My Rebuttal to: Trump’s Multi-Front War That Spooks Oil Markets

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

17 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Hate to break it to you, you may wish to open your eyes to reality.  "Your papers please" has been true since the introduction of the drivers license over 100 years ago.  Age limits for buying Tobacco/spirits etc etc etc. 

 

Only if driving or buying alcohol.  Even while driving they are not allowed to pull you over just to check to see if you have a license. They are supposed to have a cause.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Just now, Enthalpic said:

Only if driving or buying alcohol.  Even while driving they are not allowed to pull you over just to check to see if you have a license. They are supposed to have a cause.

Have you been paying attention to the multi decadal practice of drunk stops...

Yes, I think they are wrong, violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Should be stopped.  Then again, look at our current batch of media/lefties; the "lovelies" assume guilt and you have to prove innocence; meanwhile they have been slandering someones good name for weeks. 

USA is devolving into a police state.  Tyranny always trends in a single direction(MORE) until a massive war happens and most all the bureaucrats get permanent leave and reassigned to civilian sector

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, Wastral said:

Have you been paying attention to the multi decadal practice of drunk stops...

Yes, I think they are wrong, violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Should be stopped.

Yes, impaired driving "Checkpoints" are illegal and should be stopped.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Mr. Oil-engineer has posted a Red-arrow downvote on my own post on the matter of status of visitors to the USA.  He is invited to post his own articulations here responsively.  Putting on red-arrow downvotes just because the content of another post is not to your liking is rude and does not advance the discussion. That red-arrow thingy is reserved here for people who are being first-class jackholes, in the inimitable words of one of our esteemed Moderators. 

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sorry, Rodi, there is just so much mis-information, and so much misunderstanding, and so much personal prejudice, floating about on the subject of migrants and visitors to the USA, that whenever I try to explain it in detail, I run into a barrage of flak that would bring down even the most stalwart airplane.  I just cannot get into it any more. 

Just for example, you continually reference "illegal immigrants."  There are very, very few illegal immigrants in the USA.  What you are referencing are disparate groups: visitors and undocumented persons.  It may surprise you to learn that it is not "illegal" to be in the USA without entry-visa documents. The USA has agreements with other countries that are favored nations to not require visas.  So for example you can be a Canadian and be free to enter and leave the country at will.  You have no "documents" because they do not exist for your nationality. As a practical matter, you can stay forever in the USA as a guest of the Administration - as long as you do not work, do not engage in internal politics (a big no-no), and avoid various categories of crimes. For example, if you beat your spouse you are subject to arrest and deportation.  If you are ticketed for speeding and either pay or contest the infraction charge you are not.  And so on. But none of that makes you "illegal."

This whole business of "illegal" is a frenzy generated by essentially racist ideas against "the browns," people from South of the Border who have brownish skin (mostly) and speak Spanish or a native language.  As a practical matter, that is Spanish. But nobody is referencing some Irish college kid who shows up to work in the hotel and restaurant trade on Cape Cod for the Summer as an "illegal," those transient migrants are ignored.  I can tell you that without the transients, typically from Ireland, England, and Canada, the Cape Cod tourist trade would shut down.  But they are white, so nobody cares.  They are working, so they are breaking immigration laws, but even that does not make them "illegal," only undocumented.  And that is what the real big fight, not the newspaper big fight, is all about: that the law itself does not provide for a person found inside the USA without documents to be "illegal".    It becomes "illegal" only in the popular mind. 

And unless you can get past that reality, which you do not, and get past the self-generated images, which nobody does, all the rest of the arguments become nothing more than rank hysteria, so I cannot get involved in it.  Because then the debate is not rational, it is emotional.  And nobody can debate emotions, that does not work.  So I say nothing further, other than to state that none of you posters here are accurate, you are all speaking to your internal fears and pre-conceptions.  Cheers.  And I really do admire you, Rodi, so please don't get angry with me, it is simply that in this specific case, you are starting out from the wrong foundation. And that taints all that follows.

I disagree with just about everything you said in this statement.

Whether a person has permission to be in the country or not, if they do not have permission to work they are committing a crime, and they all come here to work, hence the use of the phrase "illegal".

