Category Archives: Law

In His SOTU, 2019, President Trump Walks Back Promise To Reduce Legal Immigration

Donald Trump, Elections, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Law, Welfare

During their two years without serious political opposition, the Republicans floated  “The RAISE (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment) Act.”

The Act was not exactly negotiated for with great vigor during the Republican dominance on Capitol Hill, from 2017 till 2019.

Still, in his 2019 State of the Union Address, President Trump managed to renege on the promises briefly made in the neglected RAISE Act.

Back in 2017, Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies had motivated passionately for RAISE:

Seventy percent of legal immigrants enter the US based on family reunification visas, with no consideration given to their skills and education or the needs of the US economy. Legal immigration at current levels suppresses American wages, especially at the bottom rungs of the labor market. Most legal immigrants enter the US on family visas. RAISE would have slashed the family reunification immigration by 50 percent, from 11 million people every decade to 5 or 6 million, still enormous numbers. Fully half of the legal intake into the US is lacking in skills and constitutes a fiscal drain; roughly 50% of the legal flow enters the US with less than a high-school education. Again, a fiscal drain. The same proportion of households headed by immigrants access one of more the major welfare programs. Help out the poor and let the american taxpayer breathe. … The poor are very poor. You give them a raise by lowering the levels of legal immigration.

Who’s Going To Chase MS-13 Killers Like Jeff Sessions Did?

Crime, Donald Trump, Family, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Nationhood

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions did the job nobody is doing on immigration, and nobody WILL likely do on immigration. Just you wait and see.

What’s past is prologue, said one wise wag.

Immigration is the issue most important to The People, even if The People (followers that they are) don’t know it. Period. Full stop. End of story.

We Deplorables will be getting close to nothing now on immigration, except pep-talks at rallies and some meager fence footage. There will be no bills proposing e-verify, a moratorium on the legal intake of 1 million per annum; no end to catch-and release and the (very extended) family reunification insanity; and no halt to the glut of tech visas—NOTHING.

Sessions was getting the job done. Check out the PBS program on how the “terrible Sessions” was energetically jailing and exiling MS13 teens. He was also separating kids from their unfit parents at the border, as he needed to do by law and for deterrence. Nobody is doing that now.

Via a disapproving PBS:

Last year, Sessions directed officials to pursue all possible charges against MS-13 members, including racketeering, gun and tax law violations. He also designated the gang as a “priority” to a multiagency task force that has historically focused on drug trafficking and money laundering, which he called a “powerful weapon to use against this vicious gang.”

Documentary, The Gang Crackdown,” about the “horrors” Sessions visited on Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13:

UPDATED (3/14): Tucker Suggests That POTUS Has Not YET Delivered On Equality And Freedom For Deplorables

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Elections, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Law, Republicans, Technology

Will his Republican viewers punish Tucker Carlson for his brutal, journalistic honesty, rather unusual on Fox News?

The remarkable Tucker suggested that POTUS has done precious little to stop the intimidation, firing, hounding, de-platforming, doxing, and marginalizing of those who do not follow the herd.

(I was shadow-banned by Twitter. I think I still am, as my hashtags go nowhere, mostly. Nobody stood up for me …)

Tucker Carlson asked Trump voters Wednesday to assess whether or not they feel more confident to express their beliefs since the president was elected.

Carlson said that whether or not President Trump is able to build a wall or effect infrastructure legislation, how the president handles the attempted suppression of free speech may be more important.

He said that conventionally conservative beliefs in the years leading up to Trump’s election are now described as “terrorism,” while actual terror by the left seems to go unnoticed.

Among other examples, he noted a former community college professor who in 2017 allegedly hit Trump supporters with a bike lock during a “free the speech” rally.

Charges were dropped against the professor, Eric Clanton, although he was initially charged with a felony.

Carlson then asked viewers to imagine how former President Barack Obama would have responded if similar incidents happened to his voters while he was in office.

