Wednesday, January 10, 2018

January 10, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

DACA, Immigration and “The Art of the Deal”


This morning I had planned to discuss capital punishment: I have two excellent articles recently published by my friend Dr. Jack Kerwick, and, in addition to linking to them and using them as the basis for my column, I had hoped to get into some deeper issues surrounding capital punishment and the collapse of most Christian churches and the perversion of their teaching on the subject.

But yesterday the debate over DACA intervened once again, and off-hand statements made by President Trump at the joint meeting of leading Republican and Democrat solons intended to work on coming up not only with a “solution” to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) question but also fulfilling the promise of a completed border wall, have caused quite a stir. Indeed, it was what the president said—that is, his apparent lack of precision—that elicited some major questions of concern from immigration patriots.

Admittedly, the president is a master negotiator; his best-selling The Art of the Deal testifies to that. And it was clear that opening the bi-partisan meeting to prying television cameras for over forty-five minutes and then getting leading Democrats on the record regarding illegal immigration and their proposals were significant steps in securing a more honest treatment of the meeting by the mainstream media.

So far, so good.

But then came statements that neither Rush Limbaugh nor Tucker Carlson nor other opponents of open borders could satisfactorily answer. The president, when asked by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) if he would support a “clean DACA bill,” and then a “comprehensive reform of the immigration system,” responded in the affirmative. And then later he added that he would “support whatever the joint committee came up with.”  Of course, this was just after he had restated his opening gambit: in return for a “normalization” of those under the DACA executive order, that the Democrats (and Republicans) would agree to: (1)  the building of  the promised border wall and greatly enhanced border security; (2) the end of chain migration; (3) the end of the immigration lottery system (and replacement by a merit-based system); and (4) the cutting of annual legal immigration by 50%, from approximately 1.1 million per year to 550,00 new entrants—this basically in line with the legislation proposed by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) []

Later the White House attempted to offer clarifications. Apparently, support for a “clean DACA” bill, when the president spoke, would include the four other elements in a “compromise.” But, still, even with such precisions, the impression left was both confusing—and troubling—to immigration patriots.

A major—one might say the major—cornerstone of Donald Trump’s election campaign and his program to “make American great again,” was stemming, if not halting illegal immigration, of building that “big, beautiful border wall,” of ending chain migration, of reducing legal immigration, and ending the visa lottery in favor of a merit-based system. I would argue that it was the issue that really distinguished him from all the other GOP candidates in 2015 and 2016…and it was the issue that elicited the fiercest attacks from his enemies, from Democrats Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to Republican Open Borders cheer-leaders Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake.

Yet, here was President Trump—the man who above all and in contradistinction to all had championed an “America First” solution to illegal immigration—declaring:

“I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with. I am very much reliant on the people in this room. I know most of the people on both sides, have a lot of respect for the people on both sides, and what I approve is going to be very much reliant on what the people in this room come to me with.” []

“I am very much reliant on people in this room…?” And that includes not only the Democrats like Feinstein and Steny Hoyer, but the likes of Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake. In fact, the ebullient Senator Graham could hardly contain his glee. It seemed like the first time since the ill-fated “Gang of Eight”—in which Graham played a significant role—the possibility of amnesty (disguised always as “comprehensive immigration reform”) might come to fruition.

Indeed, Senator Flake, that unrelenting GOP supporter of open borders and bitter NeverTrumper, had already let the cat out of the bag; the GOP immigration lobby would undercut and sabotage the original Trump “America First” immigration proposals.

“In a post on Twitter, Flake reiterated that the Republican establishment is not by any means on the side of Trump when it comes to negotiating with Democrats on the DACA issue. Flake, who has been a longtime advocate for a never-ending flow of cheap, foreign labor to the U.S., was brought into DACA discussions with Trump by Vice President Mike Pence, an ally of the pro-mass immigration and GOP mega-donors, the Koch brothers…. Flake’s role in the DACA discussions with the White House was increased when Vice President Pence invited him and other pro-amnesty Senators to meet with Trump in order to lobby the administration to cave to the big business lobby, which wants an expansive amnesty in which DACA illegal aliens are given work permits so that wages can be kept stagnant, rather than rising for Americans.” []

In the debate over DACA and immigration in general, the object of the Democrats is and has been clear from the beginning: they desperately want and need new, “replacement” voters to take the place of disaffected native, white Americans who have become disenchanted with their positions and policies. And, given that the birthrate of immigrants—especially those from Latin American—is much greater than that of white Americans, immigration and the importation of new future citizens and the ethnic transformation of this country are seen as the major means of securing eventual and complete political dominance and control.

Just this past Monday, January 8, the Center for American Progress, a major Democratic think tank, circulated a memo (obtained by The Daily Caller), signed by former Hillary Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, calling those immigrants brought here at an early age—the “Dreamers”—essential to the party’s future:

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success….If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond…. In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.” []

These, then, are the groups and individuals, the Congressional solons and minions of the Open Borders lobby and of the Chamber of Commerce that the president is depending on to “fix” DACA and the immigration crisis? One group, representing the big agri-business donors to the Republican Party for whom a steady stream of low wage illegals is important (and whose “concern” about the social and cultural ramifications of such policies pales in significance to the “bottom line”); and another group, expressing tearful streams on behalf of the “human rights” of illegals while licking their chops at the prospect of millions of “replacement” voters and a future and total Democratic (and Leftist) political hegemony.