It really does not matter where they are from.  It is not about racism.  If they are from Europe or not, whether they speak English or not, if they are here working illegally and get caught they should be deported.  I know several people from countries that are NOT south of the US that this has happened to.  There just happens to be a lot MORE coming across the southern border because it is easier for them.  Now there are even non-Spanish speaking people flying to Mexico so they can easily cross the border.  That is definitely a problem that Mexico is espousing to the detriment of US sovereignty.

There is a legal process for migrating to the United States and working or studying here, and if anyone wants to come here they should follow this pathway.  This is not racism or prejudice, it is the law.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Examples?  Statewide, Federal?  Or just local.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illegal-immigrants-2008-election/

Pretty much anything Snopes says is deliberate disinformation, in my opinion.  I totally distrust anything Snopes says.

I had an actual document downloaded to my phone about a year or two ago, but I can't seem to find it.  Here's an example, though:

 

This was covered in the media a while ago.

San Francisco Begins Registering Non-Citizens To Vote In Local Elections

The San Francisco Department of Elections issued voter registration forms for non-citizens, including undocumented migrants, who are now eligible to vote for members of the SF Board of Education during the November elections, making the city the first in the state to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, Oil_Engineer said:

I disagree with just about everything you said in this statement.

You are entirely welcome to disagree.  Indeed, this forum is all about debate.  Disagree to your heart's congtent.

5 minutes ago, Oil_Engineer said:

Whether a person has permission to be in the country or not, if they do not have permission to work they are committing a crime,

Nope.  Anyone who does work for money compensation without a permit is in breach of Regulations, which by itself is not a "crime."  Breaching the Regulations of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement section ("ICE") of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is not criminalized.  I appreciate that you think it is, but factually it is not.  But that's OK, you are perfectly entitled to shape your own vision, as you are not the Agent making discretionary enforcement decisions. 

15 minutes ago, Oil_Engineer said:

and they all come here to work, hence the use of the phrase "illegal".

Not at all.  Entire families are found entering the USA, including without presenting themselves at a Federal Inspection Station, and they have no intention of "working."  You call them illegals anyway.  A Canadian yachtsman sailing from Nassau to Halifax wrecks on Cape Fear, or at Nantucket, and manages to swim ashore; is he now an "illegal."  He is here without papers and without having been to a Federal Inspection Station.  The reality is that this is all Regulations, and up to the broad discretion of an or any Immigration Agent.  In theory such a person could be detained; in reality, it is out of the question. 

23 minutes ago, Oil_Engineer said:

if they are here working illegally and get caught they should be deported. 

Those are your ideas of morality.  You are perfectly entitled to project ideas of morality.  All kinds of people have those ideas.  The President thinks the blacks who do the football "Kneel" should be fired.  Those are his ideas.  His ideas don't count.  Contrary to what the Administration thinks, he does cont override the U.S. Constitution, which specifically provides for both enumerated and unenumerated rights and privileges of the people.   That was the genius of the Founding Fathers, now admittedly being drastically whittled away by Justices Roberts, Breyer, and Thomas. At this point, however, notwithstanding the immense stupidities of John Ashcroft, the ultimate loser, the Constitution protects all persons found on American soil, and does not differentiate as to nationality, or whether or not you have "papers."  I grant you that the paranoid personalities that infest Washington seek to mutate that into some form of NKVD or Geheimstaatspolitzei regime, but that has not happened - as of yet. At this point I would be careful what you wish for. 

 

30 minutes ago, Oil_Engineer said:

There is a legal process for migrating to the United States and working or studying here,

Actually, there is not.  As a practical matter the immigration flow has been shut down.  And that is yet another point of bitter contention between factions in Washington.  

