Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers (aka human capital) under neoliberalism

 Lars Cornelissen[] The human condition in a neoliberal world (criticalstudies.org.uk, Nov 19, 2015)

This article considers the subject that neoliberal rationality constructs. By engaging first with Michel Foucault’s account of the entrepreneurial self, then with contemporary critical theorists who build upon and move beyond Foucault’s account, it considers three aspects of the human condition under neoliberal hegemony: the moral, the political, and the existential.

Neoliberal rationality, then, analyses not only people’s economic activity (with Smith, those activities that spring from our natural propensity to ‘truck, barter, and exchange’) in terms of competition and investment, but all of their action. It turns economics, the study of economic behaviour, into “praxeology”: the study of human action as such.8 With the rise of rational choice theory in the post-WWII period, economic analysis becomes one of the most prominent methodologies applied in the humanities and therewith economics quickly replaces the artes liberales of yesteryear as the core curriculum for social scientists. “Economic imperialism”, indeed.

Taken together, the notion of human capital and the widened scope of economics result economic activity is analysed in terms of human capital, at the same time economics broadens its scope, colonises the all human action as economic action, thereby effectively recasting every human activity as either the obtention of income, or the appreciation or depreciation of human capital.11 Homo oeconomicus - nomic analysis, is not made to disappear (notwithstanding neoliberals’ insistence on the contrary)12 homo oeconomicus in the classical liberal conception was a “partner of exchange” based on “a problematic of needs,”13 under neoliberalism homo oeconomicus becomes modelled on the enterprise, that is, a business sought in “the mechanisms of competition.”14 consist of capital and is likewise required to compete in markets. Homo oeconomicus becomes “an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of himself.”15 The entrepreneurial self, in short, is the self who is constantly engaged in investing in her own human capital because she must compete in a marketplace; it is the self “who incurs expenses by investing to obtain some kind of improvement.”16 or otherwise.

The neoliberal subject for Foucault is thus the subject who invests, who competes, who appreciates her human capital.17 This subject is considered to behave like an enterprise and, crucially, sees herself as an enterprise. She is made to conform to entrepreneurial standards through an ethics of the self and, indeed, the newly fashioned neoliberal “[h] omo oeconomicus is someone who is eminently governable.”18 The point here is that whereas homo oeconomicus as the classical political economists understood it had to be left alone (“one must lasser-faire”)19 the neoliberal subject is so intimately tethered becomes easily conducted.

The neoliberal subject will always respond to socio-economic reality, because her survival, her income, depends on her adaptation to changing cirto increase the value of their human capital, or more precisely, to act on the way they govern themselves, by inciting them to adopt conducts deemed valorizing and to follow One merely has to consider ‘welfare-to-work’ or ‘workfare’ programmes to understand how such self-government unfolds in everyday life.21 Here ends Foucault’s account of the neoliberal subject. Although he did not address the topic himself, we can use the framework he provides to ask what kind of subject neoliberal rationality constructs after having become hegemonic. In what follows I will consider the neoliberal subject’s moral agency, her political agency, and, somewhat more their theoretical underpinnings.

Moral agency

Neoliberal theory deals with private subjects who “do and permit what they will” according to their own preferences and value orientations within the limits of legally permissible action. They are not required to take any mutual interest for one another; they are thus not equipped with any moral sense of social obligation. The legally requisite respect for private liberties that all competitors are equally entitled to is something very different from the equal respect for the human worth of each individual. J. Habermas, The Postnational Constellation

When neoliberal rationality becomes the hegemonic imaginary, a meaningful sense of that the neoliberal subject, although purportedly non-gendered, is deeply gendered in fact. See the case.22 The argument runs deeper, for the point is that neoliberal rationality undermines the very possibility of any non-instrumental moral agency by reconstructing the subject exclusively along entrepreneurial lines. Let us see how this goes. Firstly, and most importantly, the entrepreneurial logic neoliberalism commits its subjects to turns them into unabashedly self-interested micro-enterprises. The place proper to enterprises, however, is the marketplace. This means that subjects, whose activity is other human capitals), appreciation or depreciation of their own capital, or the obten- But if all human activity is interpreted as self-interested (as rational choice theory assumes)24 we thereby lose the ability to view anything other than our own utility as an end in itself. This means nothing less than the inability to act as Kantian moral agents, because for Kant only prescribes it, are moral in nature. Since neoliberalism assumes that all action is spurred by individual interests, it becomes impossible, among other things, to view other human beings (or indeed ourselves) as ends in themselves or to act according to our moral duty as such. The neoliberal subject is, in effect, not an inhabitant of the Reich der Zwecken

Although this does not mean that the neoliberal subject is entirely divested of moral agency, it does mean that the only moral agency she is capable of pertains to what developmental children. In this sense, neoliberal morality is pre-eminently infantile.26 Neoliberalism inherited this utilitarian understanding of morality from classical liberalism. Classical liberalism too denies that individuals are anything other than desiring beplanning of supporting. ings, perpetually moving from one joy to the next.27 The difference lies therein that while classical liberalism held that an individual’s desires are given prior to any contact with

...For its bastard offspring self-interestedness is wholly tethered to market mechanisms. The self-interestedness prescribed by neoliberalism is not the quasi-epicurean perpetual want-satisfaction Bentham and his liberal fellow travellers celebrated; it is, rather, the injunction to be a productive, responsible, self-investing speck of human capital.29 As Jacques Rancière explains, the neoliberal subject is “called on to be the microcosm of the great noisy whole of the circulation and uninterrupted exchange of rights and capabilities, of goods and the Good,” and is “required to see himself [sic own militant, as a small alliance-forming energy, running from one tie to the next, from one contract to the next as well as from one thrill to the next.” The neoliberal evisceration of moral agency should not surprise us; it is inherent in the entrepreneurial logic neoliberalism submits its subjects to. In a critique of corporate power, Joel Bakan writes that “[u]nlike the human beings who inhabit it, the corporation is singularly self-interested and unable to feel genuine concern for others in any context.”

This leads him to conclude that if corporations were people, they would be diagnosed as psychopathic. Surely he is right, and surely this is what neoliberal rationality wants every human being to model their behaviour on. Neoliberal theory has never been very secretive about its simplistic understanding of morality either. For while Adam Smith (whose Wealth of Nations, I imagine, is to be found on every neoliberal’s night stand, while the fact that the same man authored The Theory of Moral Sentiments is conveniently forgotten) once held that “[i]t is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,”33 Bernard Mandeville, the political economist from whom Hayek derived his theory of spontaneous order, actually celebrated the vices with splendid candour: Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live, Hunger’s a dreadful Plague, no doubt, Yet who digests or thrives without?34 The subtitle to Mandeville’s magnum opus neatly sums up the neoliberal understanding of morality: Hayek, who is very much indebted to the work of this “master-mind”35 - deville’s lessons to heart and indeed not only condemns all of the cardinal virtues except for Prudence;36 it actively prescribes all of the cardinal vices, with the exception of Sloth (more on Sloth below), as vices are imagined to be the fuel of History’s engine: spontaneous (market) order. That this view of virtuosity is detrimental to any notion of ‘civic virtue’, upon which many democratic theories rest, requires no elaboration. Moral agency and neoliberalism, in sum, do not go together. The subject neoliberal rationality creates cannot be anything other than a self-interested being, whose (literally) vicious behaviour is celebrated because, in neoliberal mythology, the only way to progress as a species is for individuals to behave like wholly self-interested, atomistic Benthamites.

Political agency

Voters and customers are essentially the same people. Mr. Smith buys and votes; he is the same man in the supermarket and in the voting booth G. Tullock, The Vote Motive

Besides undermining the possibility to view themselves, others, and the world as ends in themselves, neoliberal rationality thoroughly subverts subjects’ capacity for political agency. Although it is an academic commonplace to refer to neoliberalism as a depoliti- Usually neoliberalism’s depoliticising tendency is understood to lie in its penchant for rhetorically and institutionally reducing all problems to market problems. Neoliberalism, in this sense, is indeed “the belief that the traditional questions of the polis are best answered by the market.”37 This depoliticising logic is inherent in most neoliberal theory, which as I argued above, tends to understand all human action as economic action: everything is understood as either investment, consumption, competition, or income obtention (although obtention of psychic income is literally equated with consumption). The creed underlying this ‘praxeological’ economics is that “[h]uman beings do not behave basically differently when they solve social and political problems compared to when they turn to economic or legal tasks.”38 To be sure, this is certainly one way in which neoliberalism depoliticises. If human beings are self-interested specks of human capital all round, then it follows that in the ‘political marketplace’ they are just as entrepreneurial, self-interested, and asocial as they are anywhere else. Many authors point to a second way in which neoliberalism depoliticises. Because politics in a neoliberal era becomes solely about economic matters, which are far too complex for mere mortals to even grasp let alone decide upon, citizens quickly avert their gaze to the more interesting things in life. Neoliberalism, as Wendy Brown quite rightly points out, “reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity and political complacency.”39 Although people are still made to vote and perhaps even contribute to politics in other ways (protest, write articles for newspapers), this politics revolves around banal or inconsequential policies and voting is increasingly reminiscent of actual consumer choices. “In place of the citizen-participant,” as Sheldon Wolin explains, “the new politics courts the viewer-consumer.”40 What this results in is “a cant politics of the inconsequential.”41 Meanwhile, actual political processes are submitted to comhegemony, as Rancière points out, “[t]he theme of the common will is replaced by that of the lack of personal will, of capacity for autonomous action that is anything more than just management of necessity.”42 The authors discussed here are certainly right in signalling the way in which neoliberalism turns citizens into apathetic, one-dimensional men (to borrow a phrase from Herbert Marcuse) and the state into a puppet controlled by today’s greatest puppeteer: the Global Market. There is, however, another more fundamental way in which neoliberalism depoliticises. Essentially, the point is that neoliberalism reconstructs both the subject and democracy, turning them into an enterprise and a market respectively, thereby undermining the very possibility of genuine political action. Here is how this goes. By casting subjectivity in economic terms across all spheres of life, neoliberal rationality turns political activity into another strand of the protean economic behaviour that investors), as is commonly pointed out, it also means that political agency disappears. The consumer-investor cannot be a political subject, for the latter is a subject who acts in an Arendtian sense, meaning appearing, speaking, expressing oneself in a public realm human beings see themselves as citizens of a polis, who collectively act because such action is a bonum in several subjects are naught but entrepreneurial and, as I already argued above, are for this reason entirely self-interested, politics becomes, in Arendt’s terms, “no less a means to an end than making is a means to produce an object,” which “happens whenever human togetherness is lost, that is, when people are only for or against other people.” In these cases, “speech becomes indeed ‘mere talk,’ one more means toward the end.”44 However, while on the one hand the neoliberal subject is incapable of viewing herself as anything other than a self-interested, entrepreneurial speck of human capital, neoliberalism, on the other, denies and deconstructs the public realm that is a conditio sine qua non for action of this sort. The counterfeit ‘public realm’ that neoliberalism constructs in lieu of the one it deconstructed is nothing but a marketplace: an agora, not an ekklesia.45 This is to say, neoliberalism does not simply frame democratic institutions in market terminology; its rationality in fact reconstructs them.

As recent examples of neoliberal jurisprudence in the US make clear, neoliberal rationality recasts democracy as a "markeplace" . ..Speech, which is understood as a commercial good rather than as the one capacity that distinguishes humans from animals (as Aristotle, Arendt, or Rancière would have rations, monetary institutions, and the like. By recasting speech as a good bought with (which protects, inter alia, free speech) to be interpreted as protecting not citizens from censure but the ‘democratic marketplace’ from state interference.46

It likewise legitimizes far-reaching political inequality, because one’s economic capital is translated directly into one’s ‘political capital’. The result: even as subjects are disenfranchised, turned into apathetic, passive consumer-citizens, and made increasingly powerless vis-à-vis the demands of global markets, the corporation is allowed into the realm of (what is left of) politics.47 In effect, neoliberalism’s reconstruction of the subject is a blade that cuts both ways: by recasting the subject as an enterprise, it simultaneously bestows upon actual business enterprises a similar political subjectivity. Democracy becomes rule not by the people but by capital (a redefinition that goes unnoticed by neoliberals themselves, because they understand people as capital).

 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Nov 01, 2018] Angela Merkel Migrates Into Retirement The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism. ..."
"... Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world. ..."
"... "We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold." ..."
"... The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult. ..."
"... Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question. ..."
"... In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. ..."
Nov 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Her refugee blunder changed the European continent in irreversible ways for decades to come. By Scott McConnellNovember 1, 2018

https://web.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F__Bz3h5RzMx.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df1e05916197a506%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ffa22eaad4bf7dc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.fe97d5b55faa73e82b8adbe10e393b13.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Angela%20Merkel%20Migrates%20Into%20Retirement%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1541069527058&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.r3VEB-hu6dk.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPdzfaDsFYsZF5Fx6dxuyMdlAHKvg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1541069526884&_gfid=I0_1541069526884&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=60814349

Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.

Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.

She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition partners.

Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world.

One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have left them for the AfD.

Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has "utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society) and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.

For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject. Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.

"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold."

The Angela Merkel Era is Coming to an End The Subtle Return of Germany Hegemony

Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, The New York Times reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.

The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult.

Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.

In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.

In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.

Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .

[Oct 29, 2018] If I understood correctly his attack was against the Jewish organisation that brings immigrants. Because he sees that as the enemy action

Oct 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

donkeytale , Oct 28, 2018 3:22:09 PM | link

NemesisCalling - LMAO. Srsly? Ok, I'll bite.

Trump represents himself and expects the little people (IE, everyone except him and his children) to exist only for him, the spoiled daddy-created globalist so-called billionaire who doesn't have a clue WTF he's doing as POTUS besides infotaining and enflaming his racist base, plus giving into the GOP party line on all substantive issues with the result being more of the same as Barry-O, only worse.

Personally, I enjoy him from an infotainment perspective. We are all only infotaining ourselves to death anyway, so Trump's just added comedic grist to enliven our time in hospice care.

Did you expect or hope for another in the globalist class, maybe as slick as Barry-O, who appealed to the edumacated coastal elites in his incredibly pompous and phony addresses?

I expected a globalist (either Trump or Hillary) but hoped for Bernie.

Trump is not antithesis. This is where you are most mistaken. If he were the truth (as you state), there would be stronger social security, Medicare and Medicaid for his base, no tax cuts favouring corporations, LLCs and the very rich.

There would be newly created infrastructure and improved healthcare.

The trade war would already be won and the wealth equality gap would be well on the road to closure.


Yonatan , Oct 28, 2018 4:04:53 PM | link

The Pittsburgh attack was conveniently timed to distract US media from another murderous onslaught by Israel on Gaza. The IDF targets included a Gaza hospital.

Pittsburgh - qui bono?

Vitaliy , Oct 28, 2018 6:08:07 PM | link
There are mass shooters and there are mass bombers...
There are just babies compare with our old friend Mr. Kissinger.
Jay , Oct 28, 2018 6:18:11 PM | link
@john wilson:

"The Jews are murdering unarmed Palestinians with abandon,"

That's an ugly conflation of Jews and Israel.

Pft , Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | link
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.

As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)

Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point because he was taken alive, but who knows.

hopehely , Oct 28, 2018 6:53:30 PM | link
Posted by: Pft | Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.

If I understood correctly his attack was against the Jewish organisation that brings immigrants. Because he sees that as the enemy action.

[Oct 08, 2018] I have been meeting more and more Americans abroad who permanently left the US and told me it was the best thing they did, or that they never want to go back. Why is that so? Is it due to POTUS?

Oct 08, 2018 | www.quora.com

Jason Perno , Cyber Security Specialist and Forensic Analyst at NNIT A/S (2017-present)

Answered 17h ago

I left the United States because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to being without the normal help she gets from the Danish system. We... (more) Loading

I left the United States because I married a Danish woman. We tried living in New York, but we struggled a lot. She was not used to being without the normal help she gets from the Danish system. We made the move a few years ago, and right away our lives started to improve dramatically.

Now I am working in IT, making a great money, with private health insurance. Yes I pay high taxes, but the benefits outweigh the costs. The other things is that the Danish people trust in the government and trust in each other. There is no need for #metoo or blacklivesmatter, because the people already treat each other with respect.

While I now enjoy an easier life in Denmark, I sit back and watch the country I fiercely love continue to fall to pieces because of divisive rhetoric and the corporate greed buying out our government.

Trump is just a symptom of the problem. If people could live in the US as they did 50 years ago, when a single person could take care of their entire family, and an education didn't cost so much, there would be no need for this revolution. But wages have been stagnant since the 70's and the wealth has shifted upwards from the middle class to the top .001 percent. This has been decades in the making. You can't blame Obama or Trump for this.

Meanwhile, I sit in Denmark watching conservatives blame liberalism, immigrants, poor people, and socialism, while Democrats blame rednecks, crony capitalism, and republican greed. Everything is now "fake news". Whether it be CNN or FOX, no one knows who to trust anymore. Everything has become a conspiracy. Our own president doesn't even trust his own FBI or CIA. And he pushes conspiracy theories to mobilize his base. I am glad to be away from all that, and living in a much healthier environment, where people aren't constantly attacking one another.

Maybe if the US can get it's healthcare and education systems together, I would consider moving back one day. But it would also be nice if people learned to trust one another, and trust in the system again. Until then, I prefer to be around emotionally intelligent people, who are objective, and don't fall for every piece of propaganda. Not much of that happening in America these days. The left has gone off the deep end playing identity politics and focusing way too much on implementing government mandated Social Justice. Meanwhile the conservatives are using any propaganda and lying necessary to push their corporate backed agenda. This is all at the cost of our environment, our free trade agreements, peace treaties, and our European allies. Despite how much I love my country, I breaks my heart to say, I don't see myself returning any time soon I'm afraid.

[Sep 27, 2018] Why Not a Merit-Based Immigration System by Scott McConnell

Notable quotes:
"... Salam's case is that America's legal immigration system needs be reformed on lines roughly similar to what the Trump administration now and others before it have long advocated: changing the rules to place a greater emphasis on the economic skills of immigrants while deemphasizing the role played by family "reunification" would ensure both that new immigrants are an economic plus to the economy and, more importantly, that they are more likely to integrate into the American cultural mainstream. ..."
"... First of all, Salam reminds us, an alarming number of recent immigrants and their families are poor. This does not mean that almost all of them have not improved their economic status by migration: they have. ..."
"... Salam explains that under the current system, most visas are doled out according to family ties -- not skills or education. And the larger the number of immigrants is from a given country, the lower their average earnings and educational outcomes will be in the U.S. Conversely, the harder it is for a given group to enter the United States, the more likely it is that immigrants will be drawn from the top of their country's pecking order. ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Why Not a Merit-Based Immigration System? Reihan Salam's latest book makes the case for an overhaul along Trumpian lines.

It's hard to imagine a more needed contribution to America's immigration debate than Reihan Salam's civil, sober, and penetrating Melting Pot or Civil War? At a moment when the major dueling discourses revolve around lurid depictions of immigrant crime by one side, and appeals to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and accusations of racism by the other, Salam's data-driven argument about the future consequences of today's immigration choices could not be more timely.

While Salam is the child of middle-class professionals from Bangladesh who settled in New York at a time when there were virtually no Bengali speakers in the city (there are now tens of thousands), apart from a few personal anecdotes, his book could have been written by an author of any ethnicity. Yet in our increasingly racialized debate, an argument made by a "son of immigrants" (as the book's subtitle announces) may be less likely to face summary dismissal from the centrist liberals and moderates who are its most important audience.

Salam's case is that America's legal immigration system needs be reformed on lines roughly similar to what the Trump administration now and others before it have long advocated: changing the rules to place a greater emphasis on the economic skills of immigrants while deemphasizing the role played by family "reunification" would ensure both that new immigrants are an economic plus to the economy and, more importantly, that they are more likely to integrate into the American cultural mainstream. This would put the U.S. more in line with the generally politically popular systems in place in Canada and Australia. The proposal is tempered, or balanced, by measures to shore up the condition of the American working poor and an amnesty giving long-term resident illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, as well as ambitious measures to enhance economic development in the Third World.

But the meat of Melting Pot or Civil War? is not in the proposal but in the getting to it -- a route which passes through numerous nuggets gleaned from contemporary research and a depressing if persuasive analysis of the consequences if America stays on its present course.

First of all, Salam reminds us, an alarming number of recent immigrants and their families are poor. This does not mean that almost all of them have not improved their economic status by migration: they have. A low-skilled job in the United States pays several times better than such work in many countries, so low-skilled migration is, without a doubt, a benefit to low-skilled migrants. Recent immigrants grateful for the opportunity to live in America may accept living in poverty, though Salam is right to remind us of the miserable conditions, redolent of the teeming tenements of the early 20th century, in which their lives often unfold. He makes the subtle point that part of the current appeal of America's major cities to upper middle-class professionals is the presence of a politically docile service class of low-skilled immigrants, many of them undocumented.

But the families such immigrants form tend to be poor as well: today's immigrants face headwinds to upward mobility that the storied Ellis Island generations did not. There was much more need in 1900 for unskilled labor than there is now, and no substantive gap then existed in education level between the immigrants and the general American population. The data Salam deploys is not overly dramatic but decisive nonetheless: children of immigrants now make up 30 percent of all low-income children (where they are 24 percent of the whole); roughly half of immigrant families have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line; nearly a third of immigrant children grow up in families headed by someone without a high school diploma; the average Mexican immigrant has 9.4 years of schooling, rising to 12 in the second generation but flatlining after that.

