Every week, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:Who Wins The War Between Trump And California’s Sanctuary Policies?
Dave Schuler:Honestly, I have no idea. I think that while it’s possible for the federal government to win the fight it’s likely that California will. It’s also possible that California’s politicians will overreach, make a misstep, the president will invoke the Insurrection Act, and California’s state government will be removed.
I think it’s clear that California is presently an outlier in an number of ways ranging from politics to demographics to economy. Under the circumstances just about anything can happen.
Rob Miller : First, it’s important to look at the real issue here. And it isn’t some kind of humanitarian ‘immigration’ issue. It’s about ethnic politics and political power.
Over the past three decades or so, the state’s population has largely been deliberately replaced, especially in the coastal areas where the population is. It was done using open borders, sky high taxes, massive and complex ‘regulations’ on businesses and punitive laws favoring illegal migrants and ‘takers’ rather than makers.
Well funded political organizations like MeCHA, La Raza and MALDEF based on creating and exploiting ethnic grievance also played a role. As things rolled along, laws making it easy for voter fraud to occur and for illegal migrants to vote have exacerbated things. Meanwhile, small business owners, new college graduates, and many working families have simply left because of the artificially created high cost of living and doing business. Large corporations are also starting to leave the not-so-Golden State, because of the high taxation, strangling regulations and the difficulty in attracting employees because the high cost of housing and daily living. Even Silicon Valley has started to move to places like Boise, Idaho,Texas, Phoenix and Colorado among other places.
My point is that this is a political issue that has nothing to do with immigration or humanitarianism.
So who wins? Well, the Constitution says plainly that immigration is one of those powers the Federal Government has reserved for itself, like coining money or issuing postage stamps. Since California’s sanctuary laws are in violation of federal immigration laws, it would seem that once this gets to the Supreme Court, if it does, that President Trump wins this one. However, since a lot of appellate judges, especially Obama’s appointees seem far more concerned with political posturing rather than the law, it’s likely to be a real cobra vs. mongoose battle.
One thing the president could do to bring things to a head is to send federal marshals to Oakland to arrest the mayor, Libby Schaaf for obstruction of justice (a felony) prosecute her, and sentence her to a jail term. Ms. Schaaf is the mayor who warned illegal migrants of ICE activities that she was informed of in advance by ICE. Because of her actions, an estimated 800 illegal migrants with felony convictions are still running around loose. I believe that putting a few examples like Ms. Schaaf in prison would do a great deal to end this standoff, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if President Trump does just that. If I were placing a bet, I’d put it on President Trump to win this one.
Fun fact: It’s no secret that one of the Supreme Court justices is planning to retire this summer, and the name that keeps being mentioned is 81-year-old Anthony Kennedy. A Trump nominated justice definitely affect how this goes.
Laura Rambeau Lee: The majority of Americans understand we have a very real problem with illegal immigrants who have entered and are continuing to enter our country. They are undermining the fabric of our society; driving down wages for low income and mostly minority workers; and bankrupting our states with the additional costs expended for education, medical care, and other government entitlements paid out to them. It seems daily we are hearing reports of illegal immigrants committing crimes against American citizens and getting away with them. All too often our system is protecting the criminals and not delivering justice to the victims.
This battle being fought between the Justice Department and the State of California presents a constitutional crisis for our country. California has officially become a sanctuary state and recently passed three laws which the Justice Department says violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a son of legal Mexican immigrants, not only refuses to comply with federal immigration policies, he recently asserted his department would prosecute any business that willingly complies with federal law by allowing federal immigration officers on their property.
Putting an end to illegal immigration was the primary issue of Trump’s campaign and the reason he won. We know the majority of Americans are behind him and his efforts to build the wall, end illegal immigration, and find an acceptable solution to deal with the illegal immigrants already living here.
The federal government must win this war.
Well, there it is!
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the ‘net. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.
Because the Progressive elites of BOTH parties are under the impression that Americans can’t walk and chew gum at the same time and because old habits die hard, case in point, GOPe thwarting ignoring the will and interests of their constituency, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell is colluding with fellow RINOs and Greasy Chuck Schumer to move the DACA debate to the floor Monday.
Date: Monday, February 12, 2018
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Game plan: Monday’s vote in the U. S. Senate on H.R. 2579, which will become the “shell” bill for the Senate debate.