I see no resolution of these matters in my lifetime.  And, Rodi, now you can appreciate why I cannot get into these discussions.  There is just way too much personal raw emotion floating about out there  (including your own, but you already knew that).  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

23 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The San Francisco Department of Elections issued voter registration forms for non-citizens, including undocumented migrants, who are now eligible to vote for members of the SF Board of Education during the November elections, making the city the first in the state to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

So what?  They are perfectly entitled to do that.  The qualifications for being a voter are controlled by the States, not by the Federal Government.  That included voting for President, until the U.S. Congress intervened and passed a Statute restricting those votes to either citizens or nationals, I cannot recall the exact wording on that Statute.  I think that was done back around 1975.  As there is no direct election of the President, instead the voters select delegates to the Electoral College, who then (in theory) pick a President and Vice-President,  the Constitutionality of the Federal Statute restricting presidential voting to Nationals is murky.  I don't think it has ever been challenged, though. That said, it is perfectly clear that the control of voter requirements is controlled by the States, the exception being highly restrictive voting tests and poll taxes, designed to keep blacks out.  That was outlawed as a State overreach with the Voting Rights Act, signed by Lyndon Johnson.  I recall that to be 1967, more or less. Still, quite recent in history. 

In Connecticut, any town resident is perfectly entitled to vote for town officers and town budget as long as the resident is a bona-fide resident (including renters) and has at least 41,000 of taxable property in the Town.  As automobiles are taxed in CT, that means just about everybody gets to vote (on town matters).  And that has been that way in the Original Colonies for over 200 years. 

Now, other States do not go that way.  For example, you cannot vote for anything in any election in Vermont unless you are first a U.S. Citizen and pledge fealty to Washington.  Although the voters of the Capitol, Montpelier, now recognize the inherent error of that and have voted to abolish that requirement for the residents of Montpelier.  And they are perfectly entitled to do that.  "All rights and privileges not enumerated (for the federal government) are reserved to the States, and to the People."   Thomas Jefferson had that one figured out. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, alfonsosozayas said:

Hey Tom, I'm from Mexico, I agree 100% that the Dems position here has a lot more to do with populism than with making it easier for the Americans or Mexicans, being complacent with these activities only promotes other criminal activities that are destroying this beautiful country, however, I don't think that a multi-front war is a smart move for the US, and I don't see how raising taxes will benefit the people from the US since they will be the ones paying for those taxes...

Alfonso

(Reply 1 of 2)

Hi Alfonso, thanks for weighing in from Mexico.  (I live in Malaysia, halfway around the world.)  More on that in my next reply to you.

The bigger picture of what I see happening worldwide is the globalist agenda of no borders, no sovereignty for individual countries, and a global rule by unelected leaders.

Take the EU as a mini-me example of United Nations globalism push.  Huge amounts of illegal economic migrants being shipped in from Africa into the EU, destroying the culture.  John Cleese was excoriated recently when he said that London is no longer British.

 

In the U.S. the taxpayers already have an increased tax burden providing social services to illegal economic immigrants.

New York Post article:

Cutting welfare to illegal aliens would pay for Trump’s wall

Mexico won’t have to pay for the wall, after all. US taxpayers won’t have to pick up the tab, either. The controversial barrier, rather, will cover its own cost just by closing the border to illegal immigrants who tend to go on the federal dole.

That’s the finding of recent immigration studies showing the $18 billion wall President Trump plans to build along the southern border will pay for itself by curbing the importation of not only crime and drugs, but poverty.

“The wall could pay for itself even if it only modestly reduced illegal crossings and drug smuggling,” Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Post.

Federal data shows that a wall would work. A two-story corrugated metal fence in El Paso, Texas, first erected under the Bush administration has already curtailed illegal border crossings there by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which it was built.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, alfonsosozayas said:

Hey Tom, I'm from Mexico, I agree 100% that the Dems position here has a lot more to do with populism than with making it easier for the Americans or Mexicans, being complacent with these activities only promotes other criminal activities that are destroying this beautiful country, however, I don't think that a multi-front war is a smart move for the US, and I don't see how raising taxes will benefit the people from the US since they will be the ones paying for those taxes...

Alfonso

(Reply 2 of 2)

Hi Alfonso, further to my previous comment, I have been living in Malaysia for over 15 years.

I have seen the effects of government-encouraged mass illegal immigration for political purposes.  It was called "Project IC" (Project Identity Card).  You can Google it.

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Project IC, but there is nothing "alleged" about it, this actually took place, the Prime Minister admitted he organized it.

Project IC is the name used in Malaysia to describe the allegation of systematic granting of citizenship to immigrants (whether legal or otherwise) by giving them identity cards and subsequently its current iteration, the MyKad. The alleged practice is centred in the state of Sabah in East Malaysia. The term is used mainly by the media as well as other political commentators and the general public. Another term used is Project M, the "M" referring to former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad due to his being allegedly involved in the spearheading of this project.