It was enough to set Tucker Carlson off on perhaps his most significant opening monologue in months—a warning broadside to the White House that it was the “immigration issue that brought you to the White House,” and that going back on this would spell tremendous problems in the base, among those grassroots “deplorable” voters who voted for Donald Trump. The YouTube video of the monologue is striking and should be forwarded on to friends and our Congressional representatives in Washington. [ ]
While by no means attacking the president, Carlson’s commentary represents the justified concerns of millions who not only reject the kind of Open Borders/amnesty approach of the Democrats, but just as much, the big-business, corporatist cultural treason sell-out propounded by the likes of a Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) or Jeff Flake.

Let’s be clear: DACA was an arguably unconstitutional exercise of presidential power by Obama in the first place. Despite all the genuine concern for the “human rights” and the special conditions of the anywhere from 1 to 3.5 illegals shielded from deportation who were brought here as children, our country is supposedly a nation of laws, and those laws must be respected and enforced if the nation shall survive. It is one thing, indeed, to inform those here illegally—that is, here unlawfully—that if they want to come here permanently, then they must follow our laws, and get in line like anyone else desirous of entry. It is something altogether different, something that repels and offends common sense and justice, to simply wave some sort of magic wand, and by fiat announce that those illegals get precedence and express treatment over everyone else who has been playing, patiently, by the rules for years.

That is what Donald Trump said repeatedly during the 2016 campaign, and that it is the belief of Trump supporters—and of a majority of Americans by polls recently taken. A large majority of American citizens oppose “chain migration” (57% to 30%). An even larger majority oppose the visa lottery (60% to 29%) and insist that ANY form of legalization of status for younger immigrants must include the strict application of E-verify rules (57% to 23%). [ ]

Back on November 20, 2017, in the MY CORNER column I penned that day [ ], I wrote the following:

“Every nation, every society, I believe, has a God-given right to its history, its cultural integrity, and the richness of its own past. Certainly, over the centuries our nation, like most others in the world, has received and will continue to receive immigrants—new arrivals. Sometimes those immigrants will come in waves, as for example the influx of Irish prior to the War Between the States, or the Scandinavians late in the 19th century. The key has always been the ability to assimilate—especially given the backgrounds and ethnicity of the new arrivals—and the willingness of the newcomers to integrate into what has been called “the melting pot,” to share our historic beliefs and values, that is, to want be “Americans.”

“The most recent mass influx largely from below the border has placed this template in serious jeopardy. Entire communities and neighborhoods in California, for example, are now unrecognizable, and resemble and could well be any town in Morelos or Jalisco states in Mexico, except that they retain the older infrastructures (e.g., roads and transportation, government support systems, etc.) that were built and put in place by earlier non-Latino leaders (and are now under severe duress with the new immigrants). 

“But the culture has changed and is changing, and, as never before there is a marked resistance to actual assimilation from a large proportion of the newcomers.  And this resistance and unwillingness to assimilate is abetted and encouraged by many American political leaders and by those in academia and the media, who partake in various ways in the cultural Marxist narrative that posits that historic white peoples and the civilization they created are, by definition, oppressive and evil, and thus, must be brought down and destroyed. Many—certainly not all—Latino immigrants have, thus, become pawns, if not willing participants, in this effort.

“Every people, every nation, has a natural right to its historic culture, its history and a usable past, to its language and richness of a national (and regional) literature. Every people, every historic country, has a right to its land and to protect its borders from unwanted incursions from “outsiders.” Unlike the insane “open borders” theology that now runs rampant through much of current Christian “teaching” on this topic, nations are like families in macrocosm. Just as the family, father-mother-and-children, has the right in natural law to reject entry of any unwanted outsider and to preserve its integrity and safety, so analogously the nation—a collection of families united in their history and traditions, beliefs, customs, language—has a natural right to prevent entry of those it deems a threat, unmalleable or incapable of integration, economically, socially, and, yes, culturally.

“This is how the broader debate over immigration should be focused. It is not “racist” or “xenophobic” to believe in and to defend your own historic culture and your traditions. It is not “hateful” to believe that those citizens who have lived here and contributed historically through their labor and multiple contributions to the well-being of the country (including through taxes and participation in the public life of the community) should have—must have—first crack, the first opportunity, to fill positions and jobs when they become available. It is not a sign of “white supremacy” when our citizens insist on using our historic English language in business and commerce, and in our schools and education. And protecting our borders—really protecting them, unlike the palpable hypocrisy of a [Senator] Thom Tillis—with a wall and with stepped up enforcement and sending back illegals, who by the very definition “illegal” have broken our laws, is not an example of “bigotry” or “nativism”.”

This is the message that Donald Trump conveyed in 2016, the message that got him elected, and it my hope and prayer that it is the message that he will continue to champion as the nation debates DACA and illegal immigration and he applies his famed “art of the deal.”

No comments:

Post a Comment

                                                         April 30, 2021   MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey   The Survival of Western Culture...