Saturday, December 3, 2016

TRUMP APPOINTS GEN. MATTIS AS DEFENSE SECRETARY

TRUMP APPOINTS GEN. MATTIS AS DEFENSE SECRETARY

This has been rumored for a while, but still: Donald Trump continues his winning streak with the appointment of General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense:
Mattis, 66, is a Marine Corps general who retired in 2013 after serving as the commander of the U.S. Central Command.
His selection raises questions about increased military influence in a job designed to insure civilian control of the armed forces. The concerns revolve around whether a recently retired service member would rely more on military solutions to international problems, rather than a broader, more diplomatic approach.
God, we can only hope so. After all, Gen. Mattis will be Secretary of Defense, not Secretary of State.
Mattis has a reputation as a battle-hardened, tough-talking Marine who was entrusted with some of the most challenging commands in the U.S. military. In a tweet Sunday, Trump referred to Mattis by his nickname “Mad Dog” and described him as “A true General’s General!”
Nothing to like here…
Although his record in combat and his credentials as a senior commander are widely admired, Mattis has little experience in the diplomatic aspects of the job of a secretary of defense.
Since when is the Secretary of Defense supposed to be a diplomat? Seriously, this is a new one on me. The Secretary of Defense runs America’s armed forces, which are called into action when diplomacy has failed and it is time to kick enemy a**. Has this basic concept somehow been forgotten?
Gen. Mattis is the kind of guy who should give our enemies pause:
In 2005, he raised eyebrows when he told a San Diego forum that it was “fun to shoot some people.”
According to a recording of Mattis’ remarks, he said, “Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. … It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you, I like brawling.”
He added, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis continued. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
Mattis was counselled to choose his words more carefully.
As far as I am concerned, those comments are just fine. It appears that Donald Trump feels the same way. So it’s another excellent appointment by Trump, as he builds what is shaping up as a very formidable administration.

Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives

Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives
Wouldn’t you avoid an evil person who was deliberately destroying the planet?
By Dennis Prager 

Friday, December 2, 2016

The Left’s Miraculous Change of Heart on Accepting Election Results

The Left’s Miraculous Change of Heart on Accepting Election Results

Democrats were completely against questioning results when they assumed Clinton would win