As the gap between the earnings of American college graduates and others has grown in the past two generations, this means that the social problem of the intergenerational transmission of poverty is being intensified by the ever continuing flow of poor, unskilled immigrants, both legal and illegal. And while such immigrants may well be politically quiescent, their children are unlikely to be.

Why We Want Immigrants Who Add Value How to Resolve the Conservative Split Over Immigration

These somber facts are balanced, and in many ways veiled, by the immigrant success stories which Americans rightly celebrate. But while it may be unkind to say so, immigrants don't arrive as blank slates, mysteriously sorted out upon reaching these shores so that some become doctors and software entrepreneurs.

As Salam makes clear, successful immigrants tend to come from relatively rich and urbanized societies. The parents of Google founder Sergey Brin were accomplished scholars. An astounding 45 percent of immigrants from India -- who make up the latest version of a high-achieving "model minority" -- are Brahmins, members of the tiny Indian hereditary upper caste. Indians who come here tend to be "triple selected": most enter the country by way of high-skilled worker visas, which means they are products of India's highly competitive education system, which serves only a fraction of India's population. Similarly, Chinese immigrants tend to come from that country's college-educated elite.

Salam explains that under the current system, most visas are doled out according to family ties -- not skills or education. And the larger the number of immigrants is from a given country, the lower their average earnings and educational outcomes will be in the U.S. Conversely, the harder it is for a given group to enter the United States, the more likely it is that immigrants will be drawn from the top of their country's pecking order.

One might conceive of this as a stable system -- after all, there are many jobs for low-skilled immigrants. But of course immigrants have children, at rates far higher than the native born, and the children of lower-skilled immigrants make up a continually growing share of Americans at or near the poverty level. "The children of elite immigrants make their way into America's elite, where they add a much needed dash of superficial diversity, enough to make us forget their inconvenient working class counterparts." The result, of which there is already ample evidence among the Millennial cohort of immigrant children, is a growing population which has grown up in poverty, isn't doing especially well in income or education, and perceives the American dream cynically, as a kind of whites-only sham. This divide will influence our politics for the foreseeable future. The question is how much.

♦♦♦

While much of Salam's analysis is a deep dive into statistics of intergenerational poverty, educational outcomes, and the growing achievement gap, he doesn't shy from the ominous implications of the racialization of the immigration debate. There is ample evidence that college-educated Americans of all ethnicities marry one another at reasonable and growing rates, producing a fair number of mixed-race people who feel themselves part of the cultural mainstream. As scholars have long reminded us, "white" is a broad and fungible category in American history, and there is a fair prospect that the college-educated and middle classes will intermarry enough to produce a 21st-century version of the storied melting pot.

But that isn't the case with poorer immigrants, even as their children learn English. Current family unification statutes encourage poor, non-white immigrant communities to continually replenish their new arrivals. Thus there are two competing processes going on -- amalgamation, in which more educated immigrant families are joining the middle-class mainstream, intermarrying with whites and with one another, and racialization, in which a new immigrant group finds itself ghettoized and cut out of the mainstream. This latter phenomenon is most pronounced in some Mexican-American communities, which are demographically the largest immigrant groups, but exists in many immigrant communities.

It is in this subset, for example, where ISIS has found recruits, and where -- on a less dramatic level -- the Marxist Left is able to make inroads. As America's demography grows less white, the political salience of radical immigrants of color is likely to grow. While Salam exercises great restraint describing the phenomenon, his foreboding is unmistakable: "The danger, as I see it, is that as the logic of the melting pot fails to take hold, and as more newcomers are incorporated into disadvantaged groups, the level of interethnic tension will skyrocket, and we'll look back wistfully on the halcyon politics of the Trump years." Or again, "Imagine an America in which wealthy whites and Asians wall themselves off from the rest of society and low wage immigrants and their offspring constitute a new underclass."

Of course it is not merely racial minority immigrants who are tempted by political radicalism. The current extremist white backlash is widely noted by scholars and journalists. But among the liberal establishment it is viewed not as problem to be alleviated but a social development to be crushed. Salam observes immigration scholars who are scrupulous about reporting the ways immigration is making America less united, threatening social cohesion, "leading to greater divisions and tensions," while never considering reducing or reforming immigration (with greater emphasis on skills) as a possible answer to the problems. They hope -- against considerable social science evidence that political instability is endemic to multicultural societies -- that greater diversity will somehow bury ethnic conflict. This Salam calls the Backlash Paradox: while mass immigration contributes to bigotry and polarization, the only acceptable option among elites is to double down and hope the storm passes, as slowing the pace of immigration is considered a "callow surrender to bigotry."

I have focused on the social and political elements, but Salam's argument also relies a great deal on economics, much of it focused on economic choices molded by a relatively high-skilled or low-skilled labor force. His major point is that labor shortages spur technological innovation, while loose labor markets discourage it. Labor scarcity, Salam observes, has been the historical secret to American prosperity, spurring one labor-saving innovation after another. A high-immigration economy, with a completely elastic number of workers willing to work for a minimum wage or less, is an economy under a completely different calculus. There is no question we should prefer the first.

♦♦♦

I have only minor caveats with this outstanding book. It might be a necessary concession to the immigrationist lobby to maintain the raw number of immigrants as high as it is at present, but it seems likely that lowering it to, say, half a million a year, roughly the number urged by the Clinton administration's task force on immigration, would break the fever more quickly and lead to far more rapid assimilation of recent immigrants.

I find Salam's earnest plea for the United States to dramatically raise its spending to accelerate economic development in the Third World well intended, but likely futile. An answer which comes to mind is one that diplomat George F. Kennan suggested a quarter of a century ago, that the single greatest benefit the United States can deliver to the world's poor is to maintain itself as a relatively high civilization able to inspire by example, and provide help and insight to others seeking answers to their problems.

And though it is a subject in itself, I wish Salam had directly addressed the new leftist ideology built around the fighting of "white privilege" -- which now includes under its rubric everything from getting rid of standardized tests to delegitimizing police departments, railing against the First Amendment to ripping down statues of long-admired white Americans. This largely white-led phenomenon does far more to intensify nativist dread about being reduced to minority status than any racist agitation leveled against immigrants of color, however lamentable the latter might be.

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .

[Sep 21, 2018] Michael Hart's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE UNITED STATES by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... The Rise And Fall Of The United States ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ..

Dr. Hart's book is invaluable because it highlights some of the basic truths about America that modern-day histories simply conceal. For example, he writes: "America is much younger than most European nations . It did not exist at all prior to 1600 AD but was created in the ' colonial era .'"

This alone is a shot across the bow of Politically Correct histories that regard "America" simply as a geographic location. As Dr. Hart knows, "America" did not exist in any meaningful sense before the English settlement that created it -- our eponymous Virginia Dare's Roanoke Colony being the prototype. English settlers didn't "invade" a country that belonged to " Native Americans ," English settlers created one where none existed.

Dr. Hart provides a basic history of America's development, including highlighting specific incidents that ultimately proved critical to the future of the polity. One of the more interesting was the Zenger trial, a colonial case in which a journalist criticized the local governor and was charged with libel. A grand jury refused to indict Zenger, accepting his defense that the things he printed were true. Thanks to this case, Americans can claim truth as an absolute defense in libel cases, something our British cousins lack .

A highlight of Dr. Hart's history is his careful attention to demographic issues. For example, he scoffs at the claim sometimes heard within the dimmer quarters of the American Conservative Movement that the Constitution was a "miracle." Instead, Dr. Hart shows that the authors of America's governing document shared linguistic, cultural, racial, and experiential factors that allowed them to work together. (Contemporary American statesmen possess no such unanimity.) Dr. Hart is also not blind to the Constitution's faults, especially its failure to designate how and who has the power to interpret it -- specifically, not necessarily the Kritarchs on the Supreme Court.

Dr. Hart is also clearsighted regarding immigration. He does not accept the now de rigueur analysis that immigration from widely disparate regions was always a feature of American life. "Before 1849, immigrants to the Untied States came mostly from the Protestant regions of northwest Europe, including Holland , Sweden, Norway , Germany and Great Britain," he observes. He also provides an honest assessment of the difficulties Irish immigration presented for 19 th century America and argues that despite speaking English, "they assimilated very slowly."

Dr. Hart argues the "Golden Age" of the United States extended from 1865 to 1991. "During that interval the United States stood out for its wealth, for its military might, and for its unprecedented set of practical inventions and scientific discoveries," he argues. Indeed, one of the best parts of the book is when Dr. Hart recounts the numerous inventions and scientific advances America has given to the world.

However, Dr. Hart's most invaluable contribution is in detailing what he sees as the symptoms of America's decline after the Cold War. America's indebtedness, relatively poor military performance , loss of Constitutional liberties, and collapse of artistic standards are all covered. Two other issues highly relevant to immigration patriots are what Dr. Hart calls "political problems" and "loss of confidence and national pride."

Dr. Hart details how Democratic politicians have diligently opposed any efforts to implement common-sense voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Media bias is another major political problem, one an increasing number of Americans are awakening to. Finally, Dr. Hart identifies the "increase in racial hostilities" as both a symptom and a cause of America's increasing political problems. "Black hostility towards whites is constantly being stirred up by 'race hustlers' such as Al Sharpton , who deny any good faith on the part of whites," he writes. "Many people deny that any progress has been made in the status and treatment of black Americans -- a blatant untruth which increases black suspicions and hostilities."

Similarly, the decline in national pride is partially a product of how the charge of "racism" has delegitimized our entire national history. "According to many of these critics, our Constitution was produced by a group of 'Dead White European Males' (DWEMs, for short) who do not deserve any respect," he writes. As a result of internalizing this poisonous attack on America's heritage, some advocate Open Borders as a kind of historical reparations of punishment for a "racist" country.

Dr. Hart writes:

One result of these attitudes is that many Americans find it unreasonable for the United States to defend its borders. (After all, since we stole the country from the Indians, we have no real claim on our land.) Sometimes these views lead to people suggesting that non-citizens should be permitted to vote in American elections. In any disagreement or conflict between the United States and a foreign group, many of these critics tend to blame America first. Many of these critics do not even pretend to be patriotic.

Dr. Hart identifies a host of causes to explain the emergence of these symptoms. Though they are too many to cover here, two very much worth mentioning are

Dr. Hart points out that for all the talk about white racism, the vast majority of interracial crime is committed by blacks against whites. Hatred of whites is not only mainstream but cultivated by the Main Stream Media, the education system, and even some Democratic politicians -- a coalition that Dr. Hart judges is too powerful to break.

Similarly, Dr. Hart details the disastrous consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act and explicitly calls for its repeal, but he is pessimistic about the prospects for doing so.

The most explosive part of the book is its concluding chapter, in which Dr. Hart discusses the various scenarios by which the United States could "fall," either by breaking up, being extinguished, or losing its political independence and being subsumed into a larger polity. All of these terrible scenarios have vastly increased in likelihood because of the destabilizing and destructive effects of mass immigration.

The "fall" of the United States may even occur without most people even noticing it at the time. "Without any foreign conquest, and without any sharp break, the USA might be transformed into a multinational state without any loyalty to our English origin," he writes. "In fact, such a process may already be in process."

During his discussion of causes for American decline, Dr. Hart identifies the most important "by far" as the "loss of pride and confidence." He blames this on the relentless hate campaign waged against "our ancestors" by educators and the Main Stream Media, leading to a situation in which Americans feel "ashamed of their country." In other words, Dr. Hart is really talking about a loss of identity.

With his history of the United States, and his frank discussion of the issues endangering its existence, Dr. Hart has performed a valuable service for Americans seeking to reclaim their national identity. For anyone curious about their country's past and concerned about its future, The Rise And Fall Of The United States (full disclosure: A VDARE book -- who else would publish it?) is well worth purchasing.

anonymous , [469] Disclaimer says: September 8, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT

No mention of white slavery in Plantation America?
mark green , says: September 8, 2018 at 9:20 pm GMT
If/when America does break apart, it will not be a result of conventional war. The attack/upheaval will come from within.

Ironically, the trillions spent by Washington on our global MIC will not, in the end, protect the American people from what is now our greatest threat: internal treason against Historic America and its core people.

Ironically, instead of returning home to protect US borders when the cold war ended, American troops were dispersed around the world to fight phantom threats and protect non-essential foreign entities and extra-national interests.

This ongoing waste of US resources abroad continues to serve the interests of globalists, militarists, and Zionists. Meanwhile, our domestic security, our Main Street economy, and the continuity of white, European-derived culture and people inside America gets short shrift. This glaring disconnect may be our nation's undoing.

The 'proposition nation' concept was a fraud from the start since it ignores the vital significance of race, culture, language, and IQ.

The engine for America's coming implosion is demographic: uninterrupted, illegal, non-white immigration by Third World refugees. Hostile elites who now dominate America are also key. They refuse to acknowledge the perils of 'diversity'. Many want America changed, irreversibly so.

Meanwhile, white identity and white cohesion have been demonized in our schools as well as by our dominant mass media. This campaign has undermined white identity, white cohesion and white interests in general.

Numerous, politically-correct expressions of anti-white hatred are now in wide circulation. These hate-terms are, ironically, protected from criticism even though they are applied selectively to target whites. Those few who contest these double-standards (including Pres. Trump) are routinely defamed by comparisons to 'Hitler' or references to the KKK. The basic translation comes down to this: Shut up.

This unhealthy and insidious paradigm is here by design. It is used to not only justify anti-white animus, but to legitimize anti-white violence whenever and wherever whites try to assemble and express their grievances and/or aspirations. This very sinister double-standard has taken deep root. It is nurtured by biased reporting and coverage. It has spawned 'antifa'.

Modern speech rules and penalties favor privileged 'minorities' just as they cleary disfavor and penalize white advocacy.

Among the popular terms that lend support to anti-white bigotry are: 'racist', 'nativist', 'white supremacy', 'Islamophobia', and 'anti-Semitism'.

These shame-inducing memes have 1) contaminated the American mind and 2) empowered our race-conscious adversaries. They must be deconstructed and deligimized if we are to protect our interests and preserve America's demographic core.

Resistance, cohesion and self-defense are not fascistic sentiments. They are legitimate expressions of democratic self-determination.

[Aug 02, 2018] Trump threatens to 'shut down' government if Dems don't support border measures

Notable quotes:
"... "would be willing to 'shut down'" ..."
"... "I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc." ..."
"... "based on MERIT!," ..."
"... "great people." ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.rt.com

The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.

"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc."

I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2018

He also called for an immigration system "based on MERIT!," adding that immigrants wanted by the USA needed to be "great people."

[Aug 01, 2018] Trump threatens to 'shut down' government if Dems don't support border measures -- RT US News

Notable quotes:
"... "would be willing to 'shut down'" ..."
"... "I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc." ..."
"... "based on MERIT!," ..."
"... "great people." ..."
Aug 01, 2018 | www.rt.com

The Sunday morning tirade saw the president claim he "would be willing to 'shut down'" the federal government if members of Congress from the opposition party didn't row in behind Republicans in voting for his immigration reform package, which includes releasing funds for the US-Mexico border wall that formed the cornerstone of his election campaign.

"I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security," the president tweeted, "which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc."

I would be willing to "shut down" government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2018

He also called for an immigration system "based on MERIT!," adding that immigrants wanted by the USA needed to be "great people."

[Jul 21, 2018] Migrants, Pro-Globalization Leftists, and the Suffocating Middle Class by Outis Philalithopoulos

Notable quotes:
"... By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga . ..."
"... Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports . ..."
"... The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries. ..."
"... The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues: ..."
"... I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants. ..."
"... In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus. ..."
"... If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction. ..."
"... "Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force." ..."
"... never export their way out of poverty and misery ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga .

International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit.

In recent times, the Western middle class (by which I mean in particular industrial workers and office employees) has lost a large number of jobs and has seen its buying power fall. It isn't true that migrants are the source of all evil in the world. However, under current conditions, they become a locus for the exasperation of the population at twenty years of pro-globalization politics. They are tragically placed in the role of the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Western businesses have slipped jobs overseas to countries with low labor costs, while the middle class has been pushed into debt in order to try to keep up. The Glass-Steagall law and other brakes on American banks were abolished by a cheerleader for globalization, Bill Clinton, and these banks subsequently lost all restraints in their enthusiasm to lend. The cherry on top of the sundae was the real estate bubble and ensuing crash of 2008.

A damning picture of the results of 20 years of globalization is provided by Forbes , capitalism's magazine par excellence. Already in 2016, the surprise victory of Trump led to questions about whether the blond candidate's win was due in part to the straits of the American middle class, impoverished as a result of the pro-globalization politics of figures like Clinton and Obama.

Further support for this thesis is furnished by the New York Times , describing the collapse of the stars-and-stripes middle class. Its analysis is buttressed by lengthy research from the very mainstream Pew Center , which agrees that the American middle class is vanishing.

And Europe? Although the European middle class has been squeezed less than its American counterpart, for us as well the picture doesn't look good. See for example the analysis of the Brookings Institute , which discusses not only the flagging economic fortunes of the European middle class, but also the fear of prosperity collapsing that currently grips Europe.

Migrants and the Shock Doctrine

What do economic migrants have to do with any of this?

Far be it from me to criticize large corporations, but clearly they – and their managers and stockholders – benefit from higher margins. Profits (revenue minus costs and expenses) can be maximized by reducing expenses. To this end, the costs of acquiring goods (metals, agricultural products, energy, etc.) and services (labor) need to fall steadily.

In the quest to lower the cost of labor, the most desirable scenario is a sort of blank slate: to erase ongoing arrangements with workers and start over from zero, building a new "happy and productive" economy. This operation can be understood as a sort of "shock doctrine."

The term "economic shock therapy" is based on an analogy with electroshock therapy for mental patients. One important analysis of it comes from Naomi Klein , who became famous explaining in 2000 the system of fashion production through subsidiaries that don't adhere to the safety rules taken so seriously in Western countries (some of you may recall the scandal of Benetton and Rana Plaza , where more than a thousand workers at a Bangladesh factory producing Benetton (and other) clothes were crushed under a collapsing building).

Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force. Sometimes relocating from one nation to another is not possible, but if you can bring the job market of other countries here in the form of a low-cost mass of people competing for employment, then why bother?

The Doctrine in Practice

Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports .

The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries.

We see further evidence of damage to the European middle class daily, from France where the (at least verbally) pro-globalization Macron is cutting social welfare to attract foreign investment , to Germany where many ordinary workers are seriously exploited . And so on through the UK and Italy.

Political Reactions

The migrant phenomenon is a perfect counterpoint to a threadbare middle class, given its role as a success story within the narrative of globalization.

Economic migrants are eager to obtain wealth on the level of the Western middle class – and this is of course a legitimate desire. However, to climb the social ladder, they are willing to do anything: from accepting low albeit legal salaries to picking tomatoes illegally ( as Alessandro Gassman, son of the famous actor, reminded us ).

The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues:

This mirage has fallen under the blows it has received from the most serious economic crisis since the Second World War. Foreign trade, easy credit (with the American real estate bubble of 2008 as a direct consequence), peace missions in Libya (carried out by pro-globalization French and English actors, with one motive being in my opinion the diversion of energy resources away from [the Italian] ENI) were supposed to have created a miracle; they have in reality created a climate of global instability.

Italy is of course not untouched by this phenomenon. It's easy enough to give an explanation for the Five Stars getting votes from part of the southern electorate that is financially in trouble and might hope for some sort of subsidy, but the North? The choice of voting center right (with a majority leaning toward Lega) can be explained in only one way – the herd (the middle class) has tried to rise up.

I asked him, "So in your opinion, is globalization in stasis? Or is it radically changing?" He replied:

I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants.

This is an important element in the success of Lega: it is a force that has managed to understand clearly the exhaustion of the impoverished middle class, and that has proposed a way out, or has at least elaborated a vision opposing the rose-colored glasses of globalization.

In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus.

What Conflicts Are Most Relevant Today?

At the same time, if we observe, for example in Italy, the positions taken by the (pro-globalization?) Left, it becomes easier to understand why the middle class and also many blue collar workers are abandoning it. Examples range from the unfortunate declarations of deputy Lia Quartapelle on the need to support the Muslim Brotherhood to the explanations of the former president of the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, on how the status of economic migrant should be seen as a model for the lifestyle of all Italians . These remarks were perhaps uttered lightly (Quartapelle subsequently took her post down and explained that she had made a mistake), but they are symptomatic of a certain sort of pro-globalization cultural "Left" that finds talking to potential voters less interesting than other matters.

From Italy to America (where Hillary Clinton was rejected after promoting major international trade arrangements that she claimed would benefit middle-class American workers) to the UK (where Brexit has been taken as a sort of exhaust valve), the middle class no longer seems to be snoring.

We are currently seeing a political conflict between globalist and nationalist forces. Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.

If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction.

Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to globalization.