The alleged object of Project IC is to alter the demographic pattern of Sabah to make it more favourable to the ruling government and certain political parties, especially with regards to changing the electoral voting patterns. Former Dewan Rakyat senator and state assemblyman Chong Eng Leong alleged in 2012 that there are 700,000 "Project IC citizens" and that 200,000 of them are on the state electoral roll.

 

====================================

In essence, the ruling party of the federal government wanted to dilute the anti-ruling-party local population in the state of Sabah, and overwhelm the local Sabahans with illegal immogrants from neighboring Indonesia and Philippines.  The idea was, illegals would be given an Identity Card (IC) in Malaysia if they vowed to vote for the ruling party in the elections.  Project IC was successful in diluting the local Sabahan anti-ruling-party sentiment and overwhelming Sabah with illegal immigrants who voted for the federal ruling party.

 

Currently in the USA, I seen that the Democrats are attempting a similar scheme.

I will reiterate this political cartoon, because while amusing, it is pretty much true:

 

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, TomTom said:

Sadly, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. It literally erodes the economy on both sides of the border.

Consumers on both sides are about to suffer from extremely stupid economic policy: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-03/goldman-capitulates-sees-full-blown-extended-trade-war-both-china-and-mexico

Average Americans will see higher prices for most consumables, investors will lose a ton of money, cross border trade will get crippled etc. 

I'm not surprised you can't see all of this, because you live far away in Malaysia, but I actually already feel it in my spendable income down here in Mexico City... 

The caravans of immigrants must indeed be stopped, and I do agree that Mexico can do more about it, but lets be absolutely honest. If you were a Mexican policymaker... would you not rather try to make your own country safer instead of sorting out problems for your Northern neighbor who cannot get its shit together in congress and therefore not defend its own borders? 

The U.S. needs to protect its own borders, and cannot expect Mexico to do it for them.  The same situation is going on in the EU where we now expect countries like Turkey, Morocco and Libya to protect our borders... simply an unsustainable situation. 
 

This whole tariff thing is just a show for his own public, and a bad one for that... a two-state solution in which the US funds Mexico to stop this uncontrolled migration is of course a much more effective solution, but sadly, that doesn't doesn't create great headlines on Dailycaller and Breitbart.  

Believe me, I'm seen as conservative by almost all of my friends, and I do not support uncontrolled migration, but breaking down free-trade hurts literally everyone out there, and people who support that are just not very well informed. 


I still haven't seen even one counter argument for this... and sadly, there are no good counter arguments for this, because you are literally playing with hundreds of billions of trade.... all money that could've been invested in effective border security measures.

TomTom, we actually agree on quite a few things, it seems our general agreements outnumber our disagreements.

I invite you to read my 2 part responses here and here above in this thread.  I was responsing to Alfonso, who lives in Mexico, with mu viewpoint from Malaysia, and similar illegal immigration political machinations which pretty much economically decimated the Malaysian state of Sabaj with illigal immigrants brought in by the Malaysia federal government to vote.  Sabah has never recovered economically from the massive federal-government-sponsored waves of illegal immigration - in - exchange - for - votes scheme.  Sabah remains one of the poorest states in Malaysia, with the local Sabahans overwhelmed with outsiders imported illegally.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

So what?  They are perfectly entitled to do that.  The qualifications for being a voter are controlled by the States, not by the Federal Government.  That included voting for President, until the U.S. Congress intervened and passed a Statute restricting those votes to either citizens or nationals, I cannot recall the exact wording on that Statute.  I think that was done back around 1975. 

No, not "so what". I disagree that illegal immigrants have a right to vote.  Voting should be a right reserved for citizens and authorized residents.

Democrats Vote To Give Illegal Immigrants The Right To Vote

Update: House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice. As The Washington Times reports, the vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber - then under GOP control - voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.

“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,”Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.

Texas Republican. Rep. Dan Crenshaw raged:

“It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?”