NEW YORK, NY - OCTOBER 12: Green party nominee Jill Stein speaks during a campaign rally at the Hostos Center for the Arts & Culture on October 12, 2016 in New York City. Jill Stein and her running mate Ajamu Baraka are campaigning in New York.
Green party nominee Jill Stein is calling for a recount in three traditionally Democratic states that voted for Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential elections. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Before the election on Nov. 8, Democrats chastised Donald Trump for saying he would “totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election… if I win.”
CNN’s Jeremy Diamond, in an article posted in “politics” — not “opinion,” — called Trump’s words “a caveat that threatens to cast unprecedented doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process.”
Diamond was not alone in his claim. Clinton herself repeatedly claimed Trump was “threatening our democracy” by refusing to accept the results of the election. At her rallies after Trump’s remarks, Clinton said Trump’s refusal to say he’d instantaneously accept the results was a “direct threat to our democracy” and chastised him for claiming the system was “rigged.”
She also claimed at a rally in Philadelphia, Pa. just weeks before the election that the U.S. always had a “peaceful transfer of power,” which was “the difference between the rule of law and the rule of strong men.”
This claim was also tweeted from her official Twitter account, again saying Trump “refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election” and that it was a “direct threat to our democracy.”
But after the election—when Clinton lost—the media and Democrats completely changed their tune. Clinton had derided Trump for suggesting he wouldn’t concede, yet we later learned that Clinton herself didn’t want to concede, but was urged to do so by President Barack Obama.
On the night of the election, after Trump passed 270 electoral votes and secured the presidency, Clinton refused to address her supporters at her “victory” party. Her supporters, distraught and crying after waiting at the venue for hours, were instead subjected to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Podesta said there would be no comment until all the votes were counted.
Shortly after, Trump delivered his victory speech and Clinton had called him to concede.
That call was apparently at the behest of Obama, according to Hill senior White House correspondent Amie Parnes and Roll Call columnist Jonathan Allen.
After the dust had settled on election night, many on the Left began arguing that Clinton had truly won the election because she won the popular vote, and suggested the Electoral College be eliminated. They failed to realize (or simply ignored) that Clinton’s popular vote lead came almost entirely from California, a populous state and Democratic stronghold.
Neither Trump nor Clinton campaigned for the popular vote, because that’s not how our elections work or should work. Fifty percent of the U.S. population resides in just a few major cities. A popular vote would give those cities near total control over deciding the president and forcing their urban priorities onto suburban and rural voters. The Electoral College gives those outside of the big city a real voice.
Also, Clinton and Trump campaigned in the states most likely to swing. Clinton only needed to go to California for celebrity and mega-donor fundraisers, not to ensure the state would vote for her. If she were running for the popular vote, she could have campaigned there just to increase her vote total. As it stands now, she only needed enough votes in any given state to win that state, so essentially, a U.S. presidential election is made up of more than 50 elections (due to some states that split electoral votes). Trump could have campaigned more in Texas to secure more votes, but it was a waste of his time—just as campaigning more in California was a waste of Clinton’s time.
In reality, we don’t know who actually won the popular vote because the candidates didn’t campaign for it.
This hasn’t stopped Democrats from attempting to overturn the election through recounts. Just as Al Gore wanted certain counties in Florida recounted in 2000 because he thought he should have won them, Democrats—led by Green Party candidate Jill Stein—now want three states that usually vote for Democrats but voted for Trump in 2016 to be recounted.
Stein is attempting to raise millions to pay for recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, despite there being no evidence of any election “rigging.”
Clinton has now joined in this effort. What was that about refusing to accept election results being a “threat to democracy?”
Now the Left is claiming Russia interfered with the U.S. election and rigged the results. So, they rigged the election but didn’t give Trump the popular vote? Seems either incredibly specific or completely ridiculous.
The Clinton campaign even admitted there was no “actionable evidence” of vote hacking, but are still going along with the recount because their supporters—the same ones who mocked Trump for suggesting the election was “rigged”—now believe Russia hacked the election.
Lost in all of this is the danger to the Democratic Party if this recount continues. Stein, a Green Party candidate whose views align more with extreme Leftists than anyone on the Right, is raising money and her and her party’s profile. We won’t know how much of the money will actually go to the recount effort until it’s actually underway.
Stein initially asked for $2.5 million, but raised that amount to $7 million when donations poured in, citing filing fees and massive lawyer fees. Fine print on her website says they cannot guarantee a recount will actually occur, and that any money left will go toward “election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.”
Trump has called the recount effort “sad.” He’s absolutely right. These three states were chosen because Trump won and they traditionally vote Democrat. In Michigan, which has yet to be officially called, Trump won by 11,000 votes, a margin of 0.2 percent. In 2012, Obama won the state with a 9.5 percent margin. Rather than assessing how they could lose the state in the past four years to Trump, Democrats have decided to eschew any soul searching and instead insist they only lost the state because of hacking.
Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000 votes and Pennsylvania by 68,000 votes, yet that is too close for Democrats.
I can only imagine what the Left and the media would be saying if Trump had lost and tried to orchestrate a recount. Remember, it’s only a problem when the Right does it.
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

Do We Think We Are God?

Do We Think We Are God?