If the distinction between globalism and nationalism is in practice trumping other differences, then we should not let ourselves be distracted by bright and shiny objects, and keep our focus on what really matters.


fresno dan , July 20, 2018 at 7:06 am

From the Forbes link:
"The first downside of international trade that even proponents of freer trade must acknowledge is that while the country as a whole gains some people do lose."
More accurate to say a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage gain.

Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP. Yes, GDP goes up – but that word that can never be uttered by American corporate media – DISTRIBUTION – that essentially ALL gains in GDP have gone to the very top. AND THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL DECISION, not like the waves of the ocean or natural selection. There is plenty that could be done about it – BUT it STARTS with WANTING to do something effective about it .

And of course, the bizarre idea that inflation helps. Well, like trade, it helps .the very, very rich
https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/economics/real-hourly-earnings-decline-yoy-for-production-workers-flat-for-all-employees-W4eRI5nksU2lsrOR9Z01WQ/

Enrico Verga , July 20, 2018 at 9:30 am

im used to use reliable link ( on forbes it's not Pew but i quoted also Pew) :)

Off The Street , July 20, 2018 at 9:43 am

Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP.

Fresno Dan,
You have identified one of my pet peeves about economists and their fellow traveler politicians. They hide behind platitudes, and the former are more obnoxious about that. Economists will tell people that they just don't understand all that complexity, and that in the name of efficiency, etc, free trade and the long slide toward neo-liberal hell must continue.

Heraclitus , July 20, 2018 at 11:38 am

I think the assertion that all economic gains have gone to the very top is not accurate. According to 'Unintended Consequences' by Ed Conard, the 'composition of the work force has shifted to demographics with lower incomes' between 1980 and 2005. If you held the workforce of 1980 steady through 2005, wages would be up 30% in real terms, not including benefits.

It's amazing that critics miss this.

Jean , July 20, 2018 at 12:21 pm

But you are ignoring immigrant based population increases which dilutes your frozen population number. How convenient for argument's sake.

Not mentioned in the article are rent increases caused by more competition for scarcer housing.

makedoanmend , July 20, 2018 at 7:12 am

I think the author has highlighted some home truths in the article. I once remember several years ago just trying to raise the issue of immigration* and its impact on workers on an Irish so-called socialist forum. Either I met silence or received a reply along the lines: 'that when socialists rule the EU we'll establish continental wide standards that will ensure fairness for everyone'. Fairy dust stuff. I'm not anti immigrant in any degree but it seems unwise not to understand and mitigate the negative aspects of policies on all workers. Those chickens are coming home to roost by creating the type of political parties (new or established) that now control the EU and many world economies.

During the same period many younger middle and upper middle class Irish extolled the virtues, quite openly, of immigration as way of lowering the power and wages of existing Irish workers so that the costs of building homes, labour intensive services and the like would be concretely reduced; and that was supposed to be a good thing for the material well being of these middle and upper middle classes. Sod manual labour.

One part of the working class was quite happy to thrown another part of the working class under the bus and the Left**, such as it was and is, was content to let it happen. Then established Leftist parties often facilitated the rightward economic process via a host of policies, often against their own stated policies in election manifestos. The Left appeared deceitful. The Irish Labour party is barely alive and subsisting on die-hard traditionalists for their support by those who can somehow ignore the deceit of their party. Surreaslist stuff from so-called working class parties,

And now the middle-middle classes are ailing and we're supposed to take notice. Hmmm. Yet, as a Leftist, myself, it is incumbent upon us to address the situation and assist all workers, whatever their own perceived status.

*I'm an immigrant in the UK currently, though that is about to change next year.

** Whether the "Left", such as the Irish Labour Party, was just confused or bamboozled matters not a jot. After the financial crises that became an economic crisis, they zealously implemented austerity policies that predominantly cleared the way for a right wing political landscape to dominate throughout Europe. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who called themselves Leftists secretly believed that only right wing, neo-liberal economic policies were correct. And I suppose, being a bit cynical, that a few politicos were paid handsomely for their services.

PlutoniumKun , July 20, 2018 at 8:30 am

I think its easy to see why the more middle class elements of the left wing parties never saw immigration as a problem – but harder to see why the Trade Unions also bought into this. Partly I think it was a laudable and genuine attempt to ensure they didn't buy into racism – when you look at much trade union history, its not always pleasant reading when you see how nakedly racist some early trade union activists were, especially in the US. But I think there was also a process whereby Unions increasingly represented relatively protected trades and professions, while they lost ground in more vulnerable sectors, such as in construction.

I think there was also an underestimation of the 'balancing' effect within Europe. I think a lot of activists understimated the poverty in parts of Europe, and so didn't see the expansion of the EU into eastern Europe as resulting in the same sort of labour arbitrage thats occurred between the west and Asia. I remember the discussions over the enlargement of the EU to cover eastern Europe and I recall that there seemed to be an inbuilt assumption (certainly in the left), that rising general prosperity would ensure there would be no real migration impact on local jobs. This proved to be entirely untrue.

Incidentally, in my constituency (Dublin Central) in past elections the local Labour party was as guilty as any of pandering to the frequent racism encountered on the doorsteps in working class areas. But it didn't do them much good. Interestingly, SF was the only party who would consistently refuse to pander (At least in Dublin), making the distinction between nationalist and internationalist minded left wingers even more confusing.

makedoanmend , July 20, 2018 at 10:17 am

Yes, one has to praise the fact that the Unions didn't pander to racism – but that's about all the (insert expletive of choice) did correctly.

Your other points, as ever, are relevant and valid but (and I must but) I tend to think that parties like Labour were too far "breezy" about the repercussions about labour arbitrage. But that's water under the bridge now.

Speaking about SF and the North West in general, they have aggressively canvassed recent immigrants and have not tolerated racism among their ranks. Their simple reasoning was that is unthinkable that SF could tolerate such behaviour amongst themselves when they has waged a campaign against such attitudes and practices in the six counties. (SF are no saints, often fumble the ball badly, and are certainly not the end-all-be-all, but this is something they get right).

Glen , July 20, 2018 at 8:56 am

It has to be understood that much of immigration is occurring because of war, famine, collapsing societies (mostly due to massive wealth inequality and corrupt governments). Immigration is not the cause of the economic issues in the EU, it's a symptom (or a feature if you're on top). If you don't correct the causes – neo-liberalism, kleptocracy, rigged game – what ever you want to call it, then you too will become an immigrant in your own country (and it will be a third world country by the time the crooks on top are done).

Don't get caught up in the blame the other poor people game. It's a means to get the powerless to fight among themselves. They are not in charge, they are victims just like you.

Felix_47 , July 20, 2018 at 9:18 am

Having spent a lot of time in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and Iraq I have to say that rampant overpopulation plays a big part. Anyone who can get out is getting out. It makes sense. And with modern communications they all know how life is in Europe or the US in contrast to the grinding horror that surrounds them.

Louis Fyne , July 20, 2018 at 11:45 am

But Conan tells me that Haiti is a tropical paradise! (my brother too spent a lot of time in Afghanistan and Iraq working with the locals during his deployments)

"Twitter liberalism" is doing itself by not recognizing that much of the developing world IS a corrupt cesspool.

Instead of railing against Trump, the Twitter-sphere needs to rail against the bipartisan policies that drive corruption, and economic dislocations and political dislocations. and rail against religious fundamentalism that hinders family planning.

But that can't fit onto a bumper sticker.

Calling Trump names is easier.

redleg , July 20, 2018 at 7:32 pm

But if you actually do that, rail against bipartisan neoliberal policies on social media and IRL, the conservatives are far less hostile than the die-hard Dems. This is especially true now, with all the frothing at the mouth and bloodlust about Russia. Its raised their "it's ALL *YOUR* FAULT"-ism by at least an order of magnitude.

Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 2:05 pm

Actually, that's been true since the 18th C., at least for the US. TV may make it more vivid, and Europe has changed places, but most Americans have immigrant ancestors, most often from Europe.

makedoanmend , July 20, 2018 at 10:04 am

Very good points, and I agree with all of them.

However, it does seem that the policy of the EU, especially under the influence of Mutti Merkel, signalled a free-for-all immigration stance over the last several years, completely ignoring the plight of existing workers (many of whom would be recent immigrants themselves and the children of immigrants). That the so-called Left either sat idly by or jumped on Mutti's band wagon didn't do them any favours with working people. Every country or customs union has and needs to regulate its borders. It also makes some sense to monitor labour markets when unfavourable conditions appear.

It appears that only the wealthy are largely reaping the rewards of the globalist direction trade has taken. These issues need to be addressed by the emerging Left political parties in the West. Failure to address these issues must, I would contend, play into the hands of the more right wing parties whose job is to often enrich the local rich.

But, bottom line, your are correct workers do not come out well when blaming other workers for economies that have been intentionally created to produce favourable conditions for the few over the many.

nervos belli , July 20, 2018 at 10:20 am

It's a blade with two sides.
There are push factors like the wars and poor countries. However neither of these causes can be fixed. Not possible. Europe can gnash their teeth all they want, not even when they did the unthinkable and put the US under sanctions for their warcrimes would the US ever stop. First there would be color revolutions in western europe.

As important as the push factors are the pull ones. 90% or so of all refugees 2015 went to Germany. Some were sent to other countries by the EU, these too immediately moved to Germany and didn't stay where they were assigned. So the EU has to clean up their act and would need to put the last 10 or so US presidents and administrations before a judge in Den Haag for continued war crimes and crimes against humanity (please let me my dreams). The EU would also need to clean up their one sided trade treaties with Africa and generally reign in their own corporations. All that is however not enough by far and at most only half the battle. Even when the EU itself all did these things, the poverty would remain and therefore the biggest push factor. Humans always migrate to the place where the economy is better.

The pull factors is however at least as big. The first thing to do is for Germany to fix their laws to be in sync with the other EU countries. At this point, Germany is utterly alone, at most some countries simply don't speak out against german policy since they want concessions in other areas. Main one here is France with their proposed EU and Euro reforms but not alone by far.

Ben Wolf , July 20, 2018 at 7:36 am

Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.

Socialism in one country is a Stalinist theory, and falling back upon it in fear of international capital is not only regressive but (assuming we aren't intentionally ignoring history) relective of a defensive mentality.

In other words, this kind of thinking is the thinking of the whipped dog cringing before the next blow.

Enrico Verga , July 20, 2018 at 9:31 am

Am i a dog? :)

Andrew Watts , July 20, 2018 at 11:28 am

Or perhaps they want to regulate and control the power of capital in their country. Which is an entirely impossible proposition considering that capital can flee any jurisdiction and cross any border. After all, transnational capital flows which were leveraged to the hilt in speculative assets played an oversized role in generating the financial crisis and subsequent crash.

It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a Stalinist though.

Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 1:47 pm

And why would we care whether it's a "Stalinist" theory? For that matter, although worker ownership would solve some of these problems, we needn't be talking about socialism, but rather about more functional capitalism.

Quite a leap in that last sentence; you haven't actually established anything of the sort.

JBird , July 20, 2018 at 3:39 pm

but rather about a more functional capitalism.

Personally, I believe capitalism needs to go away, but for it, or any other economic system, to work, we would need a fair, equal, just, enforced rule of law that everyone would be under, wouldn't we?

Right now the blessed of our various nations do not want this, so they make so that one set is unfair, unequal, unjust, harshly enforced on most of their country's population while they get the gentle rules.

For a society to function long term, it needs to have a fair and just set of rules that everyone understands and follow, although the rules don't have to equal; people will tolerate different levels of punishments and strictness of the rules. The less that is the case the more dysfunctional, and usually the more repressive it is. See the Western Roman Empire, the fall of just about every Chinese dynasty, the Russian Empire, heck even the American War of Independence, and the American Civil War. In example, people either actively worked to destroy the system or did not care to support it.

disc_writes , July 20, 2018 at 8:10 am

Thank you for the article, a pretty lucid analysis of the recent electoral results in Italy and trends elsewhere. Although I would have liked to read something about people voting the way they do because they are xenophobe fascist baby-eating pedophile racist Putin friends. Just for fun.

Funny how the author's company promotes "Daily international job vacancies in UNDP, FAO, UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the other Governative Organization, Non Governative Organization, Multinationals Corporations. Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development."

Precisely the sort of jobs that infuriates the impoverishing middle classes.

Lambert Strether , July 20, 2018 at 4:00 pm

Class traitors are important and to be encouraged (though a phrase with a more positive tone would be helpful).

Felix_47 , July 20, 2018 at 9:16 am

As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders defended not only border security, but also national sovereignty. Asked about expanded immigration, Sanders flipped the question into a critique of open-borders libertarianism: "That's a Koch brothers proposal which says essentially there is no United States."
Unfortunately the ethnic division of the campaign and Hillary's attack seems to have led him to change his mind.

Andrew Watts , July 20, 2018 at 11:34 am

That's probably due to the fact that just about everybody can't seem to differentiate between immigration and mass migration. The latter issue is a matter of distributing the pain of a collapsing order. state failure, and climate change while the former is simply engaging in the comfortable rhetoric of politics dominated by the American middle class.

Enrico Verga , July 20, 2018 at 9:36 am

Ciao .

Oki lemme see.

1 people vote they like. im not updated if the voters eat babies but i'll check and let u know.
2 My company is not dream job. It is a for free ( and not making a penny) daily bulleting that using a fre soft (paper.li) collect international qualified job offers for whoever is willing to work in these sector.
i'm not pro or contro migrants. i actually only reported simple fact collating differents point :)

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 20, 2018 at 9:40 am

Economic migrants seek prosperity and are justified in doing so, yet they can also be seen as pawns in an international strategy that destroys the negotiating leverage of workers. The resulting contradictions potentially render conventional political classifications obsolete.

This appears on the homepage, but not here.

In any case, the 10% also seek prosperity. They are said to be the enablers of the 1%.

Perhaps pawns too.

Are economic migrants both pawns and enablers?

JBird , July 20, 2018 at 3:42 pm

Yes. The economic migrants are both pawns and enablers as well as victims.

Newton Finn , July 20, 2018 at 10:02 am

Until the left alters its thinking to reflect the crucial information presented in this video, information more clearly and comprehensively spelled out in "Reclaiming the State" by Mitchell and Fazi, resurgent rightwing nationalism will be the only outlet for those who reject global neoliberalism's race to the bottom. It's that simple and sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynNfA1Ohao

ROB , July 20, 2018 at 10:11 am

To paint this as two pro-globalisation (within which you place the left) and pro-nationalism is simplistic and repositions the false dichotomy of left vs right with something just as useless. We should instead seek to speak to the complexities of the modern political spectrum. This is an example of poor journalism and analysis and shouldn't have been posted here, sorry Yves.

John Wright , July 20, 2018 at 11:16 am

By "false dichotomy of left vs right" are you implying there is little difference between left and right?

Is that not one of the themes of the article?

Please speak to the complexities of the modern political spectrum and give some examples of better and more useful journalism and analysis.

JTMcPhee , July 20, 2018 at 11:17 am

Thanks for your opinion. Check the format of this place: articles selected for information or provoking thoughts, in support of a general position of driving toward betterment of the general welfare, writ large.

The political economy is at least as complex as the Krebs or citric acid cycle that biology students and scientists try to master. There are so many moving parts and intersecting and competing interests that in the few words that the format can accommodate, regarding each link, it's a little unkind to expect some master work of explication and rhetorical closure every time.

The Krebs cycle is basically driven by the homeostatic thrust, bred of billions of years of refinement, to maintain the healthy functioning and prolong life of the organism. There's a perceivable axis to all the many parts of respiration, digestion, energy flows and such, all inter-related with a clear organizing principle at the level of the organism. On the record, it's hardly clear that at the level of the political economy, and all the many parts that make it up, there is sufficient cohesion around a set of organizing principles that parallel the drive, at the society and species level, to regulate and promote the energy flows and interactions that would keep things healthy and prolong the life of the larger entity. Or that their is not maybe a death wish built into the "cultural DNA" of most of the human population.

Looks a lot to me that we actually have been invested (in both the financial and military senses of the word) by a bunch of different cancer processes, wild and unregulated proliferation of ecnomic and political tumor tissues that have invaded and undermined the healthy organs of the body politic. Not so clear what the treatments might be, or the prognosis. It is a little hopeful, continuing the biological analogy, that the equivalents of inflammation and immune system processes appear to be overcoming the sneaky tricks that cancer genes and cells employ to evade being identified and rendered innocuous.

John , July 20, 2018 at 11:44 am

Yes, "invested in a bunch of cancer processes" is a good description of allowing excessive levels of predatory wealth. Thus you end up with a bunch of Jay Gould hyper capitalists whose guiding principle is: I can always pay one half of the working class to kill the other half. Divide and conquer rules.

jrs , July 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm

It's mostly simply wrong. This doesn't describe the political views of almost anyone near power anywhere as far as I can tell:

"Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection for work and workers, "

Most of the nationalist forces are on the right and give @#$# all for workers rights. Really they may be anti-immigrant but they are absolutely anti-worker.

JimmyV , July 20, 2018 at 12:04 pm

The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists to distract the workers from their essential unity as fellow wage slaves. Some make more wages, some make less wages but they all have their surplus value, the money left over after they have enough to take care of themselves, taken by the capitalist and used for his ends even though he may not have worked in the value creation process at all.

Economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system. While the article does mention capitalist shock doctrine methods for establishing imperialism and correctly notes that economic migrants are victims, it then goes on to try to lay a weak and insidious argument against them. The author goes on citing multiple different cases of worker wages being driven lower or stagnating, many of these cases have differing and sometimes complex reasons for why this happened. But migrants and globalization are to blame he says and that our struggle is nationalism vs globalism. He refuses to see what is staring him in the face, workers produce surplus value for society, more workers produce more surplus value. If society finds itself wealthier with more workers then why do workers wage fall or stagnate? He does note correctly that this is due to the workers now having a weaker bargaining position with the capitalist, but he seems to conclude from this without stating outrightly that we should then reject the economic migrants because of this.

However, we could instead conclude that if more workers produce more surplus value but yet their wages fall because the capitalist takes a larger share of the overall pot, that the problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere. Plus the workers bargaining position only weakens with a greater number of them if they are all just bargaining for themselves, but if they were to bargain togather collectively then there bargaining position has actually only grown even stronger.

Also he falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists, instead of correctly noting that the democratic party represents capitalist interests from a centrist position and not the left. The strength of global capitalism can only be fought by a global coalition of the working class. The struggle of Mexican and American workers are interrelated to each other and the same goes for that of European and Middle Eastern workers. The time has come for the left to raise the rallying cry of its great and glorious past.

That workers of the world must unite!

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , July 20, 2018 at 1:02 pm

You claim, as if it were obvious, that "economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system."

Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?

If the borders of the US were abruptly left completely open, a huge number of people would enter the country tomorrow, for economic reasons. Would they all have been "driven" here, or would they have some choice in the matter?

When you say, "he refuses to say what is staring him in the face, that [ ] more workers produce more surplus value," you are not only taking a gratuitously pedantic tone, you are actually not making a coherent critique. If economic migrants move from one country to another, the total pool of workers in the world has not increased; while according to your logic, if all the workers in the world were to move to Rhode Island, Rhode Island would suddenly be swimming in the richness of surplus value.

When you say, "we could instead conclude that [..] the problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere," you are straw-manning the author but also making a purely rhetorical argument. If you think the capitalist system can be replaced with a better one within the near future, then you can work toward that; but in the meanwhile, nations, assuming that they will continue to exist, will either have open borders or something short of that, and these decisions do affect the lives of workers.

When you say he "falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists," the false equivalence is coming from you. The article barely touches on the Democratic Party, and instead draws most of its examples from Europe, especially Italy. In Italy, the public figures he mentions call themselves part of the sinistra and are generally referred to that way. You might perhaps feel that they are not entitled to that name (and in fact, the article sometimes places "left" in quotation marks), but you should at least read the article and look them up before discussing the matter.

Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 1:56 pm

From the article: "Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to globalization."

To Be Fair, Verga clearly is skeptical about those claims to be "on the Left," as he should be. Nonetheless, his initial mention of Democratic exemplars of globalization triggers American reflexes.

Oregoncharles , July 20, 2018 at 4:47 pm

Something before this failed to post; was rejected as a double post.

In brief: corporate globalization is a conservative, Republican policy that Bill Clinton imposed on the Dems, where it has since become doctrine, since it pays. It's ultimately the reason I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and in a sense the reason there IS a Green Party in the US.

Lambert Strether , July 20, 2018 at 3:47 pm

> The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists

Let's not be simplistic. They have people for that.

Eduardo Pinha , July 20, 2018 at 1:00 pm

The author points to stagnant middle class income in USA and Western Europe but fail to look the big picture. Middle class income has increased sharply in the past decades in Asia and Eastern Europe. Overall the gain huge, even though life is tougher in richer countries.

JBird , July 20, 2018 at 4:04 pm

Overall the gain huge, even thought life is tougher in richer countries.

Please accept my apologies for saying this. I don't mean to offend. I just have to point out something.

Many in the Democratic Party, as well as the left, are pointing to other countries and peoples as well as the American 9.9% and saying things are great, why are you complaining? With the not so hidden implications, sometimes openly stated that those who do are losers and deplorables.

Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an untruth. As an American, I do not really care about the middle classes in Asia and Eastern Europe. Bleep the big picture. The huge gains comes with a commensurate increase in homeless in the United States, and a falling standard of living for most the of the population, especially in the "wealthy" states, like my state of California. Most of us are using fingernails to stay alive and homed. If those gains had not been caused by the losses, I would be very please to see them. As it is, I have to live under President Trump and worry about surviving. Heck, worry about the rest of my family doing so.

jrs , July 20, 2018 at 6:50 pm

"Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an untruth."

+10,000

I mean I actually do care somewhat about the people of the world, but we here in "rich countries" are being driven to homelessness at this point and told the goddamn lie that we live in a rich country, rather than the truth that we live in a plutocracy with levels of inequality approaching truly 3rd world. We are literally killing ourselves because we have to live in this plutocracy and our one existence itself is not even worth it anymore in this economic system (and we are lacking even a few of the positives of many other 3rd world countries). And those that aren't killing ourselves still can't find work, and even if we do, it doesn't pay enough to meet the most basic necessities.

David in Santa Cruz , July 20, 2018 at 1:24 pm

Thought-provoking post.

1. It is unfortunate that Verga raises the rising cost of material inputs but fails to meaningfully address the issue. One of the drivers of migration, as mentioned in Comments above, is the population volcano currently erupting. Labor is cheap and globalization possible in large part because the world population has grown from 2 Billion to over 7 Billion in the past 60-odd years. This slow-growing mountain of human beings has created stresses on material inputs which are having a negative impact on the benefits derived from declining labor costs. This becomes a death-spiral as capital seeks to balance the rising cost of raw materials and agricultural products by driving down the cost of labor ever further.

2. Verga touches on the interplay of Nationalism and Racism in the responses of political parties and institutions in Italy and elsewhere. Voters appear to be abandoning Left and left-ish parties because the Left have been unable to come up with a definintion of national sovereignty that protects worker rights largely due to the importance of anti-racism in current Left-wing thought. Working people were briefly bought-off with cheap consumer goods and easy credit, but they now realize that low-wage migrant and off-shore workers mean that even these goodies are now out of reach. The only political alternative currently on offer is a brand of Nationalism defined by Racism -- which becomes acceptable to voters when the alternative is Third-World levels of poverty for those outside the 1% and their 9% enablers.

I don't see any simple solutions. Things may get very ugly.

redleg , July 20, 2018 at 8:05 pm

The "left" abandoned the working class. Denied a political champion, the right offered the working class scapegoats.

PKMKII , July 20, 2018 at 1:59 pm

I certainly see that policies tampering down free trade, both of capital and labor, can benefit workers within a particular country. However, especially in the context of said policies in "Western" countries, this can tend towards a, protect the working class within the borders, leave those outside of it in impoverished squalor. Which doesn't mesh well with the leftist goal of global class consciousness. Much like the racially segregated labor policies of yesteryear, it's playing a zero-sum game with the working class while the ownership class gets the "rising tide lifts all boats" treatment.

So how do we protect workers within the sovereign, while not doing so at the cost of the workers outside of it? Schwieckart has an interesting idea, that tariffs on imports are used to fund non-profits/higher education/cooperatives in the country of export. However, I think we'd need something a bit more fine-tuned than that.

Tomonthebeach , July 20, 2018 at 3:23 pm

It has always baffled me that governments enable this global musical chairs game with the labor market. Nearly all Western governments allow tax dodging by those who benefit the most from their Navies, Armies, Patents, and Customs enforcement systems. However, it is the working class that carries the brunt of that cost while corporations off-shore their profits.

A simple-minded fix might be to start taxing foreign profits commensurate with the cost of enabling those overseas profits.

whine country , July 20, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Interesting that a corporation is a person just like us mortals when it is to their advantage, but unlike us humans, they can legally escape taxation on much of their income whereas a human being who is a US citizen cannot. A human citizen is generally taxed by the US on all income regardless of its source. OTOH, corporations (among other means) routinely transfer intellectual property to a non tax jurisdiction and then pay artificial payments to that entity for the rights to use such property. It is a scam akin to a human creating a tax deduction by transferring money from one pocket to another. Yes, proper taxation of corporations is a simple-minded fix which is absolutely not simple to legislate. Nice try though. Something else to ponder: Taxation without representation was said to be a major factor in our war of independence from Britain. Today no one seems to be concerned that we have evolved into representation without taxation. Doesn't see right to me.

ChrisAtRU , July 20, 2018 at 3:59 pm

"Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force."

Indeed:

Our Industry Follows Poverty

FWIW I don't think it's productive to talk about things like immigration in (or to) the US in terms of just the here – as in what should/could we be doing here to fix the problem. It's just as much if not more about the there . If we view the global economic order as an enriched center feeding off a developing periphery, then fixing the periphery should be first aim. #Wall or #NoBorders are largely incendiary extremes. Ending Original Sin and creating some sort of supranational IOU/credit system (not controlled by World Bank or IMF!) will end the economic imbalance and allow countries who will never export their way out of poverty and misery a way to become equal first world nation states. With this equality, there will be less economic migration, less peripheral poverty and potentially less political unrest. It's a gargantuan task to be sure, but with rising Socialist sentiment here and abroad, I'd like to think we are at least moving in the right direction.

Anonymous2 , July 20, 2018 at 4:40 pm

No mention of tax policy?

If the rich were properly taxed then social tensions would be greatly reduced and if the revenue raised were used to help the poorest in society much distress could be alleviated.

I worry that debate on migration/globalisation is being encouraged to distract attention from this issue.

JimmyV , July 20, 2018 at 5:02 pm

I may indeed have taken a gratuitously pedantic tone and could have chosen a better one, for that i apologise. I do however believe that much of my critique still stands, I will try to go through your points one by one.

"Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?"

Not all but many are, especially the ones that most people are complaining about. Many of them are being driven from their home countries not simply for a better life but so they can have something approaching a life at all. While to fully prove this point would require an analysis of all the different migrants and their home country conditions, I do feel that if we are talking about Syrian refugees, migrants from Africa risking their lives crossing the Mediteranian sea, or CentralAmerican refugees than yes i do think these people to an extent have had their agency taken from them by global events. For Syrians, by being caught in an imperialist power struggle which while the civil war may not have been caused by it, it certainly has been prolonged because of it. Not too mention America played a very significant role in creating the conditions for ISIS, and western European powers don't have completely clean hands either due to their long history of brutal imperialism in the mideast. Africa of course also has an extensive past of colonization and suffers from a present of colonization and exploitation as well. For Central Americans there is of course the voracious american drug market as well as our politicians consistent appetite for its criminalisation to blame. There is also of course global climate change. Many of these contributing conditions are not being dealt with and so i believe that the migrations we have witnessed these last few years are only the first ining of perhaps even greater migrations to come. How we deal with it now, could determine whether our era is defined by mass deaths or something better. So to the extent that i believe many of these migrants have agency is similiar to how a person climbing onto the roof of there house to escape a flood does.

If the borders of the US were left completely open then, yes, there would most likely be a rush of people at first but over time they would migrate back and forth according to their needs, through the opening of the border they would gain agency. People often think that a country not permitting its citizens to leave is wrong and immoral, but if most countries close their borders to the people of a country going through great suffering, then it seems to me that is essentially the same even if the rhetoric may be different. The likeliness of this is high if the rich countries close there borders, since if the rich countries like the US and Italy feel they can not take them in, then its doubtful countries on the way that are much poorer will be able to either.

At the begining of your article you stated that "International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit." This is the capitalist system, which is a system built upon the accumulation of capital, which are profits invested in instruments of labor, aka machines and various labor enhancements. Now Rhode island is quite small so there are geographical limitations of course, but if that was not an issue then yes. Wage workers in the capitalist system produce more value than they consume, if this was not the case they would not be hired or be hired for long. So if Rhode Island did not have the geographical limitations that it does, then with more workers the overall pot of valuable products and services would increase per capita in relation to the population. If the workers are divided and not unified into cohesive and responsive institutions to fight for there right share of the overall pie, which I believe should be all of it, then most of the gain to society will go to the capitalist as increased profits. So it is not the migrant workers who take from the native but instead actually the capitalist who exploits and trys to magnify there difference. So if the capitalist system through imperialism helped to contribute to the underlying conditions driving mass migration, and then it exploits there gratitude and willingness to work for less than native workers, than I believe it follows that they will wish to drive native anger towards the migrants with the ultimate goal of allowing them to exploit the migrant workers at an even more severe level. This could be true within the country, such as the US right now where the overarching result of anti-immigrant policies has been to not get rid of them but to drive there exploitation more into the shadows, or through mass deportations back to their home country followed by investments to exploit their desperation at super low wages that will then compete with the rich country workers, it is also possible they will all just die and everyone will look away. Either way the result will still be lower wages for rich country workers, it seems to me the only way out of the impass is for the native workers to realize their unity with migrant workers as exploited workers and instead of directing that energy of hostility at each other instead focus it upon the real root which is the capitalists themselves. Without the capitalists, more workers, held withing certain geographic limitations of course, would in fact only enrich each other.

So while nations may indeed continue to exist for awhile, the long term benefit of native workers is better served by making common cause with migrants against their mutual oppressors then allowing themselves to be stirred up against them. Making this argument to workers is much harder, but its the most beneficial if it can be made successfully.

This last point i do agree i may have been unfair to you, historically I believe the left generally referred to anarchists, socialists and communists. So I often dislike the way modern commentators use the left to refer to anything from a center right democrat like Hillary Clinton all the way to the most hard core communist, it can make understanding political subtleties difficult since anarchists, socialists and communists have radically different politics than liberals, much more so than can be expressed along a linear line. But as you point out you used quotes which i admit i did not notice, and of course one must generally use the jargon of the times in order to be understood.

Overall i think my main critique was that it seemed that throughout your article you were referencing different negative symptoms of capitalism but was instead taking that evidence for the negatives of globalism. I may come from a more radical tradition than you may be used to, but i would consider globalism to be an inherent aspect of capitalism. Capitalism in its algorithmic quest for ever increasing profits generally will not allow its self to be bound for long by people, nations, or even the physical and environmental limitations of the earth. While one country may be able to restrict it for a time unless it is overcome completely it will eventually reach out globally again. The only way to stop it is a prolonged struggle of the international working class cooperating with each other against capitalism in all its exploitive forms. I would also say that what we are seeing is not so much globalism vs nationalism but instead a rearrangement of the competing imperial powers, Russia, China, US, Germany and perhaps the evolution of multiple competing imperialisms similiar in nature to pre- world war times but that may have to wait for later.

A great deal of your article did indeed deal with Italy which I did not address but I felt that your arguments surrounding migrants was essentially of a subtle right wing nature and it needed to be balanced by a socialist counter narrative. I am very glad that you took the time to respond to my critique I know that putting analysis out there can be very difficult and i am thankful for your response which has allowed me to better express and understand my viewpoint. Once again I apoligise if I used some overly aggressive language and i hope your able to get something out of my response as well.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , July 20, 2018 at 7:30 pm

I appreciate the more reflective tone of this reply. I believe there are still some misreadings of the article, which I will try to clarify.

For one thing, I am not the author of the article! Enrico Verga is the author. I merely translated the article. Enrico is Italian, however, and so for time zone reasons will be unable to respond to your comments for a while. I am happy to write a bit on this in the meantime.

You make two arguments.

The first is that many or most migrants are fleeing desperate circumstances. The article speaks however consistently of "economic migrants" – there are some overlapping issues with refugees, but also significant differences. Clearly there are many people who are economically comfortable in their home countries and who would still jump at a chance to get US citizenship if they could (look up EB-5 fraud for one example). Saying this does not imply some sort of subtle critique of such people, but they are not a myth.

I actually found your second argument more thought-provoking. As I understand you, you are suggesting something like the following. You support completely open borders. You acknowledge that this would lead at first to massive shifts in population, but in the long run you say things would stabilize. You acknowledge that this will lead to "lower wages for rich country workers," but say that we should focus on the fact that it is only within the capitalist system that this causality holds. You also suggest that it would probably lead, under current conditions, to workers having their anger misdirected at migrants and therefore supporting more reactionary policies.

Given that the shift to immediate open borders would, by this analysis, be highly detrimental to causes you support, why do you favor it? Your reasons appear to be (1) it's the right thing to do and we should just do it, (2) yes, workers might react in the way described, but they should not feel that way, and maybe we can convince them not to feel that way, (3) things will work themselves out in the long run.

I am a bit surprised at the straightforwardly idealistic tone of (1) and (2). As for (3), as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. He meant by this that phenomena that might in theory equilibrate over a very long time can lead to significant chaos in the short run; this chaos can meanwhile disrupt calculations about the "long term" and spawn other significant negative consequences.

Anyone who is open to the idea of radically new economic arrangements faces the question of how best to get there. You are perhaps suggesting that letting global capital reign supreme, unhindered by the rules and restrictions of nation-states, will in the long run allow workers to understand their oppression more clearly and so increase their openness to uniting against it. If so, I am skeptical.

I will finally point out that a part of the tone of your response seems directed at the impression that Enrico dislikes migrants, or wants other people to resent them. I see nothing in the article that would suggest this, and there are on the other hand several passages in which Enrico encourages the reader to empathize with migrants. When you suggest that his arguments are "essentially of a subtle right wing nature," you are maybe reacting to this misreading; in any case, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, since this phrase is so analytically imprecise that it could mean all sorts of things. Please try to engage with the article with arguments, not with vague epithets.

Raulb , July 20, 2018 at 8:57 pm

There is a bit of a dissonance here. Human rights has been persistently used by neoliberals to destabilize other regions for their own ends for decades now with little protest. And when the standard playbook of coups and stirring up trouble does not work its war and total destruction as we have seen recently in Iraq, Libya and Syria for completely fabricated reasons.

Since increased migration is the obvious first consequence when entire countries are decimated and in disarray one would expect the countries doing the destruction to accept the consequences of their actions but instead we have the same political forces who advocate intervention on 'human rights grounds' now demonizing migrants and advocating openly racist policies.

One can understand one mistake but 3 mistakes in a row! And apparently we are not capable of learning. The bloodlust continues unabated for Iran. This will destabilize an already destabilized region and cause even more migration to Europe. There seems to be a fundamental contradiction here, that the citizens of countries that execute these actions and who who protest about migrants must confront.

Maybe they should pay trillions of dollars of reparations for these intervention so these countries can be rebuilt and made secure again so migrants can return to their homes. Maybe the UN can introduce a new fund with any country considering destabilizing another country, for instance Iran, to first deposit a trillion dollars upfront to deal with the human fallout. Or maybe casually destabilizing and devastating entire countries, killing millions of people and putting millions more in disarray should be considered crimes against humanity and prosecuted so they are not repeated.

[Jun 27, 2018] Immigration Western Wars and Imperial Exploitation Uproot Millions by James Petras

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions to emigrate is overlooked is wars.

In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness of the trade union and solidarity movements.

We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.

Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration

The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood, housing and communities and undermining there security.

As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.

Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.

Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the West.

Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the Gulf states and Iran.

Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.

The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class turned anti-immigrant.

Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.

Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.

Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America

US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 – 2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.

The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.

US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants to the US.

The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US 'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.

The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or across the border.

US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.

Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.

Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.

Conclusion

Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.

The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international law.

To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client terrorists.

ORDER IT NOW

Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.

The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical social democracy.

[Apr 29, 2018] Immigration and identity politics

Apr 29, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 05:41

If you are saying that their expertise lies elsewhere, that is surely self-evident?
Crazymoomin , 24 Apr 2018 05:37

Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually crave identity politics.

I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the game, even if they don't really like the rules.

Ron Jackson -> CharlesBradlaugh , 24 Apr 2018 05:30
No sloth will make you live in poverty, unless you are actually the animal the sloth.
StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 05:28
The detail. They don't know the detail. They don't have the expertise. Which is what this article is about.

They don't know what they're talking about, even if they do know what they want.

cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 05:22
.... but see my previous post.

They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors. They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.

What more is required?

CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 05:15
are we supposed to be impressed by your middle income? Poverty is not caused by sloth.
CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 05:12
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Ron Jackson -> CharlesBradlaugh , 24 Apr 2018 05:08
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
KeyboardChimp , 24 Apr 2018 05:07
Non expert berating non experts. The Michael Massing paradox.
CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 04:57
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.

You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.

Monkeybiz -> SteveofCaley , 24 Apr 2018 04:51
It's a play on the motto "One country under God". Rather clever, I thought.
Monkeybiz -> Andrew Nichols , 24 Apr 2018 04:50
Yes, there is a deep lack of context and hence dilution of meaning as a result
Monkeybiz -> Navarth , 24 Apr 2018 04:48
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 04:48
Don't think I am confusing anything.

My point was about expertise. Brexiteers have goals about which I agree with you.

My point is that they don't know about the subject, the EU, which they are using to achieve their goals.

Monkeybiz -> breitling1884 , 24 Apr 2018 04:47
Really? Were they repeated?
cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 04:37
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL goals.

Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably) just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.

Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no part of it is accidental.

StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 04:31
Don't disagree with this. Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.
cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 04:12
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.

Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to discover their connections and patronage from this source.

Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any description.

Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they see.

cynical_bystander -> aurelian , 24 Apr 2018 04:06
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"? It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.

The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.

Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.

Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.

sgwnmr -> SteveofCaley , 24 Apr 2018 03:50
I guess you're of the "when I'm doubt talk gibberish" school of argument capitulation.
StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 03:17
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:

' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking about'

Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about. Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.

But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then wave away questions about their veracity.

Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.

SteveofCaley -> sgwnmr , 24 Apr 2018 02:37
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that hurts.
gilstra , 24 Apr 2018 02:29
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise. Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's annoying.
aurelian -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 02:03
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 01:21
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.

It is this.

The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.

The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.

White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently, in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings, necessarily
perceives life.

Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't COMPLETELY stupid.

RalphDemming , 24 Apr 2018 01:00
Dumb and dumber writers...

[Mar 18, 2018] Globalists Or Nationalists Who Owns The Future by Patrick Buchanan

Mar 13, 2018 | Buchanan.org

Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be open borders."

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies."

In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."

This was wisdom born of experience.

At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence. They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among Americans.

Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but could not produce.

America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.

By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country.

Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no greater loss.

The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.

We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.

We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.

Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and occupy their homelands.

Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?

The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart.

Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?

Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?

On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.

Patriotism trumps ideology.

In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.

We are present now at the end of all that.

And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.

To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

[Mar 02, 2018] Trump and DACA

Notable quotes:
"... He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership ..."
"... . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement. ..."
"... His willingness to ignore – Israel-US problematic relationship. ..."
"... I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA. ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT

it's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically, that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when evaluating Pres Trump:

1. He has spent most of his life supporting the murder of children.

2. He supports a national healthcare policy

3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.

4. He ha absolutely little or n o knowledge about scripture or its intent in practice.

5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership

6. He can't reconcile historical criticism from deciphering a realistic image of the country.

7. He thinks that the country has disadvantaged whites and the previous executive that indication.

8. He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.

9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack)

10. His willingness to ignore – Israel-US problematic relationship.

11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary policy.

12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA.

Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him. But that vote is not unconditional or inconsiderate of where this executive and my conservative principles part company. On a personal note -- someone who does not grasp celibacy in theory and practice -- is probably not going to have a conservative bone in his core. There's one aspect of Pres. trump that makes me leary -- but I will bite my tongue. What I have noted is on the record.

The fact that he says things that amount to standing up to democrats and liberals is one thing, but what he engages in as to policy in many respects may not be that far off from their own. Laugh -- he does think someone should stand up for people of faith -- that's a relief.

Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and attitude. Presidential decorum is a big deal to many.

EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
Integrity matters
Alden , March 1, 2018 at 8:28 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

It wasn' t Trump who back pedaled on DACA. He issued the executive order that would rescind it. But in accord with Marbury vs Madison 1804, just 2 low level judges, one in Hawaii and one in Brooklyn NYC overturned the executive order.

The DoJ appealed it went to the Supreme court last week. The Supreme Court refused to hear it.

So the rulings of just 2 low level judges prevailed over the executive order of an elected president.

It wasn't Trump who back pedaled. It was our ridiculous judicial supremacy legal system that ruled that the DACAs can stay. It's nothing new, it's been that way since 1804.

Only 2 presidents defied a Supreme Court ruling: Jackson in his order to expell Indians and Lincon's Suspending haveas corpus for the 4 years of the civil war.

Face it, this country has been ruled by judges from the beginnning.

Abortion? If it were not for abortion the black criminal affirmative action neighborhood and school destroying demographic would be at least 25 percent of the population instead of 12 percent.

No city or school has been able to withstand more than about a 10 percent black population. 25 percent is totally destructive.

The anti homosexual thing is in the Jewish part of the Bible, not the Christian part. I for one can't understand why so called Christians are so obsessed with the sex rape polygamy lie cheat steal and massacre Jewish part of the Bible.

The 2 parts are total opposites. One is kill slay massacre lie cheat and steal. The other is be good and generous sexually chaste virtuous and avoid war and massacring a defeated enemy.

Don't blame Trump for losing on DACA. Blame our judicial supremacy system of government

MarkinLA , March 1, 2018 at 9:35 pm GMT
@Alden

He backpedaled on DACA by not rescinding it on his first day in office like he promised. He did so by creating a deadline and asking Congress do fix it rather than just take it apart like he promised.