[Rodent + 1,424]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sorry, Rodi, there is just so much mis-information, and so much misunderstanding, and so much personal prejudice, floating about on the subject of migrants and visitors to the USA, that whenever I try to explain it in detail, I run into a barrage of flak that would bring down even the most stalwart airplane.  I just cannot get into it any more. 

Just for example, you continually reference "illegal immigrants."  There are very, very few illegal immigrants in the USA.  What you are referencing are disparate groups: visitors and undocumented persons.  It may surprise you to learn that it is not "illegal" to be in the USA without entry-visa documents. The USA has agreements with other countries that are favored nations to not require visas.  So for example you can be a Canadian and be free to enter and leave the country at will.  You have no "documents" because they do not exist for your nationality. As a practical matter, you can stay forever in the USA as a guest of the Administration - as long as you do not work, do not engage in internal politics (a big no-no), and avoid various categories of crimes. For example, if you beat your spouse you are subject to arrest and deportation.  If you are ticketed for speeding and either pay or contest the infraction charge you are not.  And so on. But none of that makes you "illegal."

This whole business of "illegal" is a frenzy generated by essentially racist ideas against "the browns," people from South of the Border who have brownish skin (mostly) and speak Spanish or a native language.  As a practical matter, that is Spanish. But nobody is referencing some Irish college kid who shows up to work in the hotel and restaurant trade on Cape Cod for the Summer as an "illegal," those transient migrants are ignored.  I can tell you that without the transients, typically from Ireland, England, and Canada, the Cape Cod tourist trade would shut down.  But they are white, so nobody cares.  They are working, so they are breaking immigration laws, but even that does not make them "illegal," only undocumented.  And that is what the real big fight, not the newspaper big fight, is all about: that the law itself does not provide for a person found inside the USA without documents to be "illegal".    It becomes "illegal" only in the popular mind. 

And unless you can get past that reality, which you do not, and get past the self-generated images, which nobody does, all the rest of the arguments become nothing more than rank hysteria, so I cannot get involved in it.  Because then the debate is not rational, it is emotional.  And nobody can debate emotions, that does not work.  So I say nothing further, other than to state that none of you posters here are accurate, you are all speaking to your internal fears and pre-conceptions.  Cheers.  And I really do admire you, Rodi, so please don't get angry with me, it is simply that in this specific case, you are starting out from the wrong foundation. And that taints all that follows.

Interesting. I'll have to check all that out, a lot to digest there. Are you saying that there are no laws broken by a Mexican citizen by entering the US without documentation? It's either illegal to be here or it isn't, and that seems like a rather important point, regardless of the bias surrounding it. As you suggest, facts are facts and opinion is opinion. 

And me, angry? Nonsense. I have pretty broad figurative shoulders. 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

36 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

No, not "so what". I disagree that illegal immigrants have a right to vote.  Voting should be a right reserved for citizens and authorized residents.

See, that is your issue, Tom; you keep referring to the Collective as "illegal immigrants."   That is a nice sound bite, but that is all it is.

Here is the reality: an "illegal immigrant" is someone who, having been found in violation of Immigration Regulations, or otherwise ineligible for being here, and being instructed to leave, does not voluntarily leave, and thus is detained, then forcibly removed from the USA, and then after all that, proceeds to sneak back in into the USA without having presented himself for inspection at a Federal Inspection Station, and then being within the USA has no discernible intention other than to remain here indefinitely as a migrant,  then that person is an "illegal immigrant."  

That is a very long way from what you personally define as an "illegal immigrant."  

I am not going to go further on this, I view it as unproductive. So, cheers, and keep on truckin.' 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

And me, angry? Nonsense. I have pretty broad figurative shoulders. 

Yep, you tend to be the best adult in the room on this forum, Rodent.

For the rest of us who may get wound up a bit on occasion, may I suggest something which "clams and soothes" 

[Rodent + 1,424]

10 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep, you tend to be the best adult in the room on this forum, Rodent.

For the rest of us who may get wound up a bit on occasion, may I suggest something which "clams and soothes" 

Thanks! I've got to get me one of those shoes that "clams" 😁 thank goodness it's "gender natural"

[alfonsosozayas + 6]

Hi Tom,

We are definitely lacking of good politicians at both sides of the border, although here they are far more obscene than in the US so far -believe it or not our president still supports Maduro 🤦‍♂️-. 