Endgame: Amnesty for two billion (plus, you can count on it) illegal aliens.
The move to hold an unpredictable Senate debate next week fulfills the promise McConnell made on the Senate floor to end the last government shutdown in mid-January, when he pledged to hold a neutral debate on the immigration issue that was “fair to all sides.”
McConnell moved on the Senate floor to vote to open debate on the bill Monday evening. The bill McConnell chose was unrelated to immigration, after he had said he planned to use a separate bill for the debate[…]
[H/t The Gateway Pundit]
McConnell stated a few weeks back during the Schumer shutdown that the process would be fair to all sides.
That is rich considering the fact that for the past several years, the interest of American voters were excluded from the discussion.
“[It] will be a process that is fair to all sides. The bill I move to, which will not have underlying immigration text, will have an amendment process that will ensure a level playing field at the outset…
“While I obviously cannot guarantee any outcome, let alone supermajority support, I can ensure the process is fair to all sides, and that is what I intend to do.”
The President is on the wrong side of this debate. Granting 2 million plus illegal aliens aka future Democratic voters is not why he was elected.
RINOs such as Scott Taylor (R-VA), a NeverTrumper is what is wrong with the Republican Party.
Let’s send a message to idiots like Scott Taylor.
Tell Republicans: VETO THE BILL! No DACA! No Amnesty!
In the 1960s, 1) with an anti-war movement scripted, and even controlled more than we knew, straight from Moscow, 2) a civil rights movement that would be ensnared and redirected as soon as Dr Martin Luther King and his closest followers could be despatched (1968), and 3) the rise of a cradle-to-grave incubation system where bright, affluent middle-class kids with only one defining characteristic, that they were coddled and spoiled, irrespective of race, could be indoctrinated in the genteel art of social “alienism” (as writers at National Review called it then—not to be confused with the new mini-series based on the 1994 novel by Caleb Carr, a very good book in its own right, in which psychologists were considered “alienists”), the structural design of the dismantling of the Republic was being fashioned.
In the 60s that indoctrination began in college, today, kids are tapped out as early at 4th Grade. My first memory of “alienists” in the NR sense was in mentioning the “anti-” nature of people such as Hillary Rodham while with the Watergate impeachment hearings committee and Nadar’s Raiders and their signature proclivity for storming government hearings and generally turning over tables in the Peoples’ office buildings. Too green to dislike bureaucracies at the time, that was an activity I had some empathy for, but it was National Review who drew the distinction for me between “anti-bureaucracy” and “anti-social”, which has served me ever since. .
Although he was not popularly known then, the fingerprints of Saul Alinksy were all over the activities of these early radical prototypes, and they were soon to be morphed into armies of lawyers with briefcases, headed by the environmental movement, of which I was a member, “Sue the bastards” our rallying cry.
That period of the 1960s saw the rise of black separatist movements, e.g. Black Panthers, all claiming a kinship with Dr King I doubt he ever intended, and of course race riots broke out in several cities. They were not spontaneous as the public was led to believe. Likewise the evolution of the Black Muslim movement and Nation of Islam occurred in this period, popularized by Muhammad Ali, the great boxer, who always invoked Elijah Muhammad when he proclaim his faith, only to leave the Farrakhan wing in favor of a more peaceful form of Islam as originally set out by Malcomb X, before he was assassinated[…]
(I should have waited a day, too hasty on the Nullification part, needed a rewrite.)
(I originally titled this piece “Lincoln Fought a Civil War to Keep the South in the Union, What Will Donald Trump Have to Offer to get California to Leave?”. It started out a little tongue-in-cheek, but by the time I got to the punch-line I realized it isn’t a joke, and a secession isn’t feasible, even if negotiated, and jokes are funny if they don’t have an element of truth in them. Besides California, like the Democrats’ DACA issue which it tied directly to Nullification, can’t negotiate in good faith. They want their cake and eat to too. It’s just who they are.
This is becoming not only a serious issue, but an urgent issue, if we read the body language and words of California officials correctly.)
Secession vs Nullification
While visiting the Canada Maritimes in the 1980s, at the height of the Quebec secession movement, a poll was reported that 87% of Quebec voters favored secession.