This district court judges do not have the power to tell a President that he must maintain a clearly unconstitutional program that was created with nothing but the stroke of the President's pen. He can and should simply ignore the lower courts ruling and force the Supreme Court to get off their butts and reign in these lower courts that think they have the power to make law.

The only reason the courts think they have this power is because everybody defers to them. It is one thing for the court to rule that some law is unconstitutional but quite another for courts to determine how those laws are implemented and what powers the executive has – even when they have nothing to do with those enumerated in the Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution expected men, with all their lust for power, to jealously guard their power and in so doing make it hard for any one part of the governmnt to get too strong. However, now we have cowards in Congress ceding their power to the President so they don't have to make tough decisions that they will be hels accountable for on election day and we have weak Presidents hiding behind ridiculous rulings from unelected judges.

EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 10:01 pm GMT
The betrayal has absolutely with a court ruling. His offered compromise is the issue and make no mistake that was no compromise.

I could get in to some other choices the Pres could have chosen on the law created by DHS. But we'd be having a discussion issues pertaining the use of government agencies to in effect make laws without Congressional approval or the consent by the executive. Clearly with the DACA memo, it's clear that its existence rests on the discretion of the executive's enforcement of the law.

But as with most people, I get the excuse but the courts made me do it or wouldn't let me do it. government. He could have issues his memo for his current DHS head to amend the document, period. But I am dipping my toe where it need not be dipped to remain where I came in -- this president caved as he has on several issues. His supposed deal is exemplary of his choice to lob missiles and send troops into Syria.

He gets convinced he is being a "good guy". His hand ringing about a situation he himself created is further indication of his willingness to betray principles come as to why people like myself voted for him.

I have gone to bat for this executive even at the expense of my own moral codes for the sake of fairness. No. His offerings were a betrayal with or without the cover of a court ruling.

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44764.pdf

EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 10:04 pm GMT
@MarkinLA

I rarely express agreement -- but on this occasion –

I think the above is substantially on point.

[Jan 16, 2018] Out Trump Expels CNN's Jim Acosta From Oval Office Over Shiteholegate Questions Zero Hedge

Jan 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

"Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.

" I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump replied while Acosta continued to interject.

" Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:

"Out!"

Watch here:

me title=

Different angle:

me title=

Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.

"It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."

Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of another reporter:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xy2U55fIBx0

Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."

Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them. Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.

"I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is false."

[Oct 15, 2017] Two Cheers For Trump's Immigration Proposal Especially "Interior Enforcement" - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species. ..."
"... So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality. ..."
"... Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal ..."
"... A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that ..."
"... Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas. ..."
"... A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: ..."
"... ( also available in Kindle ) and ..."
"... Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even for the wealthy? ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Headliner of the week for immigration patriots was President Trump's immigration reform proposal , which he sent to Congress for their perusal last Sunday. The proposal is a very detailed 70-point list under three main headings:

Border Security (27 items) Interior Enforcement (39 items) Merit-Based Immigration System (four items)

Item-wise, the biggest heading there is the second one, "Interior Enforcement." That's very welcome.

Of course we need improved border security so that people don't enter our country without permission. That comes under the first heading. An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be here.

The President's proposals on interior enforcement cover all bases: Sanctuary cities , visa overstays , law-enforcement resources , compulsory E-Verify , more deportations , improved visa security.

This is a major, wonderful improvement in national policy, when you consider that less than a year ago the White House and Justice Department were run by committed open-borders fanatics. I thank the President and his staff for having put so much work into such a detailed proposal for restoring American sovereignty and the rights of American workers and taxpayers.

That said, here come the quibbles.

That third heading, "Merit-Based Immigration System," with just four items, needs work. Setting aside improvements on visa controls under the other headings, this is really the only part of the proposal that covers legal immigration. In my opinion, it does so imperfectly.

There's some good meat in there, mind. Three of the four items -- numbers one, three, and four -- got a fist-pump from me:

cutting down chain migration by limiting it to spouse and dependent children; eliminating the Diversity Visa Lottery ; and limiting the number of refugees admitted, assuming this means severely cutting back on the numbers, preferably all the way to zero.

Good stuff. Item two, however, is a problem. Quote:

Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support themselves financially.

sounds OK, bringing in talented, well-educated, well-socialized people, rather than what the late Lee Kuan Yew referred to as " fruit-pickers ." Forgive me if I have a rather jaundiced view of this merit-based approach.

For most of my adult life I made a living as a computer programmer. I spent four years doing this in the U.S.A. through the mid-1970s. Then I came back in the late 1980s and worked at the same trade here through the 1990s. (Pictured right–my actual H-1B visa ) That gave me two clear snapshots twenty years apart, of this particular corner of skilled middle-class employment in America.

In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species.

So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality.

On so-called "merit-based immigration," therefore, you can count me a cynic. I have no doubt that American firms could recruit all the computer programmers they need from among our legacy population. They used to do so, forty years ago. Then they discovered how to game the immigration system for cheaper labor.

Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal immigration system in a nutshell. It's a cheap-labor racket.

A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that contribute to social harmony?

With coming up to a third of a billion people, the U.S.A. has all the talent, all the merit , it needs. You might make a case for a handful of certified geniuses like Einstein or worthy dissidents like Solzhenitsyn, but those cases aside, there is no reason at all to have guest-worker programs. They should all be shut down.

Some of these cheap-labor rackets don't even need congressional action to shut them down; it can be done by regulatory change via executive order. The scandalous OPT-visa scam, for example, which brings in cheap workers under the guise of student visas.

Here is John Miano writing about the OPT program last month, quote:

Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas.

Because there is no reporting on how long guestworkers stay in the country, we do not know the total number of workers in each category. Nonetheless, the number of approvals for work on student visas has grown by 62 percent over the past four years so their numbers will soon dwarf those on H-1B visas.

The troubling fact is that the OPT program was created entirely through regulation with no authorization from Congress whatsoever. [ A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , CIS, September 18, 2017]

End quote. (And a cheery wave of acknowledgement to John Miano here from one of the other seventeen people in the U.S.A. that knows the correct placement of the hyphen in "H-1B.")

Our legal immigration system is addled with these scams. Don't even get me started on the EB-5 investor's visa . It all needs sweeping away.

So for preference I would rewrite that third heading to include, yes, items one, three, and four -- cutting down chain migration, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery, and ending refugee settlement for anyone of less stature than Solzhenitsyn; but then, I'd replace item two with the following:

End all guest-worker programs, with exceptions only for the highest levels of talent and accomplishment, limit one hundred visas per annum .

So much for my amendments to the President's October 8th proposals. There is, though, one glaring omission from that 70-item list. The proposal has no mention at all of birthright citizenship.

have abandoned it . It leads to obstetric tourism : women well-advanced in pregnancy come to the U.S.A. to give birth, knowing that the child will be a U.S. citizen. It is deeply unpopular with Americans , once it's explained to them.

Yes, yes, I know: some constitutional authorities argue that birthright citizenship is implied in the Fourteenth Amendment , although it is certain that the framers of that Amendment did not have foreign tourists or illegal entrants in mind. Other scholars think Congress could legislate against it.

The only way to find out is to have Congress legislate. If the courts strike down the legislation as unconstitutional, let's then frame a constitutional amendment and put it to the people.

Getting rid of birthright citizenship might end up a long and difficult process. We might ultimately fail. The only way to find out is to get the process started . Failure to mention this in the President's proposal is a very glaring omission.

Setting aside that, and the aforementioned reservations about working visas, I give two cheers to the proposal. email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013 . (Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)

SimpleHandle > > , October 14, 2017 at 2:56 am GMT

I agree with ending birthright citizenship. But Trump should wait until he can put at least one more strict constitutionalist in the supreme court. There will be a court challenge, and we need judges who can understand that if the 14th Amendment didn't give automatic citizenship to American Indians it doesn't give automatic citizenship to children of Mexican citizens who jumped our border.

Diversity Heretic > > , October 14, 2017 at 5:04 am GMT

@Carroll Price

Insofar as your personal situation is concerned, perhaps you would find yourself less "relatively poor" if you had a job with higher wages.

Diversity Heretic > > , October 14, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT

John's article, it seems to me, ignores the elephant in the room: the DACA colonists. Trump is offering this proposal, more or less, in return for some sort of semi-permanent regularization of their status. Bad trade, in my opinion. Ending DACA and sending those illegals back where they belong will have more real effect on illegal and legal immigration/colonization than all sorts of proposals to be implemented in the future, which can and will be changed by subsequent Administrations and Congresses.

Trump would also be able to drive a much harder bargain with Congress (like maybe a moratorium on any immigration) if he had kept his campaign promise, ended DACA the afternoon of January 20, 2017, and busloads of DACA colonists were being sent south of the Rio Grande.

The best hope for immigration patriots is that the Democrats are so wedded to Open Borders that the entire proposal dies and Trump, in disgust, reenacts Ike's Operation Wetback.

bartok > > , October 14, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@Carroll Price

Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?

White people couldn't possibly thrive without non-Whites! Why, without all of that ballast we'd ascend too near the sun.

Negrolphin Pool > > , October 14, 2017 at 7:53 am GMT

Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?

Right, prior to 1965, Americans didn't exist. They had all starved to death because, as everyone knows, no Americans will work to produce food and, even if they did, once Tyson chicken plants stop making 50 percent on capital they just shut down.

If there were no Somalis in Minnesota, even Warren Buffett couldn't afford grapes.

Joe Franklin > > , October 14, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT

Illegal immigrants picking American produce is a false economy.

Illegal immigrants are subsidized by the taxpayer in terms of public health, education, housing, and welfare.

If businesses didn't have access to cheap and subsidized illegal alien labor, they would be compelled to resort to more farm automation to reduce cost.

Cheap illegal alien labor delays the inevitable use of newer farm automation technologies.

Many Americans would likely prefer a machine touch their food rather than a illegal alien with strange hygiene practices.

In addition, anti-American Democrats and neocons prefer certain kinds of illegal aliens because they bolster their diversity scheme.

Carroll Price > > , October 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

@Realist "Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?"

Eliminate welfare...then you'll have plenty of workers. Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including themselves.

Jonathan Mason > > , October 14, 2017 at 2:57 pm GMT

@Randal Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on it.

The "jobs Americans/Brits/etc won't do" myth is a deliberate distortion of reality that ignores the laws of supply and demand. There are no jobs Americans etc won't do, only jobs for which the employers are not prepared to pay wages high enough to make them worthwhile for Americans etc to do.

Now of course it is more complicated than that. There are jobs that would not be economically viable if the required wages were to be paid, and there are marginal contributions to job creation by immigrant populations, but those aspects are in reality far less significant than the bosses seeking cheap labour want people to think they are.

As a broad summary, a situation in which labour is tight, jobs are easy to come by and staff hard to hold on to is infinitely better for the ordinary working people of any nation than one in which there is a huge pool of excess labour, and therefore wages are low and employees disposable.

You'd think anyone purporting to be on the "left", in the sense of supporting working class people would understand that basic reality, but far too many on the left have been indoctrinated in radical leftist anti-racist and internationalist dogmas that make them functional stooges for big business and its mass immigration program.

Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on it.

There might be some truth in this. When I was a student in England in the 60′s I spent every summer working on farms, picking hops, apples, pears, potatoes and made some money and had a lot of fun too and became an expert farm tractor operator.

No reason why US students and high school seniors should not pick up a lot of the slack. Young people like camping in the countryside and sleeping rough, plus lots of opportunity to meet others, have sex, smoke weed, drink beer, or whatever. If you get a free vacation plus a nice check at the end, that makes the relatively low wages worthwhile. It is not always a question of how much you are paid, but how much you can save.

George Weinbaum > > , October 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

We can fix the EB-5 visa scam. My suggestion: charge would-be "investors" $1 million to enter the US. This $1 is not refundable under any circumstance. It is paid when the "investor's" visa is approved. If the "investor" is convicted of a felony, he is deported. He may bring no one with him. No wife, no child, no aunt, no uncle. Unless he pays $1 million for that person.

We will get a few thousand Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes a year under this program

As to fixing the H-1B visa program, we charge employer users of the program say $25,000 per year per employee. We require the employers to inform all employees that if any is asked to train a replacement, he should inform the DOJ immediately. The DOJ investigates and if true, charges managerial employees who asked that a replacement be trained with fraud.

As to birthright citizenship: I say make it a five-year felony to have a child while in the US illegally. Make it a condition of getting a tourist visa that one not be pregnant. If the tourist visa lasts say 60 days and the woman has a child while in the US, she gets charged with fraud.

None of these suggestions requires a constitutional amendment.

Auntie Analogue > > , October 14, 2017 at 7:10 pm GMT

In the United States middle class prosperity reached its apogee in 1965 – before the disastrous (and eminently foreseeable) wage-lowering consequence of the Hart-Celler Open Immigration Act's massive admission of foreigners increased the supply of labor which began to lower middle class prosperity and to shrink and eradicate the middle class.

It was in 1965 that ordinary Americans, enjoying maximum employment because employers were forced to compete for Americans' talents and labor, wielded their peak purchasing power . Since 1970 wages have remained stagnant, and since 1965 the purchasing power of ordinary Americans has gone into steep decline.

It is long past time to halt Perpetual Mass Immigration into the United States, to end birthright citizenship, and to deport all illegal aliens – if, that is, our leaders genuinely care about and represent us ordinary Americans instead of continuing their legislative, policy, and judicial enrichment of the 1-percenter campaign donor/rentier class of transnational Globali$t Open Border$ E$tabli$hment $ellout$.

Jim Sweeney > > , October 14, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT

Re the birthright citizenship argument, that is not settled law in that SCOTUS has never ruled on the question of whether a child born in the US is thereby a citizen if the parents are illegally present. Way back in 1897, SCOTUS did resolve the issue of whether a child born to alien parents who were legally present was thereby a citizen. That case is U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649. SCOTUS ruled in favor of citizenship. If that was a justiciable issue how much more so is it when the parents are illegally present?

My thinking is that the result would be the same but, at least, the question would be settled. I cannot see justices returning a toddler to Beijing or worse. They would never have invitations to cocktail parties again for the shame heaped upon them for such uncaring conduct. Today, the title of citizen is conferred simply by bureaucratic rule, not by judicial order.

JP Straley > > , October 14, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT

Arguments Against Fourteenth Amendment Anchor Baby Interpretation
J. Paige Straley

Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.
The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:
Article 30
Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. "

A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary source, the parents' citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen at birth.

[MORE]
There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies. Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly, all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.

Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)

The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.

"[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." (Italics added.)

For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have " permanent domicile and residence " But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright citizenship.

If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not ". . .carrying on business. . .", and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright citizenship

If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies. Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

Part three. Birth Tourism

Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife's pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the child. This practice is called "birth tourism." WKA provides two tests for birthright citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a "birth tourism" child to be granted birthright citizenship.

Realist > > , October 14, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

@Carroll Price Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including themselves. Then let them starve to death. The Pilgrims nipped that dumb ass idea (welfare) in the bud

Alfa158 > > , October 15, 2017 at 2:10 am GMT

@Carroll Price

An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be here.
Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even for the wealthy?

Let alone relatively poor people (like myself) and those on fixed incomes? What un-thinking Americans want, is having their cake and eating it too. Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what? Please look up;History; United States; pre mid-twentieth century. I'm pretty sure Americans were eating chicken, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce, etc. prior to that period. I don't think their diet consisted of venison and tree bark.
But since I wasn't there, maybe I'm wrong and that is actually what they were eating.
I know some people born in the 1920′s; I'll check with them and let you know what they say.

[Jul 09, 2017] Trump Turns The Corner And Goes On The Attack. Will He Make The GOP Follow by James Kirkpatrick

Trump deflated and sold all his election promises. He is essentially a neocon now. why he will be different on immigration?
Notable quotes:
"... Trump Interrupted 6 Times in Poland With a Chant You Might Have Thought Would Only Be Heard in the USA ..."
"... Independent Journal Review, ..."
"... Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend Western Civilization. ..."
"... Trump's speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto ..."
"... 'Kate's Law' battle shifts to the Senate, testing Dems ..."
"... As Trump's Coach, Senator Cotton Provides Policy to Match Rhetoric ..."
"... 'These deaths were preventable': Trump urges Senate to pass 'Kate's Law,' ..."
"... Immigration bills face Senate hurdle ..."
"... San Antonio Express-News, ..."
"... Trump's 'face-lift' tweet overshadows week to push immigration, energy policies ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... How The Democrats Lost Their Way On Immigration ..."
"... What's the point of an anti-immigrant left ..."
"... Trump is winning the immigration debate ..."
"... In my opinion, even more important than to attack the hostile, mostly liberal media is for Trump to distance himself not just form the Neocon wing of the Republican party, but also to keep a healthy distance from and even attack Ayn Rand fanboys like Paul Ryan and other lackeys of the Koch Brothers ..."
"... No, Donald Trump hasn't really read "Atlas Shrugged." Sad! But he's surrounding himself with Ayn Rand superfans ..."
"... IMO, Trump's deeds rarely match the words written for him by his speechwriter(s). There's been little progress on our Southern border wall and his administration only marginally decreased refugees to 50K for 2018. I want zero or only white refugees from S. Africa – not racial, cultural and religious aliens from the third world. ..."
"... That remains to be seen as Trump has drifted towards the center on immigration since his inauguration. He kept DACA in place and hasn't uttered one negative word on the presumption of birthright citizenship or implored Congress to pass legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment only applied to descendants of blacks slaves and not every person who sneaks across the border and drops an anchor baby or two or eight. The same applies to visa holders and "maternity tourists". ..."
"... Poland and the CIA – what memories, what a work over! Lech Walesa and Solidarność. No wonder they cheer Trump, but they might as well be cheering any US President and that's the point. ..."
"... There is no real opposition to Trump. He's a walking clown, pay attention if you must. But the mainstream media includes Kirkpatrick as much as it does The Atlantic and Vox and Fox and CNN. Super national corporations delivering control over your lives. When they tell you who, what and when you should foam at mouth you'll obey – 'those damn other guys!' ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

Donald Trump received a hero's welcome in Poland on Wednesday, with a crowd of thousands chanting both his name and the name of our country [ Trump Interrupted 6 Times in Poland With a Chant You Might Have Thought Would Only Be Heard in the USA , by Jason Howerton, Independent Journal Review, July 6, 2017].

Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend Western Civilization. Not surprisingly, the hysterically and openly anti-white, anti-Trump Main Stream Media screamed that the president had delivered an "Alt Right manifesto". [ Trump's speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto , by Sarah Wildman, Vox, July 6, 2017]

Nothing of the sort of course: Trump merely delivered the kinds of patriotic platitudes which every other generation in history would have taken for granted. However, with many Western nations under de facto occupation by a hostile elite, such common sense comments are revolutionary. More importantly, President Trump finally seems to be going on the attack in the last week , championing the kinds of populist policies which put him in office.

The House Republicans finally seem to be taking some action on the immigration issue, recently passing both Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act . The former increases penalties on criminal aliens who attempt to reenter our country and latter cuts funding to cities which refuse to imply with federal immigration laws. Two dozen House Democrats voted for "Kate's Law" and Senate Democrats in red states, a number of whom are facing re-election in 2018, will be under pressure to support the legislation in the Senate. [ 'Kate's Law' battle shifts to the Senate, testing Dems , by Jordain Carney and Rafael Bernal, The Hill, July 3, 2017]

The increasing willingness of the President's team to seek the advice of Senator Tom Cotton, who seems to have succeeded Jeff Sessions as the greatest immigration patriot in the upper chamber, is also an encouraging sign [ As Trump's Coach, Senator Cotton Provides Policy to Match Rhetoric , by Maggie Haberman and Matt Flegenheimer, New York Times, June 8, 2017]. Most importantly, Trump himself is taking the strategic offensive, championing his success on these issues. [ 'These deaths were preventable': Trump urges Senate to pass 'Kate's Law,' Fox Insider, July 1, 2017]

Of course, the real question is what the Republican Senate Leadership will do. Everything depends on whether Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is willing to put the bills up for a vote and pressure the caucus to vote for them. [ Immigration bills face Senate hurdle , by Bill Lambrecht, San Antonio Express-News, July 5, 2017]

And here, again, it's really not even about McConnell but about Trump's own will. While Trump's fight with the MSM is amusing and important, ultimately, he needs to put pressure on the leaders of his own party. The battles with CNN and Mika Brzezinski risks distracting from the real policy accomplishments the president poised to secure in the coming weeks [ Trump's 'face-lift' tweet overshadows week to push immigration, energy policies , by Alex Pappas, Washington Examiner, June 30, 2017]. As leader of the party, he can set the priority and challenge McConnell to put his weight behind the immigration bills.

If Trump indeed has the "will" to go through with it, there are the faint outlines how to achieve the political realignment necessary for the United States of America to survive in any meaningful sense. For the first time in many years, there are real splits on the intellectual Left on immigration.

Peter Beinart recently admitted in The Atlantic, "A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today," citing the legacy of Barbara Jordan among others . While Beinart is far from a born-again immigration patriot, he admitted restrictionists have valid concerns that progressives should heed:

Liberals must take seriously Americans' yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

[ How The Democrats Lost Their Way On Immigration , July/August 2017]

Of course, Leftist Enforcer Dylan Matthews , [ Email him ] whose entire oeuvre can be summarized as a hysterical insistence on the moral necessity of white genocide , blasted Beinart on the grounds that Open Borders is what defines the West. "Beinart doesn't actually seem to care about promoting mass immigration," Matthews sneers. "And that's the one answer to this dilemma that's completely unacceptable". [ What's the point of an anti-immigrant left , Vox, July 2, 2017]

To whom? Matthews decrees:

[A]ny center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just for people born in the US but for everyone it means treating people born outside the US as equals.

