending to do something so the actual thing can continue unmolested.

Gabriel said...

@john:And your solution is to give it even more power?

It already has that power. It uses it capriciously.

R.J. Chatt said...

If by "Trumpian" you mean employing common sense, then yes.

Gabriel said...

@John:n a way specifically designed to divert the attention of low information voters away from the real solution to the problem.

But you deny that there is a problem. Your solution to the problem of two many murders is to legalize murder. That's not what people mean when they say there should be fewer murders.

You yourself break this law, you have admitted to it. You have no skin in this game, you flout the law when you care to and so far you've got away with it. You've kept the benefits of breaking the law to yourself and socialized the consequences of your law-breaking. Not very libertarian either.

Paco Wové said...

"the real solution to the problem"

Don't keep us all in suspense, John.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 334   Newer› Newest»