 by John Schroeder

About a year ago I wrote a post to poke fun at the World Health Organization wanting to control, well, flatulence.  The whole thing should be funny.  Even the founding fathers enjoyed a good fart joke.  It is an unavoidable consequence of higher mammalian life.  Which is the source of the humor – it is embarrassing and uncomfortable, but also perfectly natural.  That tension is the perfect point for humor.  But Oh No – California has gone and taken up this silly dare from the WHO.  That’s right Americans – California is officially in the fart regulating business.
This is not as new as you might think.  The South Coast Air Quality Management District, the agency charged with improving air quality in the Los Angeles basin and environs, has had regs on the books for a while now about dairy farms.  The net effect has been to drive dairy farms out of the area and the price of dairy in southern California through the roof. But now, instead of LA getting its milk from Fresno, the most likely outcome is that it will come from Nevada or Arizona or Oregon and the stuff will be priced out of reach of the average citizen.  Not to mention the state with the highest taxes anywhere, while roads crumble and water infrastructure is inadequate to the needs of the current population, has set aside $50 million to help dairy farmers control their cow farts.  If the roads keep disintegrating, the overpriced milk may never make it to market.
But policy outcomes are secondary to the massive presumptuousness of attempting to regulate something, its unpleasantness not withstanding, that is a normal and natural part of life itself.  The progress of mankind has been all about harnessing nature.  That’s what science and engineering do.  But there is a difference between harnessing and overriding and that is the point where we cease to understand that we are creatures, not creators.  We are not apart from nature, that is to say the created order, we are part of it and limited by it.  We re not God, we are His creations.
The primary focus of the regulations at this juncture is about, “State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.” Digestion technology is as old as the hills.  I worked on digestion projects back in the 1970’s.  One must ask oneself if this technology is such a panacea and it has been around for so long, why have the farms not adopted it long ago?  The answer is pretty straight forward, the economics are not there.  The cost of operating the things, which includes disposal of the digested manure (which makes manure itself smell sweet), exceeds the value of the energy derived from them.  More important even than the laws of physics are the “laws” of human behavior.
I am reminded of the old joke – A scientist confronts God and tells God He is no longer needed.  The scientist claims he can create life from scratch.  A challenge is made between God and the scientist to prove this.  The scientist reaches down to grab a handful of dirt and God stops him saying “Get your own dirt.” – Things are just much deeper than we are often willing to grant.  That depth constrains us; as powerful as we are, there are limits to our power.
I am still trying to figure out the election just past.  But one message came from it very loudly.  The American people are tired of the government trying to reshape reality.  Whether it is try to do away with gender or control cow farts, most people are fed up with the government thinking they can do anything.  It is not just a matter of constitutional limits, it is also a matter of natural limits.
We have a lot of ideas about God in this country, but most of us know there is one and most of us know He is a lot bigger than we are.  When we acknowledge that and operate within the constraints that establishes, this nation has accomplished some extraordinary things.  It is time to stop regulating that which is simply a part of life and get back to the serious business of improving life for as many as we can.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

The Corbynization of the Democratic Party

The Corbynization of the Democratic Party

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, accompanied by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., arrives at a rally at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, Oct. 24, 2016.AP PHOTO/ANDREW HARNIK
The Democratic Party’s current festival of re-examination is both necessary and justified. They have just lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in recent memory. Lockstep media support and a much larger war chest were not enough to save them from losing not only the presidency, but also in state races across the country.
Since President Obama’s first election, Democrats have lost control of the House and Senate, as well as a dozen governors’ houses and roughly 900 state legislative seats. Republicans have control of all levels of government in 24 states, while Democrats have total control over six. Overall, the party seems incapable of reaching out to the middle part of the country, white and middle-class voters.
This contrasts with the 1990s, when a group of party activists consciously rebuilt the party to appeal to middle-class Americans. Groups like the Democratic Leadership Council — for whose think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, I worked for several years — pushed notions of personal responsibility, welfare reform, tough crime policies and economic growth that, embraced by Bill Clinton, expanded the party’s base in the Midwest, the Appalachians and even the Southeast.
Leftward Ho!
Such a shift to the middle is unlikely today. Progressives generally see Hillary Clinton’s loss as largely a rejection of her husband’s neoliberal policies and want to push the party further to the left.
This parallels developments in the United Kingdom, where, following their defeat in 2015, the Labour Party promoted a far-left figure, Jeremy Corbyn, as its leader. This was driven by grassroots progressives — deeply green, multiculturalist and openly socialist. Many, including several high up in Labour’s parliamentary party, believe the party has little chance to win under such leadership.
Democrats face a similar dilemma. Driven by their dominant academic and media “thought police,” any shift to the middle on issues like crime, climate change or regulation now seems unimaginable. Self-described progressives who now dominate the party generally adhere to a series of policies — from open borders to draconian climate change policies — that are unlikely to play well outside the coastal enclaves.
Some of the criticism of Clintonian neoliberalism is somewhat justified. As the emergence of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump suggests, support for globalization and free trade has weakened in both parties. This reflects the fact that economic gains have become increasingly concentrated since Clinton left office, and even under the progressive hero, Barack Obama. It’s hard to argue, as the DLC did 25 years ago, for a more market-based system when the vast majority fail to benefit while the upper echelons do much better.
So it is no surprise, then, that the hyperregulatory and redistributionist agendas epitomized by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are now ascendant. This pattern is exacerbated by the party’s increasing indifference to economic growth, in large part, due to their embrace of draconian climate change policies. Climate change policies, as now constituted, tend to suppress higher-wage, blue-collar employment. If you give up on growth to save the planet, the only real solution remaining is massive redistribution, including a web of subsidies to make up for the lack of income growth, affordable housing and economic opportunity.
The multiculti trap
The Corbynization of the Democratic Party also turns on militant multiculturalism. This agenda is shaped, as in Britain, by a disjointed concert of grievance groups, ranging from gender activists to those who claim to represent Latinos, African Americans, Asians, Muslims and others, whose alienation has been exacerbated by Trump’s triumph. Trump’s nationalist rhetoric is particularly disliked by progressives who, as author and New America fellow Michael Lind notes in a recent National Review column, find the very idea of borders and national interests reactionary and inherently racist.
This identity politics, some liberals note, has driven many whites into a defensive crouch and pushed them toward the Republicans. Yet, there is little sign that the party will move in their direction. After all, Hillary labeled them “deplorables” — not much of a sales pitch. After the election, progressive journalists have portrayed Trump voters as irredeemably racist, misogynist, stupid and even too “fat.” Summing up, suggests Slate’s Jamelle Bouie, there’s no such thing as a “good Trump voter.”
Inside the progressive echo chamber, many still believe that an alliance of minorities, gender activists and millennials will make their victory inevitable. This can be seen in the tendency of Democrats, just as there is a palpable rise in crime, to invite the militant Black Lives Matter movement into their tent.
Perhaps nothing more illustrates the Corbynite trend than the proposal to make Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Ellison does check off the diversity boxes, but also would place in party leadership someone who has embraced the Nation of Islam, supports the boycott of Israeli products and has compared 9-11 to the Reichstag fire that facilitated the Nazi dictatorship.
Going left may be emotionally satisfying to Democrats who feel abandoned by their less progressive fellow citizens. But abandoning the middle of the spectrum does not seem an effective way to get back into power.
Joel Kotkin is the R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism (www.opportunityurbanism.org).