But of course, this renders American citizenship essentially pointless. Indeed being an "American" (which would simply mean owning a certain kind of passport) would be an active disadvantage, as you would simply exist to be tax-farmed for the benefit of an ever growing number of hostile and hapless Third Worlders .

Few Americans would sign up for this. So, as even Rich Lowry [ Email him ] now admits, Donald Trump is "winning" on immigration simply by mentioning the issue and breaking apart the Democratic coalition.

Trump probably wouldn't have won without running so directly into the teeth of the elite consensus. According to a study published by Public Religion Research Institute and the Atlantic of white working-class voters, it was anxiety about culture change and support for deporting undocumented immigrants that correlated with voting for Trump, not loss of economic or social standing. Likewise, a Democracy Fund Voter Study Group report found Hillary Clinton cratered among populist voters who had supported Barack Obama, with the issue of immigration looming large.[Links added by VDARE.com]

[ Trump is winning the immigration debate , July 5, 2017]

Realist says: July 9, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT

"Trump Turns the Corner and Goes On the Attack. Will He Make the GOP Follow?"

Not much chance.

jilles dykstra says: July 9, 2017 at 7:31 am GMT

• 100 Words When Bush jr was in Vilnius he was also cheered, by 30.000 carefully selected Lithuanians.
If Warschau did the same, I do not know.
However, Poles still seem afraid of Russia, and they resist the Muslim immigration Brussels tries to force on them.
The crash of the Polish aircraft with nearly the whole Polish establishment on board on its way to Katyn still is blamed on Russia, while it was Polish stupidity, and too much liquor.
So maybe this was a spontaneous crowd.

FKA Max says: July 8, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

• 400 Words @FKA Max ... ... ..

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1927899

This paper by Dutton and van der Linden (2014) might be interesting to you:

Who are the "Clever Sillies"? The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever silly originators and those who follow them

[...]
European Romantic nationalism could be seen as problematic from a Jewish perspective. Both thinkers may have been motivated by the good of their group.
[...]
neo-liberal "Chicago School"-style economics, also known as "Freshwater" economics, promoted by Milton Friedman
[...]
Western mind seducer and manipulator, "Objectivist" Ayn Rand
[...]
The Refutation of Libertarianism
[...]
But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1928063

In my opinion, even more important than to attack the hostile, mostly liberal media is for Trump to distance himself not just form the Neocon wing of the Republican party, but also to keep a healthy distance from and even attack Ayn Rand fanboys like Paul Ryan and other lackeys of the Koch Brothers :

Fountainhead of bad ideas: Ayn Rand's fanboys take the reins of power

No, Donald Trump hasn't really read "Atlas Shrugged." Sad! But he's surrounding himself with Ayn Rand superfans

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/14/fountainhead-of-bad-ideas-ayn-rands-fanboys-take-the-reins-of-power/

Never forget the Never Trumpers , Mr. President:

Charles Koch Snubs Trump, Prefers Hillary

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OqbHkZV1yfA?feature=oembed

annamaria says: July 9, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT

The sensation: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/07/hiding-us-lies-about-libyan-invasion/

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/06/hillary-clinton-and-libya-sending.html

"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans.

We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"

Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly controlled and restricted."

KenH says: July 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

Critically, the president identified border security as one of the most important issues during his speech, declaring that the will to enforce immigration laws is synonymous with the will to defend Western Civilization.

IMO, Trump's deeds rarely match the words written for him by his speechwriter(s). There's been little progress on our Southern border wall and his administration only marginally decreased refugees to 50K for 2018. I want zero or only white refugees from S. Africa – not racial, cultural and religious aliens from the third world.

The increasing willingness of the President's team to seek the advice of Senator Tom Cotton, who seems to have succeeded Jeff Sessions as the greatest immigration patriot in the upper chamber,

Cotton has a proposed immigration bill that reduces legal immigration from 1.1 million to 700K. It also takes aim at some chain migration mechanisms which is a positive step, but overall immigration still overwhelmingly favors the third world. Some "immigration patriot".

Even if this miraculously passes this does nothing to arrest the pro-third world demographic trends that ensures white go from majority to plurality by 2040 and America is still on a path to become Brazil Norte.

The House Republicans have proven they will go along with a Trump immigration agenda, provided the president leads the way.

That remains to be seen as Trump has drifted towards the center on immigration since his inauguration. He kept DACA in place and hasn't uttered one negative word on the presumption of birthright citizenship or implored Congress to pass legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment only applied to descendants of blacks slaves and not every person who sneaks across the border and drops an anchor baby or two or eight. The same applies to visa holders and "maternity tourists".

Ben Banned says: July 9, 2017 at 5:51 pm GMT
• 200 Words Poland and the CIA – what memories, what a work over! Lech Walesa and Solidarność. No wonder they cheer Trump, but they might as well be cheering any US President and that's the point.

Americans are long worked over – they are led to believe in some fictional mass of opposition "that hates white people so they oppose Trump" and the standard false equivalence of a "main stream media" that isn't themselves to begin with! The so-called left are the dancing partners who play their part in this fraud – put up targets so the other team can shoot at them, that isn't left, and that isn't right.

There is no real opposition to Trump. He's a walking clown, pay attention if you must. But the mainstream media includes Kirkpatrick as much as it does The Atlantic and Vox and Fox and CNN. Super national corporations delivering control over your lives. When they tell you who, what and when you should foam at mouth you'll obey – 'those damn other guys!'

The unelected mob with their clowns on podiums doesn't concern themselves with borders, security and punishment the way their controlled minions are programmed to. These are there weapons – they'll publish every op-ed online if need be for you to cheer on the use of these weapons. Wear your weblinks like Solidarnosc buttons. You love Lockheed and you hate the others.

[Jul 04, 2017] Is [neoliberal] America Still a Nation

Neoliberalism like Bolshevism sacrifices nations on the altar of globalism.
Notable quotes:
"... You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. ..."
"... Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish, Bavarians, the Catalans–they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates who, like any and all groups, self-identify. ..."
"... This identification is the direct result of indoctrination from our Founding Fathers. ..."
"... The idea that "diversity is strength", in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert. ..."
"... Americans eat like pigs. US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even aiding Al-Qaida in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane. We are told we must support Israel or Sodomia because it has the biggest homo 'pride' parade. ..."
"... America is a culture in decay, it is a huge piece of land with lots of resources and ruled by outside forces from within. ..."
"... Pat seems to imply that if the original ancestry had been maintained, America would not have the problems it now faces. He singlehandedly lays out the blame for the decline of American Republic/democracy at the feet of non-white foreigners. Let us follow this line of reasoning and see where it leads us. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of "one people." The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, "We the people "

And who were these "people"?

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as "one united people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs "

If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today's elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

After the attempted massacre of Republican Congressmen at that ball field in Alexandria, Fareed Zakaria wrote: "The political polarization that is ripping this country apart" is about "identity gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (and) social class." He might have added - religion, morality, culture and history.

Zakaria seems to be tracing the disintegration of our society to that very diversity that its elites proclaim to be its greatest attribute: "If the core issues are about identity, culture and religion then compromise seems immoral. American politics is becoming more like Middle Eastern politics, where there is no middle ground between being Sunni or Shiite."

Among the issues on which we Americans are at war with one another - abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, white cops, black crime, Confederate monuments, LGBT rights, affirmative action.

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind's most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

Is America really "God's Country"? Or was Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, justified when, after 9/11, he denounced calls of "God Bless America!" with the curse "God Damn America!"?

With its silence, the congregation seemed to assent.

In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance many of us recited daily at the end of noon recess in the schoolyard was amended to read, "one nation, under God, indivisible."

Are we still one nation under God? At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack Obama, a motion to put "God" back into the platform was hooted and booed by half the assembly.

With this July 4 long weekend, many writers have bewailed the animus Americans exhibit toward one another and urged new efforts to reunite us. Yet, recall again those first words of Jefferson in 1776:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them "

Are we approaching such a point? Could the Constitution, as currently interpreted, win the approval of two-thirds of our citizens and three-fourth of our states, if it were not already the supreme law of the land? How would a national referendum on the Constitution turn out, when many Americans are already seeking a new constitutional convention?

All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation? French writer Ernest Renan gave us the answer in the 19th century:

"A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.

"Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate: our ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past with great men and glory is the social capital upon which the national idea rests. These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again."

Does this sound at all like us today?

Watching our

The Alarmist > , July 4, 2017 at 11:35 am GMT

We're as much a nation as any in the Western world, and that is a sorry statement on the shape of the world today.

Bill Jones > , July 4, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

"God bless America"

Why?

What country is causing more slaughter around the world?

The Anti-Gnostic > , Website July 4, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Isn't the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?

Corvinus > , July 4, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

Part 1

"In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of "one people." The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, "We the people " And who were these "people"? In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as "one united people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs " ** If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people? **

** YES

It would appear that Mr. Buchanan is making an argument our Founding Fathers established a British enthnostate, but IF (and I say IF) he is taking this position, similar to Vox Day, then he is totally wrong. Preserving rights "for one's posterity" was legal repudiation of feudalism, which stated liberties were a grant from a monarch and the State, and reverted upon his/her death. That is, fundamental freedoms were NOT passed to future generations. The Declaration and the Federalist Papers in particular destroys that feudalist notion. More importantly, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, as a component of our Constitution and reflects original intent, granted Congress and NOT the States the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization. By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and the liberties related to it, to an "outsider".

So, the drafters of our Constitution and the adopting state s fully comprehended the new Congress would have to power to receive immigrants and set forth the standards under which they are naturalized. Citizenship therefore is NOT exclusively confined to the British. This means this argument that the franchise of citizenship is meant to be confined solely to the British children of rebel British subjects is not reflected in the clear meaning of the document. Since immigration was allowed to the United States, at first to Europeans but later extended to non-Europeans, the "posterity" includes more than the actual descendants of residents of our great nation at that time.

But, but, but "[the Constitution] did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition, is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously." Well, a contract, which essentially is what is our Constitution, that has an amendment process is NOT meant to remain constant. It has no original purpose but to establish exactly what the Preamble states. Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots, French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great Britain.

Posterity is synonymous with "legacy"–what we leave behind. Indeed, few, if any, had imagined when the Constitution was created that anyone BUT a white European had the intellectual capacity to embrace Republican principles of government YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific. Of course, that does NOT mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, and it is legitimate, although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles. Of course, in the past foreigners have ben excluded on racial and religious grounds.

Corvinus > , July 4, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT

Part 2

Interestingly enough, Vox Day makes these arguments

"As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.

"Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant.

"The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing."

So, everyone on this fine blog, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

Happy 4th Of July!

Tom Kratman, a science fiction writer, took Vox Day to task on this matter.

http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/04/17/politics/civic-nationalism-ourselves-and-our-posterity/#1

"All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation?"

Aelius Aristides, a Greek who received Roman citizenship in 123 A.D. stated

You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. Neither the sea nor the great expanse of intervening land keeps one from being a citizen, and there is no distinction between Europe and Asia No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common "world democracy" under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]! There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high points of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their native lands for you yet there is not a residue of resentment among those excluded [from Roman citizenship and a share in the governance of the provinces]. Because your government is both universal and like that of a single city-state, its governors rightly rule not as foreigners but, as it were, their own people Additionally, all of the masses of subjects under this government have protection against the more powerful of their native countrymen, by virtue of your anger and vengeance, which would fall upon the more powerful without delay should they dare to break the law. Thus, the present government serves rich and poor alike, and your constitution has developed a single, harmonious, all-embracing union. What in former days seemed impossible has in your time come to pass: You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind "

Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish, Bavarians, the Catalans–they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates who, like any and all groups, self-identify. They know who they are and where they come from, and create groups who share their self-identities. Furthermore, the default for American is American and not a particular race, regardless of one's willingness to admit it this decided fact. When you call yourself a black American or a Chinese American, you are still an American, as in residing in the nation referred as the United States. And while Yankees and Southerners and Midwesterners are clearly different, they are not separate "tribes" or "nations", just locations with groups of people who self-identify geographically, socially, and culturally.

This identification is the direct result of indoctrination from our Founding Fathers.

Avery > , July 4, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

@Johnny Smoggins

Yeah, and someone named Khizr Khan, a Pakistani Islamist-supremacist who, as a lawyer, has written articles defending Sharia law, was _invited_ by the Clinton campaign to speak at the Democratic convention, where the Islamist proceeded to lecture Trump on the U.S. Constitution, and wagging his finger declared .."Mr. Trump, this is not your America .." (or words that effect), to a wild applause of brainwashed 1,000s in the audience.

Imagine that.

Corvinus > , July 4, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

@The Anti-Gnostic "Isn't the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?"

So are you and your family, with you being a lawyer and your wife a school teacher. Now are you ready to get rid of all of your technological gadgets and live strictly in accord with the beliefs AND lifestyle of Orthodoxy?

KenH > , July 4, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then and if fact we're starting to see things slowly escalate to threats, fisticuffs and even a few shootings.

... ... ...

Randal > , July 4, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind's most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

Both, obviously.

Randal > , July 4, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

Today's elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

The idea that "diversity is strength", in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert.

Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force, and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks. Any diversity is a fault line, along which a society can crack under pressure, even if that pressure is merely the kind of opportunist identity lobby charlatans who have done so much harm in modern American and European societies.

But common sense has little chance in the face of ideology.

VIDALUS > , July 4, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT

Pat like most Amurikans in the Fourth Reich have forgotten what ideals animated the American and French revolutions: liberty from tyrannical big guvmints, liberty to strike out on one's own to build a business and a homestead, and a declaration of universal human rights (life liberty pursuit of happiness privacy) all of which the current and past empires have trampled upon in the name of greed for money and power the glue that defines America is precisely the willingness to risk life and property for these ideals if we studied our two greatest wars 1770-87 and 1859-1965 (civil rights and states rights) we might educate ourselves to the light and dark in our culture

Priss Factor > , Website July 4, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT

he(Wright) denounced calls of "God Bless America!" with the curse "God Damn America!"?

Happy Fourth. And God bless the USA.

ROTFL. Is Buchanan still in defensive mode about America?

Why would God bless the current America? Just think about it.

This is a degenerate nation whose new faith is homomania. People have tattoos and piercings for identity. Even in elite colleges. Mainstream culture has been pornified. Just turn on the TV. Some primetime shows are downright lurid.

We have white families falling apart too and opoid addiction going thru the roof. Gambling is of the main industries and GOP's main sugar daddy is cretin Sheldon Adelson. Fathers raise their boys to be pansies and their girls to be skanky sluts.

Catholic church is home of pederasty and homo agenda. Women's idea of protest is wearing 'pussy hats' and spewing vulgar filth from their lips.

Media are 100x nuttier than Joe McCarthy in their hysteria and paranoia. These are the very Libs who'd once made McCarthy the most sinister person in US history.
Blacks routinely beat up & wussify white boys and colonize white wombs, but white 'Muricans worship black thugs in sports and rappers.
Blacks do most violence but we are supposed to believe BLM.

Americans eat like pigs. US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even aiding Al-Qaida in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane. We are told we must support Israel or Sodomia because it has the biggest homo 'pride' parade.
And 'pride' is now synonymous with homo fecal penetration.

Why would God bless this kind of degenerate nation?

Bill Jones > , July 4, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT

@KenH And on the third hand you have the whack-job "Christian" Zionist Israel first traitors.

Randal > , July 4, 2017 at 10:24 pm GMT

@Bill Jones

Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

Not enough of them vociferously enough to make the ruling elites pay attention, clearly.

Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

As I noted, ideology trumps common sense, for those who make policy and for those who wish to be seen as good guys by their supposed betters and peers.

truthtellerAryan > , July 4, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

America is a culture in decay, it is a huge piece of land with lots of resources and ruled by outside forces from within. It is pimped to the max!!! Our cuckold "experts and politicians " imaginations run wild whenever the pimps (from outside) and their representatives (within) give the orders to further push this land into an increasingly decadent society .. look how happy we are when we kill defenseless people, clearing their (pimps) garbage, work hard to collect wealth for them, it is soooo sad just thinking about it. Carrying the pimp's flag is considered one of the most patriotic thing to do, ask Tom Cotton, Bolton, Rumsfeld .

Issac > , July 4, 2017 at 11:01 pm GMT

@Bill Jones Israel?

Talha > , July 4, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

@Corvinus Well thought out and stated.

Peace.

MEexpert > , July 5, 2017 at 12:04 am GMT

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Pat seems to imply that if the original ancestry had been maintained, America would not have the problems it now faces. He singlehandedly lays out the blame for the decline of American Republic/democracy at the feet of non-white foreigners. Let us follow this line of reasoning and see where it leads us.

First, unless the original white immigrants to this country had wiped out every non-white resident (the American Indians) of this country, there would still be non-white people living in America.

However, leaving that little detail aside, let us examine who caused the decline of America. The laws of the land are enacted by the congress of the United States. The US congress has the sole power of imposing taxation, allowing immigration, and the conduct of wars. Up until recently the congress of the United States consisted of mostly white citizens. Out of the 45 presidents that the country has seen, all but one have been white Americans. The one black president was more white than black. Just check with black citizens and they will tell you that they were better off before him.

The British taxes, without representation, that the colonist rebelled against were much lower than what they are now. These taxes have been imposed by the white congressmen and signed by white presidents.

The immigration laws and quotas were passed by the white congress and signed by white presidents.

The wars, both declared and undeclared, have been waged by the white presidents.
While I sympathize with Mr Buchanan lamenting upon the good old days, no one but his own white folks have destroyed those good old days. America took pride in been called the nation of immigrants but only when the going was good. As long as, the immigrant scientist, engineers, and architects made this country great they were welcome but as soon as things got rough America blamed the immigrants.

Mr. Buchanan, don't blame all immigrants. Most of them are still productive and faithful to their adopted country. If you want to blame someone, follow the money, since money is the root of all evil. I don't have to tell you who controls the money. You should know very well who. I have followed your career for a long time. I even voted for you in 1992 presidential primary. You were very outspoken then but your wings have been clipped. There is no zing left in your writing. You have toned down criticism of the very group of people that have destroyed this country.

Corvinus > , July 5, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT

@Bill Jones Bill Jones

"Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture."

Which America has. "Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society." According to Vox Day, only the English immigrants were able to understand the Rights Of Englishmen. Non-English immigrants perverted its meaning. Are you non-English? If yes, you have to go back.

Jacques Sheete "We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud."

Thank you for your virtue signaling. "Can a cesspool be a nation? If so, who would want it?" Except America is not a cesspool, nor resembles anything like it.

The Jester

"In a historic turnabout, we have now given the feminists and sexual deviants hiding behind Cultural Marxist ideology a legally protected status and (under the Marxist aphorism that personal choice defines one's culture, gender, and sex) are inviting massive immigration from the hell-holes populating the Third and Fourth Worlds."

The scope of Cultural Marxism is Fake News.

Randal

"Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force "

Except America does not fit that description.

"and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks."

America's people are bound by a common set of values.

[May 08, 2017] Acuckalypse Now! The Budget Betrayal And Trump Derangement Syndrome - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is another vassal/tool of the power elite. as all Presidents have been for decades. Some unhappily, but all completely. ..."
"... Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators. ..."
"... He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. ..."
"... "EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh, give me a break -- ..."
"... Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't get his wall. Period. For the rest of the agenda other than the wall – I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because his agenda is supported by a majority. ..."
"... The other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they care for Trump's agenda. ..."
"... Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and needs to be reigned in. ..."
"... Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected. ..."
May 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Realist , May 7, 2017 at 8:05 am GMT

Trump is another vassal/tool of the power elite. as all Presidents have been for decades. Some unhappily, but all completely.

Felix Krull , May 7, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT

And, I'll say this for President Trump: He's still hated by all the right people. Boy, how they hate him!

That is the smoke-screen that allows him to cuck so hard. They can't very well congratulate him without the Trumpentroopers getting suspicious.

Bragadocious , May 7, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT

Still hoping for the best from this President. But it's apparent he isn't fighting the Democrats, he's fighting the DC Uniparty. I wish him luck.

Sean , May 7, 2017 at 8:11 pm GMT

The Trumpocalypse is already building a wall in the minds of the prospective immigrant.