Thanks for your time and pointers!

Alfonso

 

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hi Alfonso, thanks for weighing in from Mexico.  (I live in Malaysia, halfway around the world.)  More on that in my next reply to you.

The bigger picture of what I see happening worldwide is the globalist agenda of no borders, no sovereignty for individual countries, and a global rule by unelected leaders.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

19 minutes ago, alfonsosozayas said:

our president still supports Maduro 🤦‍♂️

That is astounding!   And with inflation now running at some 2 million percent annually, the country is totally wrecked.  How anybody can support that buffoon, that liar, that murdering scoundrel, is beyond comprehension.  Unreal!

[scottywelbourne + 3]

I'm a long time reader, but a first time contributor. I have read the posts on this thread and the one discussion that America is not having is how much labor the country must import from elsewhere. With an unemployment rate of 3.60% as of April 2019, a declining birth rate and aging population,  America's demand for cheap labor in the years to come surely will intensify. Agriculture, Construction and the food service industries currently have large numbers working illegally and I am not aware of mass deportation orders been issued. I feel much rhetoric is been preached about closing borders, but no action taken once they have arrived. This is because the labor is an actual necessity in today's America. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

55 minutes ago, scottywelbourne said:

I'm a long time reader, but a first time contributor. I have read the posts on this thread and the one discussion that America is not having is how much labor the country must import from elsewhere. With an unemployment rate of 3.60% as of April 2019, a declining birth rate and aging population,  America's demand for cheap labor in the years to come surely will intensify. Agriculture, Construction and the food service industries currently have large numbers working illegally and I am not aware of mass deportation orders been issued. I feel much rhetoric is been preached about closing borders, but no action taken once they have arrived. This is because the labor is an actual necessity in today's America. 

Scotty, you are missing the political reality of America today. In the USA, there is this "old guard" of self-described "Conservatives" who are in a downward slide as to political and economic power and hegemony ever since the time of Reconstruction (just after the Civil War, 1861-64).  The country is increasingly becoming "less white" and that aggravates them.  You had the election of this Black President and had this black family sitting in the White House and representing America on the world stage, and it drove and continues to drive this crowd totally crazy.  You are seeing expressions of that right here on these pages, and it is not particularly subtle. 

Even before William F. Buckley declared in 1957 that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically,” the modern conservative movement has struggled to reconcile the ethno-nationalism that moves masses of its voters with the pluralism embodied in the notion that all persons are created equal.

Trump’s victory settled the question of whether the GOP would seek to expand its base by diversifying it, or rely on the imposition of white political hegemony over a changing electorate. This is a counter-majoritarian strategy that, in the long run, relies on abandoning the pretense of liberal democracy in favor of something else: A white man’s republic, if they can keep it.    Written by Scott Lemieux yesterday, so it is aptly timely. 

This is part of the slide of the USA into a South-African style of Apartheid.  The Republicans are attempting, in my view vainly, to preserve America as a white-man's paradise, and you see smatterings of that with the construction of Lake Havasu City, where blacks are totally excluded.  You see that in the refusal of the current Administration to address segregated housing and black cities that have serious economic problems, such as Gary, Indiana and Newark New Jersey; those places are effectively abandoned to their fate.  Will they succeed?  Probably. The demographic slide into a non-white, Catholic society is moving right along, with the Mexicans reclaiming the old Spanish Lands that are now California and Arizona and South Texas.  The white, typically Protestant, and essentially fascist people found inside the Republican Party (and sitting on the Trump Supreme Court) are using silver-tongued b ut irrational arguments to protect the old-school white power structure, including gerrymandering and the hysteria about "voter fraud," and their unwashed followers are swallowing it.  And you see that also in the writings here.  Ultimately, it will all fail, but the current reactionary attitudes and policies mean that the country will be suffering through more strife and torment for at least another two generations, until the "white man's republic" finally is defeated.  We are condemned to a life of pain, compliments of the Republican Party  (and, of course, by the Democrats who cannot focus on these truths, or any other truths; hard to find a political party so inept and incompetent, but hey, it is what it is.) 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[scottywelbourne + 3]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Scotty, you are missing the political reality of America today. In the USA, there is this "old guard" of self-described "Conservatives" who are in a downward slide as to political and economic power and hegemony ever since the time of Reconstruction (just after the Civil War, 1861-64).  The country is increasingly becoming "less white" and that aggravates them.  You had the election of this Black President and had this black family sitting in the White House and representing America on the world stage, and it drove and continues to drive this crowd totally crazy.  You are seeing expressions of that right here on these pages, and it is not particularly subtle. 