When Did the Left Know the Truth about Cuba, and Why Does it Still Support the Communist Regime?

Much has already been written about Fidel Castro’s passing, but I would like to add a few thoughts in the days left before his funeral.  In the summer of 1973, I experienced life under Castro when I went on an extended trip to the island organized by the pro-Castro Center for Cuban Studies.  Traveling around the country, I observed close-up what it was like to live in the Communist state and I didn’t like what I saw. Afterwards, I wrote about it for the left-wing magazineLiberation, which consequently was bombarded with angry letters calling me a traitor to the Left. Later, I included the experience in my memoir describing how it contributed to my  political transformation.
Like many others of my generation, including my colleague Roger L. Simon, I was at first mesmerized by Castro’s seductive allure and  promises of creating a Cuba freed from authoritarian and corrupt rule.  I was hopeful when he said that Cuba would have free elections and would be a non-Communist state that would work to bring equality to Cuba’s people.

Many members of the New Left transferred their parents’ idolization of Joseph Stalin to Fidel Castro, whom they saw as the premier revolutionary hero of their generation. They believed that Fidel, unlike Stalin, would bring a humanist revolution to Cuba, in contrast to the failures of the old Cuban Communist Party. Like the Columbia University best-selling sociologist C. Wright Mills, they believed, as Mills wrote, “I am for the Cuban revolution. I do not worry about it. I worry for it and with it.”
However, these admirers of Castro’s regime could have seen his true colors right from the start when scores of so-called followers of Batista were executed by firing squads without trial. Castro rationalized it by saying they deserved such a fate because they had worked for Batista’s authoritarian regime. But soon afterwards, other dissenters and opponents of the turn towards socialism became political prisoners and were regularly tortured to make them confess to imaginary crimes, or simply because Castro saw torture as justified extra punishment.
One follower of Castro was shocked. Carlos Franqui operated Castro’s radio station “Radio Rebelde” from the Sierra Maestra, where Castro and his armed bands were fighting Batista. In his memoir of the revolutionary struggle, Family Portrait With Fidel (1984),  Franqui, then the editor of the official revolutionary newspaper Revolucion, noted how surprised he was to hear reports of the torture of counterrevolutionary suspects. Bringing news of this to  Fidel  Castro, Franqui quickly learned that the torture had the leader's blessings.  When Mr. Franqui raised the issue of the moral degradation torture implies, Castro told him that it ''annihilates the enemy'' and hence was necessary. Eventually Franqui left Cuba and moved first to Italy and later to Puerto Rico, where he became one of the leading Cuban opponents of the regime he once served.
In Stalin’s days, Western true believers later made the excuse that they did not know the truth at the time and only learned of it when Nikita Khrushchev gave his famous speech about Stalin’s crimes in 1956. The New Left had no such excuse about Cuba. They simply ignored whatever evidence was presented.