Amid immigration setbacks, one Trump strategy seems to be working: Fear Most notably, Trump signed an executive order during his first week in office that, among other things, vastly expanded the pool of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants who are deemed priorities for deportation. [...] The most vivid evidence that Trump's tactics have had an effect has come at the southern border with Mexico, where the number of apprehensions made by Customs and Border Patrol agents plummeted from more than 40,000 per month at the end of 2016 to just 12,193 in March, according to federal data.

jilles dykstra , May 8, 2017 at 6:20 am GMT

Had a similar story, mutatis mutandis, been written by somone French in France about French immigration, he or she would have been labeled extreme right, or even fascist.

unit472 , May 8, 2017 at 8:26 am GMT

Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

animalogic , May 8, 2017 at 9:15 am GMT

"EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh, give me a break --
H2B is a clear example that those researchers from Stanford (?) where right: that the views/interests etc of 80-90% of Americans has exactly ZERO influence over government/s policy.

humpfuster , May 8, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT

how do you people of the list handle the information in these links..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-06/thank-god-people-are-back-power-kushner-family-pitches-invest-500k-immigrate-america?page=2

see also the links talked about there ..

reiner Tor , Website May 8, 2017 at 9:35 am GMT

@Randal

Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet process.
Zogby , May 8, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't get his wall. Period. For the rest of the agenda other than the wall – I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because his agenda is supported by a majority. The 40% approval rating Trump enjoys – that's how many support his agenda. It's not a majority.

The other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they care for Trump's agenda.

Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and needs to be reigned in. His agenda is not particulary popular among people that voted against Hillary, not for Trump. Support for it is soft, and as Trump continues a divisive agenda push that creates too much opposition – soft support withers away.

sedgwick , May 8, 2017 at 10:55 am GMT

he is going to be the same in office as all previous Republican administrations . Worse: Hard to see how the following story can be interpreted as anything up Trump-Kushner selling visas for personal enrichment. This is FILLING the swamp with corrupt Chinese .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/china-pitch-by-kushner-sister-renews-controversy-over-visa-program-for-wealthy/2017/05/07/59d18360-3357-11e7-b412-62beef8121f7_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.72006b5909d6

Mr. Derbyshire is a very smart guy and is worried about Trump. But I worry Mr. Derbyshire is not worried enough.

KenH , May 8, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

There's been all kinds of cucking from Trump. I knew it would happen eventually, but never dreamed it would happen within the first 100 days.

His latest cuck is leaving DACA in place and agreeing to accept the 1250 Muslim refugees who Australia did not want after blustering that Obama made a "stupid deal" and we would not take them. You can't take anything Trump says to the bank as it could change tomorrow or next week and he acts like it's nothing.

fnn , May 8, 2017 at 12:52 pm GMT

Pretty good video on how the West failed and "we're all doomed."

bluedog , May 8, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

Agent76 , May 8, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

Apr 3, 2017 President Trump Could Drain the Swamp in 2 Seconds

Demand that President Trump sign the American Anti-Corruption Executive Order.

Clark Westwood , May 8, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT

Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words - one for cowards and one for fakes.)

Carol , May 8, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT

Where I live, in Montana, young white guys still work construction and landscaping jobs. It's an amazing oasis, really.

What scares me is that immigration decisions are being made by people who just can't imagine themselves or their family ever working these kinds of jobs or anything close. They're out of touch. They have no right to capitulate like this.

utu , May 8, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

Intelligent Dasein , Website May 8, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

utu , May 8, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT

@Randal

Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet process.
Bill , May 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

@unit472 Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators.

But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.

It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing their thing it will start to dry up.

Joe Hide , May 8, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.

republic , May 8, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-hardens-immigration-rules-3-lakh-indian-americans-to-be-affected/story-L1YaYVWOo1ZvWJG97oNmHJ.html

This big Indian newspaper quote a US think tank that there are about 500,000 Indian Nationals
living illegally in the US

Delinquent Snail , May 8, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT

@ThreeCranes A former psychology professor of mine who also worked as a counselor at a crisis center told our class that he could tell the real suiciders from the wannabes by whether, after the "bang" of the supposed gunshot to the head, he could actually hear the phone dropping onto the floor. If he didn't, then presumably the caller was clinging to some hope, which it was his job to nurture.

JT smith , May 8, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT

Mr. Derbyshire, like you I chuckle whenever Pres. Trump's makes the PC crowd clamor for a safe space. But if you are concerned with the vilification and death of traditional America then snark doesn't cut it. If you voted for Trump, then sorry, the joke' on you, bloke.

We probably both miss the Scranton PA or Binghamton NY of 1955, but Trump or any pol is powerless to bring them back. The best we rubes stuck in the heartland can hope for is that the transfer payments from the costal elites keep coming, and that the dollar remains a reserve currency so that the government can borrow to support us. As I see it, Trumps policies , gutting healthcare, tax cuts for the investor class, will hurt us "badwhites". That is a bad bargain for seing Rosie ODonnell cry, no matter how sweet.

Delinquent Snail , May 8, 2017 at 5:37 pm GMT

@Clark Westwood Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words -- one for cowards and one for fakes.)

Tipsy , May 8, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT

Chuck Schumer = Cuck Sooner?

Authenticjazzman , May 8, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

" How were these reptiles able to get their way on a major issue in the Trump electoral agenda"

Very simple : Because they, the Democrats, own and wield the "Racism" bludgeon, and there is nothing which terrifies a meek, mild-mannered "Fair" Republican politico more than being labeled as a :

RACIST

( not forgetting : " Enemy of women" , Homophobe, etc)

period.

And until these cowards learn to do their duty and persue that which they were elected for, and ignore the tauntings of racism, and until they begin to just throw it back, the racist label, at the crazy democrats, they will be in the losers seat, period.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

Authenticjazzman , May 8, 2017 at 6:51 pm GMT

@Intelligent Dasein

Straw man, much?

Nobody here thinks that, you sanctimonious jerk-store. Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected.

truthtellerAryan , May 8, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT

Worry not! The vice grip has been tightened , and now it's welded. You think a con man from New York will betray his cabal buddies for a down on his luck, beer chugging, and his world possession of a lifted 4×4, when he has resorts to build and secure his little Zionist grand children that one day will inherit the earth .Keep dreaming!

Bill , May 8, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT

@Joe Hide Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.

bluedog , May 8, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT

@Wally The alternative was HILLARY.

In First 2 Months in Office – Trump Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion – Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December, 2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush served as president.

Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/

Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/

20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/

Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed

Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html

2010 Dems lost the House

The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

Fake Law

Art , May 8, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT

Congress is the problem – not the president. Congress is dysfunctional. Getting reelected is everything to those people. First and foremost, congress people represent themselves – not their voters. Taking campaign money from lobbyists to stop challengers in jerrymandered districts and blue or red states, is paramount.

The last time congress really accomplished something was in the Clinton administration. Newt Gingrich did good things (balancing the budget and changed welfare). Other than open ended war, Bush congresses did nothing. Obama's congress got a disastrously bad healthcare bill passed and nothing else.

For sixteen years, the Bush and Obama congresses just spent more and more money driving up the debt.

Trump is going to show his colors, when in a couple of months – a new long-term spending bill is coming up for a monumental vote.

Will Trump veto the trillion-dollar deficit that congress will send to him or not?

Realist , May 8, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT

@Wally The alternative was HILLARY.

In First 2 Months in Office – Trump Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion – Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December, 2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush served as president.

Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/

Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/

20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/

Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed

Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html

2010 Dems lost the House

The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

Fake Law

[Apr 25, 2017] Why The H-1B Visa Racket Should Be Abolished, Not Reformed - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... laissez faire ..."
"... There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited. ..."
Apr 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
Billionaire businessman Marc Cuban insists that the H-1B visa racket is a feature of the vaunted American free market. This is nonsense on stilts. It can't go unchallenged.

Another billionaire, our president, has ordered that the H-1B program be reformed. This, too, is disappointing. You'll see why.

First, let's correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets are intertwined. Trade, including trade in labor, is not free; it's regulated to the hilt. If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an example of a fascistic government-business cartel in operation.

The H-1B permit, in particular, is part of that state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B hogs-Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel-import labor with what are grants of government privilege. Duly, the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do they get to replace the American worker, but they get to do so at his expense.

Here's how:

Globally, a series of sordid liaisons ensures that American workers are left high and dry. Through the programs of the International Trade Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, and other oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker is forced to subsidize and underwrite the investment risks of the very corporations that have given him the boot.

Domestically, the fascistic partnership with the State amounts to a subsidy to business at the expense of the taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic welfare state externalize their employment costs onto the taxpayers.

So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belongs to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit-at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.

Does this epitomize the classical liberal idea of laissez faire ?

Moreover, chain migration or family unification means every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant-the meal ticket-will pay his way. The honor system not being an especially strong value in the Third World, the rest of the clan will be America's problem. More often than not, chain-migration entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.

Spreading like gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic population growth is detrimental to all ecosystems: natural, social and political.

Take Seattle and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015 and 2016, the area was inundated with "86,320 new residents, marking it the region's biggest population gains this century. Fueled in large part by the technology industry, an average of 236 people is moving to the Seattle area each day," reported Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our local fish-wrapper-in my case, parrot-cage liner-have discharged their journalistic duties by inviting readers to "share" their traffic-jam stories.)

Never as dumb as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg and Marc Cuban are certainly as detached.

Barricaded in their obscenely lavish compounds-from the comfort of their monster mansions-these social engineers don't experience the "environmental impacts of rapid urban expansion"; the destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland; the decrease in the quality of the water we drink and air we breathe, the increase in traffic and traffic accidents, air pollution, the cellblock-like housing erected to accommodate their imported I.T. workers and extended families, the delicate bouquet of amped up waste management and associated seepages.

For locals, this lamentable state means an inability to afford homes in a market in which property prices have been artificially inflated. Young couples lineup to view tiny apartments. They dream of that picket fence no more. (And our "stupid leaders," to quote the president before he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are so low!)

In a true free market, absent the protectionist state, corporate employers would be accountable to the community, and would be wary of the strife and lowered productivity brought about by a multiethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All the more so when a foreign workforce moves into residential areas almost overnight as has happened in Seattle and its surrounds.

Alas, since the high-tech traitors can externalize their employment costs on to the community; because corporations are subsidized at every turn by their victims-they need not bring in the best.

Cuban thinks they do. High tech needs to be able to "search the world for the best applicants," he burbled to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Yet more crap.

Why doesn't the president know that the H-1B visa category is not a special visa for highly skilled individuals, but goes mostly to average workers? "Indian business-process outsourcing companies, which predominantly provide technology support to corporate back offices," by the Economist's accounting.

Overall, the work done by the H1-B intake does not require independent judgment, critical reasoning or higher-order thinking. "Average workers; ordinary talent doing ordinary work," attest the experts who've been studying this intake for years. The master's degree is the exception within the H1-B visa category.

More significant: THERE IS a visa category that is reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know, because the principal sponsor in our family received this visa. I first wrote about the visa that doesn't displace ordinary Americans in 2008 :

It's the O-1 visa.

"Extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics," states the Department of Homeland Security, "means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."

Most significant: There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.

My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. In reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.

There is no limit to the number of geniuses American companies can import.

Theoretically, the H-1B program could be completely abolished and all needed Einsteins imported through the O-1 program. (Why, even future first ladies would stand a chance under the business category of the O-1A visa, as a wealth-generating supermodel could certainly qualify.)

Now you understand my disappointment. In his April 18 Executive Order, President Trump promised to merely reform a program that needs abolishing. That is if "Hire American" means anything to anybody anymore.

ILANA Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter & Facebook

[Apr 09, 2017] Much of the focus on immigration as a mechanism for low wage growth is a red-herring that seeks to turn attention away from the undermining of labor, civil, and voting rights.

Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
yuan, April 08, 2017 at 10:40 AM
IMO, much of the focus on "immigration" as a mechanism for low wage growth is a red-herring that seeks to turn attention away from the undermining of labor, civil, and voting rights.

"First, not all migrants are competing against native workers. Some are complements, and so help to raise wages."

"Of course, it is the case that real wages have been under pressure in recent years. But why blame immigrants for this? There are many other culprits: weaker trades unions; fiscal austerity; financialization (pdf); the financial crisis; power-biased technical change; and all the things that have depressed productivity."

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/04/immigration-mechanisms.html

pgl -> yuan... , April 08, 2017 at 12:29 PM
Good post - thanks. But it is always easier for the politicians to blame immigrants as opposed to adopting better policies.

[Mar 20, 2017] Trump Administration To Reopen H1B Visa Program

Mar 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Anachronism -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... March 20, 2017 at 09:59 AM , 2017 at 09:59 AM
I posted this a few days ago. Another promise Trump reneged on.

http://www.ibtimes.com/does-immigration-help-economy-trump-administration-reopen-h-1b-visa-program-2509198

Does Immigration Help The Economy? Trump Administration To Reopen H-1B Visa Program

By Lydia O'Neal @LydsONeal On 03/15/17 AT 4:30 PM

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced Wednesday that it would not draw down the number of H-1B visas doled out to foreign workers for fiscal year 2018, leaving the total cap at 85,000, and would begin accepting applications April 3.

The decision came less than two weeks after USCIS alarmed proponents of freer immigration for skilled workers when it suspended the premium processing route for H-1B visas, which allows companies to import workers quickly with just 15 waiting days and a $1,225 fee, for a period of at least six months.

The agency attributed the decision to its need to "process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years," according to a USCIS press release. USCIS also kept its expedited processing route, which is reserved for emergency situations, in place.

H-1B visas are reserved for foreign nationals with a clear relationship with the American company seeking to hire them, as well as a bachelor's degree or higher in a "specialty occupation," defined by USCIS as "in fields such as engineering, math and business, as well as many technology fields."

H-1B Visa Petitions Approved in 2014 by Level of Education

Showing petitions approved in the 2014 fiscal year by level of education. Approved petitions exceed the number of individual H-1B workers sponsored because multiple types of petitions can be filed for a single worker. The U.S. caps the number of H-1B workers that can be given a visa at 65,000 per fiscal year.

The tech industry often cites the program, which primarily benefits Indian workers and companies, as a necessary tool to compensate for labor shortages, but the existence of that shortage has long been disputed.

A recent study found that, had the program not been in place between 1994 and 2001, tech workers' salaries would've been up to 5 percent higher, while their employment would've grown by up to 11 percent. The paper, by researchers at the University of Michigan and the University of California, San Diego, also pointed out that productivity in the sector rose by as much as 2.5 percent, while consumer prices fell, ultimately benefitting information technology firms.

[Feb 01, 2017] Read Draft Text Of Trumps Executive Order Limiting Muslim Entry To The US

Notable quotes:
"... Block refugee admissions from the war-torn country of Syria indefinitely. ..."
"... Suspend refugee admissions from all countries for 120 days. After that period, the U.S. will only accept refugees from countries jointly approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all visitors to the U.S. and require in-person interviews for all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa. ..."
"... Suspend the visa interview waiver program indefinitely and review whether existing reciprocity agreements are reciprocal in practice. ..."
Feb 01, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

According to the draft executive order, President Donald Trump plans to:

The draft order, which is expected to be signed later this week, details the Trump administration's plans to "collect and make publicly available within 180 days ... information regarding the number of foreign-born individuals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts." It also describes plans to collect information about "gender-based violence against women or honor killings" by foreign-born individuals in the U.S.

The language is unclear as to whether the names of these individuals, which could include American citizens, would be made public, nor does the document define "radicalized" or "terrorism-related acts," leaving open the potential to sweep vast numbers of people onto the list.

The move is reminiscent of the expansive enemies lists created by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover last century.

[Feb 01, 2017] Reply

Feb 01, 2017 | onclick="TPConnect.blogside.reply('6a00d83451b33869e201b8d25b4391970c'); return false;" href="javascript:void 0">
Wednesday, February 01, 2017 at 12:27 PM libezkova said in reply to pgl... First of all, what is called "School of management" typically is a voodoo cult that should have nothing to do with university education ;-)

"He [Bush] signaled the shift [in strategy] in a speech here [in Pittsburgh] last week when he charged that Reagan had made 'a list of phony promises' on defense, energy and economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal 'voodoo economic policy' and 'economic madness.'"

Compare with comments to

Ok To Bomb Them But Don't Ban Them

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46349.htm

== quote ==
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it.

The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religions have committed heinous atrocities.

...And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites?

...The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is only an apprentice. Reply Wednesday, February 01, 2017 at 08:40 PM

[Feb 01, 2017] Ok To Bomb Them But Don't Ban Them : Information Clearing House - ICH

Feb 01, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

By Jimmy Dore Show

January 31, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls
Trump Muslim Ban Made Possible By Obama Admin & Media Won't Tell You

tictac · 1 day ago
Jimmy Dore makes some great points from time to time but this particular rant has so many flaws that it would be a real undertaking to itemize all of them.

Millions if not billions of people, including millions of USAmericans have been horrified at US terrorism wherever it occurs. We weren't OK with the US terrorizing these seven countries or any of the other countries the US has terrorized. We protested. We talked to our political representatives. We advised young men to refuse to volunteer to kill and be killed for money. We did whatever we could think of to stop the carnage. We were unsuccessful.

It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it. The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religious have committed heinous atrocities.

I could go on, but those are the main points I wanted to make.

Belisarius6 · 1 day ago
What? Fake news isn't enough for you, so now you're engaging in fake debate? You have problems with Jimmy's points then argue them. Too many for you? Then pick the top six and critique them. Otherwise stop stuffing your fingers in your ears and loudly singing patriotic songs to drown out the unpleasant truths. P.S. There were significant protests when Bush Jr. was running the show but they all died out after Obama took over the nation's reins. After that all I heard from the American left about his constant assault on the Constitution, keeping Guantanamo, the country's wars of aggression, U.S. support of the military coup in Honduras, his unconditional and unlimited subsidization of Wall Street, his unprecedented vendetta against government whistle blowers, and his impressive accumulation of 306 golf outings (at a gob smacking five hours a pop!) ... was crickets.
tictac · 13 hours ago
You read different stuff than I do. I heard a fire hose stream of Progressive/liberal criticism of Obama's policies and enormous disappointment in Obama - including from people like Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, and Amy Goodman, and especially from Glenn Greenwald, Assange and other brilliant political thinkers as well as from Veterans for Peace, Pro-Palestine humanitarians, and anti-nuclear activists. Medea Benjamin has been on the front lines for eight years attacking Obama's war mongering. Of course we need many more like her. Unless you are her, using a fake name, then why weren't you right there with her?
weevil wobbly · 1 day ago
And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites? Cynical demo pigs would love to impeach Drumpf and wage nice with Pence. We are f*^ked unless we (us "lefty ranters" and more) don't demand radical change from the Corporatist neo-fascist establishments of both parties - the party of dicks and the party of pant-suited V's. And the media/wall street/military industrial complex can't get enough of this.
Dr. Nomas Kakita · 1 day ago
Jimmy Great Information --

BEWARE -- Why is the Zionist control media, and many Zionist controlled organizations, so adamant about allowing people from war torn Muslim countries come to the US ?

The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is only an apprentice.

bubbles · 1 day ago
thanks, jimmy, for the truth. from the mouths of comedians......
Mahmoud El-Yousseph · 1 day ago
Trump's Muslim ban is not about terrorism or keeping America safe. Otherwise Saudia Arabia would have been on the top of list. This is about countries that stand against the US/Israel agenda. https://www.darkmoon.me/ /dona.. .
гость · 23 hours ago
This guy should take Wolf Blitzer's job and expose the truth on the national media. Blitzer can be consigned to telling risible lies on You Tube, as should most of the jokers in the so-called mainstream media.
Schlüter 87p · 20 hours ago
Well, double standards implemented since long!
"Only ISIS is Barbaric? Burning People Alive!" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/only-is...
anonymous · 16 hours ago
Good Point, But you ae biased. You never mention Zionism. The Zionists are at the center of this policy.
romanaorfred · 13 hours ago
HYPOCRISY.

People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes ' when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey headline:

NBC Today Show Warns of Possible Drone Bombing at Trump Inauguration
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/media-warns-po...

more evidence bogus tv news:

"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors

"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen" about a planned construction project before the council.

Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself as a local, sincere citizen.

Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did, nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...

ringo · 11 hours ago
All those demonstrating against Trump are a asset to the deep state. I can't understand why those demonstrators in the UK/EU
bashing Trump, there are more pressing reasons to demonstrate
in the UK, poverty, austerity, families relying on food banks that the supermarkets have thrown out, where are the marches against that obscenity, instead of going along with the agenda of the Clinton band wagon, those causing havoc in the US/UK/EU, would be better employed in demonstrating against those who have created all those immigrants Muslim or otherwise in the first place, ie; bush blair obama the clintons etc; time those out on the streets got their priorities right.
European_Dad 98p · 6 hours ago
why use obama's list, donald, why? you were not elected to continue his policies, i thought.
romanaorfred · 4 hours ago
HYPOCRISY.

People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes ' when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey headline:

NBC Today Show Warns of Possible Drone Bombing at Trump Inauguration
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/media-warns-po...

more evidence bogus tv news:

"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors

"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen" about a planned construction project before the council.

Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself as a local, sincere citizen.

Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did, nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...

[Feb 01, 2017] "They keep coming," In 1994, though, that message helped lift California's governor, the Republican Pete Wilson, to re-election. That same year, voters adopted a referendum, Proposition 187, denying state services to undocumented immigrants, including public education and health care.

Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : February 01, 2017 at 09:23 AM

, 2017 at 09:23 AM
(California dreamin'?)

Strife Over Immigrants: Can California Predict the
Nation's Future? https://nyti.ms/2jW2PTW via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Emily Badger - February 1, 2017

The political ads warned that illegal immigrants were dashing, by the millions, over the Mexican border, racing to claim taxpayer-funded public services in California.