But alongside the 87% of Quebecois desiring secession, a national poll showed that 92% of the rest of Canada wanted them gone. At least that was the joke going around Nova Scotia at the time.
Something like that exists in America about California. Most Americans would just as soon see California gone. And while unthinkable in the practical sense, as Britain is trying to do with the EU, I can’t think of a way all the constitutional requirements could be met for such a case of first instance. We have rulls for adding states (Hawaii, Alaska) but none for letting them go. Of course we fought a huge war to stop a bunch of them going 150 years ago. And, irony of irony, what Democrat in Congress would vote to let 55 guaranteed electoral votes walk out the door?
Democrats couldn’t run a decent gas station. They have shown they have no interest, or skill, in running a country unless they can run it as a fiefdom, totally in charge.
California Secession and Nullification side-by-side:
Unlike the CSA, who could muster enough troops, and the cream of the Union’s pre-secession military leadership, to lead the Union Army on a four-year chase around the South, California couldn’t muster enough police to round up the federal employees in the state, and expel them across the state line, much less repel an invasion at their border.
So if the United States wanted to use force to make California stay, California would have to stay. Remember, the South, the Confederacy, ‘started” the Civil War by seceding. Arguably, Abraham Lincoln ’caused” it, simply by his election, for they even warned the Government they would do this if Lincoln were elected.
But they didn’t give Lincoln a chance to negotiate, for seven states seceded even before Lincoln was inaugurated in March, 1861. The federal government immediately declared this act to be illegal, but before any kind of conferences could be scheduled, in April, 1861 the South Carolinians fired on Ft Sumpter, in Charleston Harbor, the only federal property in the state, ending any chance for a negotiated settlement anyway. Game on…
Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: How Would You Deal With The DACA Issue?
Patrick O’Hannigan: I don’t know what a viable legislative solution to the DACA puzzle would or should like, but I do think that the Trump administration could apply appropriate political pressure on Congresscritters through a sustained public education campaign that involved more than occasional press briefings by Sarah Sanders. We could all stand being reminded that words mean things, and that “Deferred Action” does not mean “kicking the can down the road for another generation.” Trump is already under fire for pointing out that “temporary visas” should be just that — temporary. His people lose no credibility if they add another defense of the English language to the political lexicon. which has the incidental benefit of forcing at least a few politicians on both sides of the aisle to confront their own hypocrisy.
A public education campaign should also make the point that DACA is NOT rooted in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but in an executive order advanced by then-president Barack Obama. Anything created by executive order can also be undone by executive order. By forcing Congress to deal with the issue, President Trump is actually showing some restraint. The media loves to portray him as impulsive or impetuous. I think the only arena where that holds true is in his Twitter account. In fact, “No Drama Obama” was more impulsive than the executive with the orange mane whom we have in the White House now.
Bookworm Room:Well, you’d have to start by getting rid of every activist judge in America — such as the one who recently held that Obama had the right to issue an illegal executive order regarding immigration, but that Trump has no right to undo that order. He takes his place in a long and dishonorable line-up of judges who ignore the Constitution and duly passed law to achieve Progressive goals. Nothing will happen with DACA as long as we have judges like that.
I’m weird in that I believe in enforcing the law as written. If you don’t like the law, you change the law; you don’t have the Deep State, the Chamber of Commerce, and RINOs bypass the law entirely, while castigating the law abiding as racist, bigoted haters.
So, my solution: Start deporting everyone who is here illegally. Yes, there are a lot. Eventually, though, we won’t have to deport all of them. People will figure out that the government is actually serious about its laws. At that point, those who are here illegally, rather than being rushed out on someone else’s timetable, will move elsewhere in an orderly manner — or apply for political asylum if they need it.
Also, I’d strip all government monies from illegals. Every last dime.
Yes, this is cold and cruel, but at a certain point, you either decide to cut out the cancer or accept that it’s going to kill you. We cannot and should not be responsible for every disastrous country in the world. They and their citizens must take responsibility for themselves. Nowhere in the Constitution is America mandated to take in millions of illiterate, often medieval, people. In the 19th century, when a pre-technological world needed bodies, immigration policies were one way; in the 21st century, well, they need to be another way.