Even before William F. Buckley declared in 1957 that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically,” the modern conservative movement has struggled to reconcile the ethno-nationalism that moves masses of its voters with the pluralism embodied in the notion that all persons are created equal.

Trump’s victory settled the question of whether the GOP would seek to expand its base by diversifying it, or rely on the imposition of white political hegemony over a changing electorate. This is a counter-majoritarian strategy that, in the long run, relies on abandoning the pretense of liberal democracy in favor of something else: A white man’s republic, if they can keep it.    Written by Scott Lemieux yesterday, so it is aptly timely. 

This is part of the slide of the USA into a South-African style of Apartheid.  The Republicans are attempting, in my view vainly, to preserve America as a white-man's paradise, and you see smatterings of that with the construction of Lake Havasu City, where blacks are totally excluded.  You see that in the refusal of the current Administration to address segregated housing and black cities that have serious economic problems, such as Gary, Indiana and Newark New Jersey; those places are effectively abandoned to their fate.  Will they succeed?  Probably. The demographic slide into a non-white, Catholic society is moving right along, with the Mexicans reclaiming the old Spanish Lands that are not California and Arizona and South Texas.  The white, typically Protestant, and essentially fascist people found inside the Republican Party (and sitting on the Trump Supreme Court) are using silver-tongued b ut irrational arguments to protect the old-school white power structure, including gerrymandering and the hysteria about "voter fraud," and their unwashed followers are swallowing it.  And you see that also in the writings here.  Ultimately, it will all fail, but the current reactionary attitudes and policies mean that the country will be suffering through more strife and torment for at least another two generations, until the "white man's republic" finally is defeated.  We are condemned to a life of pain, compliments of the Republican Party  (and, of course, by the Democrats who cannot focus on these truths, or any other truths; hard to find a political party so inept and incompetent, but hey, it is what it is.) 

I totally agree with you,  these people are missing the economic reality and ultimately the economic reality will win out

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

19 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Walls don't stop invading armies, but they do stop civilians.  Obviously, they won't stop every single civilian, but that's not necessary.  The goal is to reduce illegal immigration to an irrelevant trickle, and walls are perfectly capable of doing that. 

A wall would also cost a lot more than an instant ID system. 

 

19 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Many visa overstays have become contributing members of society.  They contribute more than they take, and everyone is happy to have them here.  They would be left alone while freeloaders would be targeted for removal. 

So they don't drive down wages? Or is driving down wages not a problem? 

 

19 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

They operate based on what powerful people find convenient.  It always has been and always will be what it is.

I thougth Trump was different. Independently wealthy and all... 

 

19 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

We the People don't make the rules; we just play the game. 

There is a lot of truth in this, but also an implied apathy.... 

- all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

52 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

A wall would also cost a lot more than an instant ID system. 

The fundamental problem with an "instant ID system" that you seem to advocate is that it rapidly morphs into an instrument for a very oppressive form of government control.  It is the way South Africa went with their "pass" system for blacks.  If you were black, you could not move around the country without showing your "Pass" at checkpoints, or be instantly arrested and jailed without trial.  The Pass system developed into a South African-style Gulag.   Right now, the Communist Chinese are doing the same thing, with their own pass system, which they have created electronically with facial-recognition cameras everywhere.  The cameras can find you out of a crowd and track you for police arrest within five minutes of the Order coming down from the top, which is impressive in a country with over a billion people.  It also allows that Communist government to imprison over one million Uighurs into concentration camps, complete with walls, razor wire, and guard towers, which the govt calls "colleges."  I think it is obvious what sort of education is going on in there.  If you want to jail people for social control reasons, then a National ID is the best way to go. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

So they don't drive down wages? Or is driving down wages not a problem?

No, they do not. At least, not inside the USA.  The situation in Europe is considerably different.