Hume: Press ‘Fact Checking’ in Trump Era Becoming a ‘Matter of Opinion’

Spicer Blasts Dems: If We Called Wall the ‘Schumer Border Security Bill’ They’d Pass It

“You think Obama would have done something about that? Hell yes. … You would never get away with threatening an Obama voter for supporting Obama,” he said.

He said that society is becoming “less free,” something the current administration should fight back against.

“Fighting for speech is always the right fight,” Carlson stated.

Ahead of the 2020 election, Carlson added that Trump can exercise his executive powers to defend the Bill of Rights.

He said that if Trump can credibly say in two years that he fought to make sure all Americans are treated equally under the law, he’ll be remembered as a “genuinely great president.”


SEE: “Tucker: Trump Will Be Remembered as ‘Genuinely Great’ If He Fights for Free Speech.”

On the Unz Review, Fred Reed, long since ousted from establishment conservatism, independently (and less diplomatically) seconds Tucker’s thinking:

Curiously, despite the seething antipathy, Trump hasn’t done much that would not have been expected from any Republican. He engineered large tax breaks for the rich, reversed environmental regulations to benefit corporations, and growled about immigration while doing little. He is firmly in Israeli pockets, as any Republican would be. He appointed Bret Kavanaugh, a mildly conservative judge, to the Mini-Legislature of the Nine Cadavers. Whoopee do.

UPDATE (3/14/019):  On being “shadow-banned, follower-throttled, and sensitive content-blocked because the Twitter police don’t want your tweets seen.” (Check)

Comments Off on UPDATED (3/14): Tucker Suggests That POTUS Has Not YET Delivered On Equality And Freedom For Deplorables

Written by on

NEW COLUMN: Wage Walls, Not Wars

Abortion, Addiction, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Law, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The West, War, War on Drugs

NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” This “Big League Politics” Interview about paleolibertarianism is now on WND and the Unz Review.

Excerpt:

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?

ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. libertarianism is concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. It means that libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarian and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.

As to paleolibertarianism, in particular, and this is my take, so some will disagree. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression principle, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. It won’t endure.

Ironically, paleoconservatives have no issue grasping the cultural and civilizational dimensions of ordered liberty—namely that the libertarian non-aggression principle is peculiar to the West and won’t survive once western civilization is no more. Which is why, for paleoconservatives, immigration restrictionism is a no-brainer.

By the way, the statement is not meant to be culturally chauvinistic. There are indigenous tribal people (say, in Brazil) who’re peaceful and pastoral. I mourn their culture’s near-extinction, as well.  Where such extinction has been brought about by the West’s chauvinism—it must be condemned.

In any event, paleoconservatives would typically grasp that libertarian principles would not endure in certain cultures. Libertarians, on the other hand, have had a hard time linking civilizational issues with the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. What do I mean? Libertarians will chant, “Free markets, free minds, the free movement of people.” Let’s have ‘em all.

They don’t always explain how these principles are to endure once Western societies are overrun by individuals from cultures which don’t uphold these principles. (From the fact that our own societies are turning out liberty hating individuals—it doesn’t follow we should import more.)

On the other hand, paleoconservatives are far less focused on the state as an evil actor and often appear more concerned with culture wars: gay marriage, cannabis, pornography, abortion. The paleolibertarian rejects any attempts by the state to legislate around the issues of:

Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.

Gay marriage: Solemnize your marriage in private churches, please.

Drugs: Legalize them and stop the hemispheric Drug War.

Wage walls, not wars.

As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you.  If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—he or she is no paleolibertarian. (Tucker Carlson is a fabulous paleoconservative.)

Both variants are for small government and big society. Again, more so than the paleoconservative, the paleolibertarian is radical in his anti-state position, sometimes even advocating a stateless society.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: In what ways does your political thought differ from CATO institute libertarianism? …

…  READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” The interview is now on WND and the Unz Review. It was conducted by correspondent Seth Segal for Big League Politics. A version was published on Nov. 23, 2018.