Case in point. When Armando Valladares’s book about his years of torture and imprisonment in Cuba was published in 1986, the late Stalinist journalist Alexander Cockburn waged a campaign against Valladares in the pages of The Village Voice. He accused Valladares of lying about the conditions and his treatment in a Cuban jail, and repeated Cuban allegations that Valladares was “a police officer in the Batista regime.”  Cockburn added, for good measure, that “there is no institutionalized torture in Cuba.” By that late date, Cockburn had no excuse whatsoever for writing those words.
Neither did the left-wing press. In his PJ Media column, Roger Kimball writes about the love affair in those days by Nation magazine writers for Fidel. It’s still going on. On Nov. 26, the magazine promptly ran leftist historian Greg Grandin’s ode to the butcher of Cuba which extolled him as a figure of the “Enlightenment.”
Grandin rationalizes the totalitarian control of Cuba's people by the Castro brothers as necessary, asking whether “the Cuban Revolution would have survived, had Castro not shut down civil society, and if that survival was worth it.” Answering his own question, Grandin points to the regime’s claim about the great advances in health care, literacy, and “beating back white supremacy in Africa.” I assume he is referring to the Cuban military intervention in Angola in 1974, fought on behalf of the far-left MPLA, and again in 1988, when thousands of Cuban troops fought against the anti-Communist UNITA. All of their aid was described by the Cuban regime as “humanitarian,” and not military. Grandin fails to mention how Cuba was doing the Soviets' bidding in an attempt to create Soviet client states in Africa.
But Grandin is not completely blind, and he worries if all the “repression” carried out by Castro “was for naught,” since there is still racial and economic inequality, sex tourism, and corruption. Of course, he attributes these continuing problems to the U.S. embargo, not to the failed collectivist utopia that Castro tried to impose. He shows no concern for the perpetuation of oppression by Raul Castro. Rather, he is worried about the coming presidency of Donald Trump, which he refers to as  “a new darkness.”

The question now is how the United States will use Fidel Castro’s death to advance the Cuban transition to democracy and in time help to bring about the end of the oppressive regime.  How much of the modest and token reforms that have taken place in Cuba can be expanded? What measures instituted by President Barack Obama, made through executive action, can be modified or rescinded, without damage to the innocent and brave people of Cuba? I wish President-elect Trump, whose statement after Castro’s passing shows he understands fully the horrendous nature of the Castro regime, success in bringing about these ends.