And no, I don’t want to hear “what about the children”? Children are always the pawns of adults’ poor decisions. If I’m going to care about the children, I’m going to care about children whose are legal Americans: Children who live in Democrat-run ghettos, children whose parents are in prison, children who are trapped in public schools because Progressives, buoyed at voting booths by illegals, refuse to issue vouchers. You know, those children.
In terms of real world solutions, I have none. These are just ardent fantasies from someone who believes that, without the rule of law, we’re in the fast lane to becoming a shithole country.
Rob Miller : I have to admit, there’s a humorous side to this one. President Barack Hussein Obama creates an illegal and unconstitutional amnesty program out of whole cloth benefiting one particular demographic at the expense of all others and bypasses congress. No fuss, no muss.
Meanwhile, President Trump, who is supposed to be the impetuous one doesn’t just end it…as he could have. He actually throws it back to congress, where it should have been in the first place according to the separation of powers doctrine and catches holy hell for it!
Even funnier, when Trump actually meets in congress to try and outline a deal, (A) some jerkwater Clinton appointee ‘judge’ in San Francisco pulls a judgement out of his nether regions saying that while Obama could illegally create DACA, Trump can’t legally end it…and (B) the Democrats and their RINO amnesty groupies ignore everything that Trump said openly wanted at the prior meeting in exchange for cutting the DACA illegal migrants a break, and present him with an amnesty bill, saying that they would work on Trump’s border security wants later, after the bill is passed! Which of course killed the whole thing. If I were the president, I’d not only be angry for being presented something like that by these fools, but for the insult to my own intelligence. Since the Democrats will not give an inch, this will bounce around until March when the thing dies of its own foul accord.So there will be deportations.
Ohhhh-kay, solutions? First off, the whole DACA scam has been presented to the American people as a Hollywood production, with carefully selected ‘Dreamers’ who speak English, all seem to be well groomed college students or graduates and talk about America as ‘their country’ with lovely, meaningless platitudes. In reality, a fair number are on welfare along with their family members who were allowed to join them, are not even high school graduates, and are barely literate, and commit a fair amount of crimes on a per capita basis.
In addition, a fair amount of those DACA’s who are literate are noted for their sense of entitlement, ingratitude and lack of connection with America. We can certainly do without them. After all, someone who’s a college graduate can certainly contribute in making his or her own country great again, ¿Entiendes?
Ideally, we could take the time to vet the 800,000 or so DACA population and allow the small number who actually aren’t on public assistance, aren’t felons, have skills we need and a connection with America to have residence permits, with no pathway to citizenship and no voting rights under pain of immediate deportation without appeal for any violation. Thanks to the antics of some of the swamp creatures in the DC Lagoon, we lack the time to do that. And I admittedly don’t find much sympathy for the parents. Many of the DACA illegal migrants came as unaccompanied minors and could easily have been victimized by human traffickers. The whole idea was for them to come across, get green cards and then send for the entire family and perhaps some ‘cousins’ who weren’t family members. Obama and his minions couldn’t have cared less.
It’s not well known, but America basically had a moratorium on immigration (not that the DACA crowd are actually immigrants) that started in 1920 and ended in the 1960’s. One reason was because we had a need to assimilate the huge rush of legal immigrants coming to America from countries like Russia, Czechoslovakia,Hungary, the Baltic States, Armenia, Poland, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, East Asia and other locales. As it was, those migrants were all carefully vetted, and refused entry if they didn’t meet our requirements at that time. There was also no social welfare state then, and many immigrant communities organized self help charities on their own to take care of indigents in need, help them learn English and in many cases find employment.
Some immigrants were indeed allowed to come in during that forty year period,but very few. The ones let in either had special skills, money to invest in America, or a powerful sponsor to grease the wheels. So people like Marlene Dietrich, Billy Wilder, Thomas Mann, Werner Von Braun, Einstein, etc. were allowed in. After WWII, a lot of servicemen who married Japanese, Korean or German spouses got them in as well. Some Holocaust survivors were also allowed in as refugees, especially if they had family here or special skills we needed. But legal immigration slowed from a torrent to a trickle.
We badly need to get back to a value added standard for immigration, and the current climate with Islamism mandates that we be a lot more particular who we let in and vet them far more carefully. And it might be smart also to take some time to limit migration until we have a breathing space to assimilate those who are here.
