Tag Archives: Immigration

Stumper: Should Trump Mention His Most Popular Issue? by Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter advises President Trump to stick with the horse that got him here. From Coulter at anncoulter.com:

 
STUMPER: SHOULD TRUMP MENTION HIS MOST POPULAR ISSUE?
 

In 2015, Donald J. Trump decided he was going to run for president on popular ideas. This was a stunning, historic breakthrough in American politics. He made his announcement in a speech talking about Mexican rapists, pledging to deport illegal aliens and build a wall. And the rest is history.

I’m thinking he should try it again this Thursday night.

Recall that Trump’s famous escalator speech provided any number of possible campaign themes:

Bomb ISIS!

Take their oil!

Protect our veterans!

Bring our jobs home!

Repeal Common Core!

Repeal Obamacare!

Protect the Second Amendment!

Make China pay!

Concealed carry!

But that’s not what the crowds chanted. They certainly weren’t chanting “Reform Social Security!” or “Protect Ukraine’s national sovereignty!” No, the slogan that inspired a million T-shirts, chalk etchings, replicas and hashtags was: Build the wall!

Month after month, at every rally, whenever Trump mentioned the wall, the crowds went wild. It was Trump’s one surefire standing ovation, his “Free Bird” at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. Even before Trump would take the stage, his supporters would start the chant: “BUILD THE WALL!”

Before the 2016 Iowa caucuses, Daily Beast columnist Michael Moynihan tweeted: “Talked to lots of Trump supporters in Iowa. When I pointed out he wasn’t a conservative, all had same answer: ‘So? The wall!’”

Naturally, the media reacted as if Trump had called for gas chambers. But that just made him look like a brave truth-teller. The media furrowed their brows and explained that Trump was “riding a wave of anger against Washington.” He was appealing to “this very visceral, very angry populist working-class blue-collar worker.”

So it was furious boiling anger. On the other hand, if it was just trash talk the voters yearned for, why did New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie sink like a rock?

Political analysts kept droning on and on about Trump’s mysterious appeal, but in all their prolix analyses, I can’t find a single one saying, BOY, WERE WE WRONG ABOUT IMMIGRATION!

Continue reading→

European Immigration: Nuns Out, Terrorists In, by Douglas Murray

You can tell a lot about a country’s political elite by who they let in the country. From Douglas Murray at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • When the same Home Office that forbade Sister Ban even to enter the country discovered that the young male Iraqi was in Britain, he explained clearly that he had been trained by ISIS. He told the Home Office officials that the group had trained him to kill. The Home Office promptly found him a place to live and study, and treated him as the minor he said he was but most likely was not. He subsequently told a teacher that he had “a duty to hate Britain”.
  • Last year the Institute of St Anselm (a Catholic training institute for priests and nuns, based in Kent) closed its doors because of problems it had getting the Home Office to grant visa applications for foreign students. One nun last year was apparently denied entry to the UK because she did not have a personal bank account.
  • So, those who flee ISIS are turned away, while those who are trained by ISIS are welcome.

The behaviour of government departments in charge of immigration and asylum across Europe repeatedly demonstrate the truth of the late Robert Conquest’s maxim — his “third law of politics” — that the simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation “is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies”.

Last week it was reported in the Catholic Herald that a nun who was driven out of the town of Qaraqosh, on the Nineveh plains in Iraq, has been forbidden to visit her ill sister in the United Kingdom. Sister Ban Madleen was among those Christians who were forced to flee the largest Christian town in the area when ISIS entered it in 2014. She was among the thousands of Christians who fled the approaching jihadists and found refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan. There, she set up kindergartens to look after the children of other refugees who had also sought sanctuary in the Kurdish areas. A letter, seen by the Catholic Herald, from the UK Visa and Immigration division at the UK Home Office, stated that Sister Ban had not given evidence of her earnings as a kindergarten principal or shown enough evidence that her order of nuns would fund her visit.

To continue reading: European Immigration: Nuns Out, Terrorists In

He Said That? 11/21/14

From President Obama, in a video posted Wednesday on Facebook:

What I’m going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system better, even as I continue to work with Congress and encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141120/us-obama-immigration-2e70f2e672.html

The president’s conception of “lawful authority,” as we’ve seen with multiple revisions of the Affordable Care Act, is he can amend duly passed laws any way he sees fit, and can choose to enforce or not enforce laws as he likes. The purported justification for not enforcing current immigration law is “prosecutorial discretion,” a sweeping expansion of the doctrine that the enforcement arm of the government may make decisions about where to use scarce resources. Not that Obama is worried about what will happen when he gets out of office (a concern that he might not leave office come January 2017 is not entirely unjustified), but Kimberly Strassel had a not altogether facetious take on what a Republican president might do with the Obama doctrine in today’s Wall Street Journal (“The Next Prez and the Obama Way”). The rest of us are wondering: if the president can choose which laws to enforce, can we choose which laws to obey?