Trump and Enforcement of the Immigration Laws

Given how central concerns over illegal immigration were to Donald Trump’s campaign, it was inevitable that his triumph would spark a strident debate. The rival sides, however, are like ships passing in the night.
Trump emissaries assert that the president-elect will step up border enforcement and prioritize the deportation of criminal aliens – i.e., those who’ve committed serious and/or repetitious state and federal crimes, not just immigration-law violations. Trump detractors, including Democratic mayors of major cities, respond with indignant vows to protect “undocumented” members of their communities who are living peaceful, essentially law-abiding lives.
If you’re thinking the Democratic response is not, well, responsive, you’re onto the game. The immigrants they make a grand show of protecting are exactly the people not being targeted by the Trump camp’s deportation plans. If Democrats oppose Trump on his own terms, they risk being revealed as champions of criminals preying on Americans. So the Left is going demagogue – turning a “right versus wrong” issue into “us versus them.”
To be fair, they have not been alone in this. Throughout the campaign, especially during the GOP primaries, Trump beat his chest about mass deportations and the sea-to-sea wall for which Mexico would supposedly pay. As we’ve observed, much of this was absurd, as was Trump’s suggestion of a touchback amnesty approach: The government would expend untold billions to send millions of illegal aliens back home … only to invite most of them back in with legal status.
As the campaign unfolded and victory seemed increasingly plausible, Trump’s rhetoric grew tamer. As president-elect, it appears he has ended up in a more realistic place.
There is a reason the competing rhetoric – mass deportations versus sanctuary cities – has been so extreme. It’s been so long since our government has enforced the immigration laws, we have forgotten what rational enforcement looks like. In the interim, after two decades of prosecuting terrorism in the federal courts, we’ve lost the distinction between law-enforcement issues and national-security challenges.
Immigration is a law-enforcement issue. Yes, it has some national-security implications, just as other crimes that contribute to terrorist plots do. In the main, though, it is an ordinary crime problem. Our goal is never to extirpate crime problems – not in the way that government agents must prevent and exhibit zero tolerance for terrorism, a national security challenge. Crime problems are managed, not eradicated.
It is not possible to prosecute every immigration offense, just as we have no expectation that the police will arrest every drug dealer or petty thief. No one would want to live in the kind of authoritarian state we would become if we took such an approach to crime. Plus, we do not have the resources it would take even if we were open to it.
Like any other crime problem, illegal immigration should be addressed in a manner commensurate with its seriousness. The objective should be to prosecute and/or deport as many of the worst offenders as possible, given the available resources – meaning the amount of investigators, prosecutor-time, court-time, detention space, and deportation administration it is reasonable to devote to immigration enforcement in light of other crime problems that also demand attention. The goal is a degree of enforcement sufficient to remove significant offenders and discourage potential offenders.
Notice what I didn’t say: amnesty. There is a crucial distinction between prosecutorial discretion (a necessary resource-allocation doctrine that should be non-controversial) and the de facto pardon of illegal immigrants whose prosecution and/or removal are not prioritized. The Obama administration perverted prosecutorial discretion, not just by refusing to execute the laws faithfully but by treating his non-prosecution as affirmative forgiveness of the aliens’ law violations. It is critical that, under the attorney general-to-be, Senator Jeff Sessions, we get back to traditional prosecutorial discretion, meaning: The Justice Department reserves the right to prosecute all offenses of federal law and to deport any alien who is deportable.
If an illegal alien evades enforcement action because his law-breaking is comparatively minor, he should see it as his lucky day, not as immunity. Most Americans have had it up-to-here with the rote “living in the shadows” twaddle they hear from apologists for illegal aliens. If you don’t want to live in the shadows, don’t enter or remain in a foreign country in violation of its laws – go home. If you choose to remain, your outlaw plight is of your own making. We are under no obligation to rethink your status. We are not looking for a mass round-up of illegal aliens, but don’t mistake compassion and common sense for an entitlement.
Illegal immigration is a crime driven by the potential for employment and social welfare benefits. Consequently, some percentage of the finite resources available for immigration enforcement must be directed at the investigation and prosecution of businesses that unlawfully employ illegal aliens. There must also be heightened scrutiny of immigrant qualifications for benefits, to signal to present and would-be illegal aliens that their prospects are apt to be better in their home countries.
The term “self-deportation” provoked no small amount of derision during Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. It is the right idea, nonetheless. Immigration enforcement should do what all good law-enforcement does: encourage current offenders to halt the lawless behavior on their own, and potential offenders not to start it in the first place – with the minimal expenditure of public resources necessary to make that incentive system real.
It is important to remove alien criminals from our country, not just those who are here illegally to begin with, but also those whose crimes violate the terms of their entry and make them deportable. It is not, however, a law-enforcement priority to pursue illegal aliens who might well decide to leave on their own once an enforcement regimen creating that incentive is in place.
The left deflects every question about criminal immigrants with its other rote claim: “The system is broken.” Of course, what is broken about the system is precisely the failure to enforce the laws currently on the books. Illegal aliens who violate our penal laws do so because they are criminals, not because the “broken system” has somehow led them to criminality. We have enough citizen-criminals; we don’t need foreigners whose felonies are their most notable contribution to our society. Trump has said these criminal aliens have to go, and he’s right about that.
A final word about “sanctuary cities.” I am not as opposed to them as many conservatives – at least not in principle. As I have argued many times (see, e.g.here and here), the states are sovereign and immigration enforcement was meant to be a state responsibility. The federal enforcement role has been manufactured by the courts – and, as night follows day, once a federal role was contrived, it soon metastasized into federal supremacy.
If I had my druthers, we’d go back to a system in which the federal government was responsible for setting the terms of citizenship and securing the borders, while the states decided how welcoming to be to non-citizens. But with this caveat: the states pay their own way.
If the people of Chicago and San Francisco want their cities to harbor illegal aliens, that would be fine with me as long as the attendant welfare and security costs were born solely by those cities and their state governments. (By contrast, I applaud Governor Greg Abbott of Texas, who has announced a plan to ban sanctuary cities by cutting off funding for cities that refuse to enforce the law.) But states that permit sanctuary cities cannot not expect the rest of us pay for their largesse and defiance. If they refuse to enforce the laws, they must be cut off from federal funding. Otherwise, they make all of us accomplices in both lawlessness that we reject and policies that exacerbate the problem of illegal immigration.
That is a problem the nation wants reduced, even if no reasonable person expects it to be eradicated.