David Schuler: As I’ve mentioned before I think that those brought to the United States by their parents as children deserve some sort of leniency. Not just for the reasons usually cited—they don’t know any country but this one, etc.—but, importantly, because they’ve done nothing wrong. Their parents did.
Criteria need to be determined and those criteria should be enforced. Questions that should be asked include:
- By what age should they have been brought here? I think that kids brought in as babes in arms are different than 15 year olds.
- Should they be made to demonstrate that they have no attachment to their countries of origin and how would that be demonstrated?
- How long should they have been here?
- Will other requirements be imposed, e.g. they’re working, attending school full-time, or serving in the military, etc.?
I’m open to arguments about the conditions if any under which they should be eligible for citizenship. I don’t think that their parents should be given legal status automatically and possibly not ever.
Don Surber: Donald Trump is handling the illegal and unconstitutional — but popular due to a Marxist press — DACA brilliantly.
First he announced in September that DACA was illegal and unconstitutional, and gave Congress six months to fix it. Then he met with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. They agreed to hold further talks.
This month, Trump brought everyone together for a talk on DACA.
Nothing has changed. Democrats have made no progress. Trump’s demands are the Wall, an end to chain migration, and the end of the immigration lottery.
He may as well also ask for the moon and the sun. Democrats cannot give him any of that because they need immigration to grow in order to sustain their party, which is built on the constant addition of angry, entitled political blocs.
Come March, Trump ends DACA. Democrats freak out. The public cheers.
Laura Rambeau Lee : By signing an executive order in June of 2012 President Obama overstepped his authority and granted the children of illegal immigrants’ renewable two year deferments from deportation and the ability to obtain permits to legally work in the United States. President Trump rescinded this executive order in September of 2017. Establishing our immigration policy falls under the duties of Congress and it is up to Congress to pass legislation related to this matter.
Although the numbers have reduced dramatically since President Trump took office, for several decades we have seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country. Estimates of between twelve and twenty million people are living here in the shadows illegally. We cannot keep kicking this can down the road. These people are a massive drain on our resources. President Trump rightfully told Congress they should pass a bill and he will sign it.
Reports disclose there are approximately eight hundred thousand people who fall into the DACA category; children who were brought to the United States by their parents illegally before they were sixteen years of age. Many of them have no recollection of their birth countries. Although many staunch right-wingers insist on the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants, to forcibly deport them would be perceived as not compassionate.
We have to have room to compromise and these DACA individuals seem the logical place where conservatives can agree with the Democrats. We should use this to our advantage as we insist that any legislation include building the border wall and require the immediate deportation of any illegal immigrants found guilty of a major crime or violence or involvement with drugs. I like the idea proposed by Senator Rand Paul. We take perhaps two hundred thousand of these DACA eligible people each year and process them through our normal immigration system; and by lessening the number of new immigration applications by that same number we maintain our immigration quota. In less than a decade the DACA individuals will have been legally integrated into our country. Of course we must fully vet them and make sure they have not been involved in any felonies or major crimes including identity theft or drug dealings, that they share American values, speak English, and continue to be employed. They must also be required to attend citizenship classes although they should not be given a straight path to citizenship. If they fail to stay employed or commit a felony or major crime they should be deported immediately. After ten years of fulfilling these obligations if they choose they can apply for citizenship, but only if they have proven to be a positive asset to their community and our country.
The Democrats seem bent on obstructing any legislation except for full amnesty for all illegal immigrants. Republicans are in control and must stand firm on insisting that any immigration policy passed includes building the border wall to prevent future illegal immigration, deporting any illegal immigrants found guilty of a major crime, and increasing security at our borders. A path for legal status, although not necessarily citizenship, for DACA individuals would be a compromise Americans will see as compassionate. Will the Democrats stand united against a compromise on an immigration bill as we saw with the income tax reduction bill? If they do not compromise and join in passing a bipartisan bill that President Trump can sign, I believe the 2018 mid-term elections will not go well for the Democrats. Americans are tired of Congress not working together for the betterment of the American people and our country. We are tired of being told we must accept illegal immigrants with open arms or being called racist if we want our laws to be enforced. We want Congress to do their job.
Well, there it is!
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the ‘net. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.