"They keep coming," the announcer intoned over grainy aerial footage and a thrumming bassline. When viewed on YouTube today, these ads hardly seem the stuff of multicultural California as we know it.

In 1994, though, that message helped lift California's governor, the Republican Pete Wilson, to re-election. That same year, voters adopted a referendum, Proposition 187, denying state services to undocumented immigrants, including public education and health care.

California is often held up as a harbinger of the demographics - and, Democrats hope, the politics - of the nation to come. Mr. Wilson's bet against immigration is thought to have hurt Republicans in the long run in the state. But in the dawn of the Trump era, the state is also a cautionary tale of what happens during the tumultuous years when that change is occurring rapidly.

Donald J. Trump has taken office in a nation that is not only growing more diverse, but also growing more diverse everywhere, because of both foreign immigration and shifting internal migration patterns that are touching the last bastions of nearly all-white America.

After an election in which Mr. Trump appealed to unease about the nation's changing identity - and a month when he alarmed civil rights leaders and immigration advocates - his presidency poses a very different question from his predecessor's.

Not: Are we post-racial? But: How will we handle the racial change that is only going to accelerate?

Sociological studies suggest that increasing contact between groups can yield familiarity and tolerance. But it can also unnerve, especially in communities where that rapid change is most visible - and when politicians stand to gain by exploiting it. California lashed out at diversity before embracing it.

"There's a very rich history of xenophobia, of racism, of trying to wipe each other out," said Connie Rice, a longtime civil rights lawyer in California. "It's not like we were all of a sudden born the Golden State." ...

Related?

More Californians dreaming of a country without
Trump: poll http://reut.rs/2j6s8iG
Reuters - Sharon Bernstein - January 24

The election of Republican businessman Donald Trump as president of the United States has some Californians dreaming - of their own country.

One in every three California residents supports the most populous U.S. state's peaceful withdrawal from the union, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, many of them Democrats strongly opposed to Trump's ascension to the country's highest office.

The 32 percent support rate is sharply higher than the last time the poll asked Californians about secession, in 2014, when one-in-five or 20 percent favored it around the time Scotland held its independence referendum and voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

California also far surpasses the national average favoring secession, which stood at 22 percent, down from 24 percent in 2014.

The poll surveyed 500 Californians among more than 14,000 adults nationwide from Dec. 6 to Jan. 19 and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of one percentage point nationally and five percentage points in California.

The idea of secession is largely a settled matter in the United States, though the impulse to break away carries on in some corners of the country, most notably in Texas.

While interest has remained about the same nationwide, it has found more favor in California and the concept has even earned a catchy name - "Calexit."

"I don't think it's likely to happen, but if things get really bad it could be an option," said Stephen Miller, 70, a retired transportation planner who lives in Sacramento and told pollsters he "tended to support" secession. ...

'Calexit' would be a disaster for progressive values http://fw.to/ks9LHNS
LA Times - January 27

Imagine if President Trump announced that he wanted to oust California from the United States. If it weren't for us, after all, Trump would have won the popular vote he so lusts after by 1.4 million. Blue America would lose its biggest source of electoral votes in all future elections. The Senate would have two fewer Democrats. The House of Representatives would lose 38 Democrats and just 14 Republicans. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, among the most liberal in the nation, would be changed irrevocably. And the U.S. as a whole would suddenly be a lot less ethnically diverse than it is today.

For those reasons, Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Republicans with White House ambitions, opponents of legalizing marijuana, advocates of criminalizing abortion and various white nationalist groups might all conclude –– for different reasons –– that they would benefit politically from a separation, even as liberals and progressives across America would correctly see it as a catastrophe.

So it makes sense that the leader of the Yes California Independence Campaign, Marcus Ruiz Evans, was - contrary to popular assumptions - a registered Republican when he formed the separatist group two years ago, according to the San Jose Mercury News. He briefly hosted conservative talk radio shows in Fresno, and would not tell the newspaper if he voted for Trump. ...

[Feb 01, 2017] The US national mythology glosses over the history of how unwelcoming our country has mostly been to new immigrants.

Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
pgl : February 01, 2017 at 02:01 AM , 2017 at 02:01 AM
I'm not a Budweiser fan as I only drink real beer but this Super Bowl commercial is nice as it slams that Trump Muslim ban in its own unique way:

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/31/budweiser-just-trolled-trump-amazing-super-bowl-ad/

Chris Lowery -> pgl... , February 01, 2017 at 09:58 AM
Point well made! Regarding the argument that today's immigrants aren't as willing as past immigrants to assimilate, I recently read that 80% of 19th Century German immigrants returned to Germany, and 30% of Italian immigrants did the same.

Our national mythology glosses over the history of how unwelcoming our country has mostly been to new immigrants. The idea that America has always been a land that welcomed immigrants and provided them immediate opportunity is very comfortable, but it contradicts a much harsher history. It's a real shame that so many of our fellow countrymen are willfully ignorant of their own ancestors' struggles, and are willing to inflict the same harshness on our newest arrivals.

On the other hand, the news coverage of this past weekend's protests over the Trump immigration Executive Order included a picture of a man carrying a sign saying, "Mexican-Americans Welcome Muslim Refugees!" I can't thing of anything that expresses the ideals of real Americanism better than that!

Peter K. -> pgl... , February 01, 2017 at 10:32 AM
Isn't Budweiser owned by a Belgian company?

[Feb 01, 2017] Full Executive Order Text Trump's Action Limiting Refugees Into the US

Feb 01, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States." Following is the language of that order, as supplied by the White House.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq ., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose . The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern . (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs . (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017 . (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest - including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship - and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility . The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security . (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity . The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection . (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[Feb 01, 2017] Are the neoliberals all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US

Notable quotes:
"... I happen to think the heartlessness of this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's base is cheering. ..."
"... silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO less recondite, etc, etc....... ..."
"... Before the Nazi had the power to go after the Jews they had effect the party's police state, before which ordinary Germans [and whatever police there were after the depression shuttered everything] permitted the party to do organized violence on their opponents: the social democrats, socialists, bolshevists, et al. ..."
"... The ban on returning residents is utterly against the law. ..."
Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

pgl : , January 29, 2017 at 01:45 AM
Bill McBride on Trump's Muslim ban:

'Mr. Trump's executive order is un-American, not Christian, and hopefully unconstitutional. This is a shameful act and no good person can remain silent.'

Thanks for saying this Bill. JFK International had a demonstration against this ban that featured the detention of a brave Iraqi who helped US troops. This ban is also incredibly stupid.

Jerry Brown -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 02:10 AM
I add my thanks to yours. Very important post from Bill McBride.
pgl -> Jerry Brown... , January 29, 2017 at 03:04 AM
A temporary victory from the courts:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316714-federal-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide

New Deal democrat -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:24 AM
Agreed in full.

I happen to think the heartlessness of this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's base is cheering.

But on a longer term scale, heartlessness towards Muslim immigrants and DREAMers is going to turn persuadables against Trump. That and the next recession.

EMichael -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 05:29 AM
We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in every single election they have voted in.

Amazes me that even now people keep thinking that Trump voters are anything but loyal GOP voters. And I think the best argument against this (besides common sense) is the reaction of Rep leaders to this obviously illegal action.

They're silent.

They cannot afford to speak out against this racist policy, as their own voters are for this racist policy.

ilsm -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 05:45 AM
silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO less recondite, etc, etc.......

Are the libruls all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?

New Deal democrat -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:11 AM
There were a fair amount of voters who "came home" to the GOP before the election, even though they found Trump himself distasteful. At least some of those nouveau-Reagan democrats also voted for him because of his economic agenda. They believed that his racism was all for show.
New Deal democrat -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:57 AM
A further historical analogy ....

Once upon a time, for academic reasons I read the same book that Trump was rumored to have by his bedside in NYC: the english translation of the full text of Adolf Hitler's speeches. Hitler's argument for getting ordinary Germans to go along with his extreme anti-Semitic agenda was masterful. It went in essence like this: "I know that there are a very few good Jews, and you may know a few of them. But the vast majority of Jews, who you don't know, are evil. But in order to get to the mass of bad apples, we might have to inflict some hardship on a few good people." By getting people to overlook their own experience with Jews they knew, he prevailed.

In contrast - for example - gay rights triumphed when enough people knew gays in their ordinary lives, and realized that they were no different from anybody else. So they were unable to see any valid reason to discriminate against them.

This ban is much more like the second situation than the first. It is inflicting a lot of pain on a lot of good people, in order to get to (allegedly) a few bad apples, and people can see that. It is not going to be popular.

anon -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 08:24 AM
" for academic reasons I read the same book that Trump was rumored to have by his bedside in NYC"

unsubstantiated nonsense. other wise known as fake news

New Deal democrat -> anon... , January 29, 2017 at 08:36 AM
Unsubstantiated = It may or may not be nonsense, since we don't know if it is true or not. Hence, as I said, "rumor."

Have a nice day.

ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 01:24 PM
Before the Nazi had the power to go after the Jews they had effect the party's police state, before which ordinary Germans [and whatever police there were after the depression shuttered everything] permitted the party to do organized violence on their opponents: the social democrats, socialists, bolshevists, et al.

It was way too late when the pogrom started.

Peter K. -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 08:05 AM

"We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in every single election they have voted in."

Reminds me of the obstinate, closed-mindedness which Trump voters direct at immigrants and Muslims.

BenIsNotYoda -> Peter K.... , January 29, 2017 at 08:26 AM
The ban on returning residents is utterly against the law.

However, I agree on PeterK. The closed mindedness of neoliberals to their own follies has brought this state of affairs upon us. Wake up.

Peter K. -> BenIsNotYoda... , January 29, 2017 at 08:34 AM
Neoliberals have not delivered a growing, healthy economy despite Krugman's claims that everything is great, crime is down, etc.

Obama's record for 8 years is an average of 1.7 percent growth. NGDP is even worse which is why I support an NGDP target for the Fed. It would show how poorly they have done.

This after decades of corporate trade deals and a shrinking middle class.

People are angry. They want scapegoats. Trump provided them with scapegoats and the uneducated white working class took the bait.

Gibbon1 -> Peter K.... , January 29, 2017 at 11:48 AM
Peter K shows an understanding of politics.
ilsm -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:33 AM
I agree!

but..... there are a lot more for all parties in starting with funding and training jihadis to do Assad like US did Qaddafi and Libya......

Bill pastes:

"Republicans in Congress who remain quiet or tacitly supportive of the ban should recognize that history will remember them as cowards."

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/01/these-are-not-normal-times.html#cGvlOOcKIMa08xzJ.99

Most of the 95% rest of the world see the US like the NYT says history see GOP congress.

point -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:36 AM
I appreciate Bill's judgement that Trump's acts are odious, but "un-American, not Christian, and hopefully unconstitutional" seems to be going too far.

It only takes a quick tour of historical US acts on immigration to find plenty of precedent.

1870-1943, Chinese.
1882, lunatics.
1907, Japanese
1921, everybody.
1923, Indians.
1932, everybody, especially Mexicans.

This according to the useful article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States


New Deal democrat -> point... , January 29, 2017 at 06:04 AM
Small historical anecdote.

Mme. Chiang Kai Shek (recently deceased at age 106 on Long Island) has much to answer for before the bar of history, but she had one shining moment.

Supposedly at one point during WW2 both she and Winston Churchill were living at the White House (must have made for interesting dinner conversation). Anyway, during that time she gave a speech to Congress. In that speech she pointed out that Japanese militarist propaganda, that America's myth of liberty and equality before the law was hypocritical, had one inconvenient feature: given the Chinese and Japanese Exclusion Acts, it was true.

This speech was so shaming that Congress changed the law to allow Asian immigation - in a trickle at first, but thereafter a river.

kthomas -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 06:23 AM
Thank you for sharing.
ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 06:48 AM
Mme Chiang was Christian, spent part of youth in Georgia.

Japanese militarist propaganda used 'Asian co-prosperity' propaganda to point out imperialism..... too!

Java was Dutch, etc.

New Deal democrat -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:15 AM
Yes, and her teenage voyage to San Francisco ended with her being treated exactly like the people being detained at airports this weekend. It made a lifelong impression on her.
ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM
She married Chiang to give him a link to the west....

Aside I am no fan of Chiang and Mme C.

BenIsNotYoda -> point... , January 29, 2017 at 08:27 AM
whenever bans were by democrat presidents, people here will never criticize.
Tom aka Rusty -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:51 AM
Given at least 16 years of intentional presidential failure to fully enforce immigration laws, this seems pretty small change.

But enough to make lefty heads explode.

Have a nice day.

PS: Did the State Department intentionally avoid Christian Arabs for refugee status? Not certain.

EMichael -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 05:57 AM
Wow.

Five feet over your head.

kthomas -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:23 AM
What head? Brain by accident.
ilsm -> EMichael... , January 29, 2017 at 06:49 AM
ad hom when you ate wrog the best tool.
kt too!
Observer -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 06:49 AM
Yes, its pretty unremarkable. And you are correct the that Christian Arab refugees from Syria have been accepted at 5% of the rate their population would suggest:

"But the numbers tell a different story: The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.

The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group."


Here's a quite detailed discussion of the background around the EO and its implementation ... including the 2015 law limiting visas from those countries, and the reference for the above quote. It also contrasts the headlines in much of the press. As they say, read the whole thing.

"There is a postponement of entry from 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) previously identified by the Obama administration as posing extraordinary risks.

That they are 7 majority Muslim countries does not mean there is a Muslim ban, as most of the countries with the largest Muslim populations are not on the list (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Nigeria and more).

Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected.

Moreover, the "ban" is only for four months while procedures are reviewed, with the exception of Syria for which there is no time limit.

There is a logic to the 7 countries. Six are failed states known to have large ISIS activity, and one, Iran, is a sworn enemy of the U.S. and worldwide sponsor of terrorism.

And, the 7 countries on the list were not even so-designated by Trump. Rather, they were selected last year by the Obama administration as posing special risks for visa entry ..."

I believe they don't mention that IIRC we were bombing 5 of the 7 counties on the list last month.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/most-claims-about-trumps-visa-executive-order-are-false-or-misleading/

BenIsNotYoda -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 08:31 AM
The current system relies on referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Syria's population in 2011 was 90 percent Muslim and 10 percent Christian, CNS said. Less than 3% admitted as refugees are Christian. But not the state dept's doing.
Peter K. -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 29, 2017 at 09:48 AM
why was Obama called "Deporter in chief?"

Too bad your empathy for those in the Rust Belt doesn't extend to honest, innocent immigrants trying to make a better life for their families.

DrDick -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 07:37 AM
Yep! But we need to get used to it, because this is just the beginning.
pgl : , January 29, 2017 at 01:52 AM
I've seen some farmers of late complaining about Trump's protectionism hurting their business. Yes they are smart enough to realize that the dollar appreciation will reduce their exports. Too bad these rural Americans were not smart enough on election day not to vote Trump in as President.
kthomas -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 04:04 AM
Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid is the new Smart.
ken melvin -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 04:42 AM
The man knows only what he's seen on cable TV most of which he doesn't understand. Knows nothing about: economics, trade, foreign affairs, government, law, ... He epitomizes the know nothings of the world, and, the fact that he doesn't know doesn't bother him in the least. A narcissists-grandiose type with neither regard nor interest for the probable consequences.
ken melvin -> ken melvin... , January 29, 2017 at 04:45 AM
I think it's wrong to even hope Trump turns out well. I think the country needs act to save democracy, to save itself from traveling down the road of despots and tyrants, from the likes of Trump who can be manipulated by the likes of Bannon.
ilsm -> ken melvin... , January 29, 2017 at 05:36 AM
We need a Dr. King, America's Gandhi!
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:57 AM
We have needed one ever since the last one we had was murdered.
im1dc -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 07:37 AM
'Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid is the new Smart."

LOL, loved that.

It will make a great Bumper Sticker coupled with the GOP logo of its Red, White, and Blue elephant

BenIsNotYoda -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 08:33 AM
stupid is one who ignores that Obama presidency growth averaged 1.7% and failed to lift millions while wall street prospered and corporate market power increased both in goods and labor markets.
kthomas -> BenIsNotYoda... , January 29, 2017 at 09:25 AM
He's not President anymore. Now go f yourself, Vlad.


BenIsNotYoda -> kthomas... , January 29, 2017 at 09:38 AM
awwww. did I hurt your fragile sensibility?
ilsm -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:35 AM
I will dig out that best seller about Jackson and review the chapter on Nullification in Charleston,. SC........

[Jan 30, 2017] Trump Administration Flip-Flops Green Card Holders Are Not Affected By Immigration Ban Zero Hedge

Jan 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
As The Hill reports , White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on Sunday said the president's executive order barring refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim nations does not affect green card holders.

"We didn't overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green card holders moving forward, it doesn't affect them," Priebus said on NBC's "Meet The Press."

But Priebus noted if a person is traveling back and forth to one of the seven countries included in that order, that person is likely to be "subjected temporarily with more questioning until a better program is put in place."

"We don't want people that are traveling back and forth to one of these seven countries that harbor terrorists to be traveling freely back and forth between the United States and those countries," he said.

When pressed further on whether the order impacts green card holders, though, Priebus appeared to reverse himself, saying, "Well, of course it does."

"If you're traveling back and forth, you're going to be subjected to further screening, " he said.

Furthermore, Priebus also said more countries could be added to the list already included in the president's executive order.

"Perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward," he said.

"But in order to do this in a way that was expeditious, in a way that would pass muster quickly, we used the 7 countries that have already been codified and identified."

As we noted yesterday, of the seven countries that are on the banned list, we note that the United States is actvely bombing five of them.

evoila -> Croesus , Jan 29, 2017 11:41 AM

maybe he didn't include saudi arabia because he is a genius. couldn't do it on the first go, but if enough people raise their voice about that exclusion, he will be like, what do you think folks, should I include SA? Ok, done!

xythras -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 11:30 AM

Giuliani Knows WHAT TO DO:

Calls for"Detention Centers" for Illegal Immigrants

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-01-29/giuliani-calls-for-detention-c...

Number 156 -> FreezeThese , Jan 29, 2017 3:05 PM

"Yeah what a disaster."

Chattanooga TN - 5 dead. San Bernardino, CA - 14 dead Orlando FL - 49 dead. Ft Lauderdale FL - 5 dead.

Havent learned anything since 9/11.

flaminratzazz -> xythras , Jan 29, 2017 11:33 AM

as far as green card holders moving forward, [the order] doesn't affect them."

yet

TahoeBilly2012 -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 11:27 AM

Why isn't Saudi in the group, weren't they the hijackers on 9/11?

BigFatUglyBubble -> TahoeBilly2012 , Jan 29, 2017 11:31 AM

Maybe the Tweeter-in-Chief could clarify in a series of misspelled sentence fragments.

Oldwood -> junction , Jan 29, 2017 11:44 AM

The seven countries listed were already defined by the Obama administration as principle threats, which is WHY Trump used them in his EO of his FIRST WEEK in office. This is part of his campaign agenda and using Obama policy was the fastest way to get it started. You can also bet that there are PLENTY of government employees who will do their best to make ANY such policy an embarrassment.

It's uphill, ALL THE WAY.

cheech_wizard -> Mammon , Jan 29, 2017 4:58 PM

Just when I thought you couldn't embarrass yourself further, you prove me wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Standard Disclaimer: How long do you think those planes will keep flying when hit with a million dollar a day fee? 10M? 100M?

Or do the words "any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." still fail to register within that pea-sized brain of yours.

Cassandra.Hermes -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 12:22 PM

Trump banned 7 countries who produced not a single terrorist attack on US soil, but Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Russian, Indian and Israeli Muslims are not in the list, such are uselessness. What about US jail system, it seems to produce more Muslims than the immigration. Even USA army produced more terrorists than the 7 countries.

Ballin D -> Cassandra.Hermes , Jan 29, 2017 2:01 PM

I came here to accuse you of being full of shit but the first few were somalia, afghanistan, pakistan. not going to dig deeper because the conclusion is obvious - we just need a full blown muslim ban.

halcyon -> BabaLooey , Jan 29, 2017 1:07 PM

This is already a PR fight.

Where the Trump admin is clumsy, inexperience and naive is in thinking that every move they will make will NOT be used as an opportunity to assassinate them politically and in PR terms.

The fight happens mainly in the media, for voters minds anyway.

Trump admin should learn this. Fast.

P.S. The decision was just fucking stupid. Non-muslim, non-refugee PhDs who've been working for US tech/aerospace/finance/medical industry were left stranded. I'm not sure that Bubba from Alabama or Joe from Flint would get those jobs, even if Trump kicked out every single foreign PhD working in the US. Also, Silicon Valley would totally tank, if that happened. It was just a stupid move. Stupid.

toady -> halcyon , Jan 29, 2017 2:00 PM

I think what you're missing here, along with many others, is that this administration DOES NOT CARE what the MSM thinks. They can fabricate all the protests and memes they want, the administration will just shrug and say "whatever".

W said he "had a mandate", then did half-steps. Obama said he "had a mandate" , then didn't do any of it (close Gitmo, close black sites, end the middle east wars (hell, he more than doubled the middle east entanglements!)), Trump isn't even bothering to say he has a mandate, he's just proceeding as if it's a given.

So go ahead and rage MSM and associated protesters, but I doubt it'll do you any good.

Blankone -> halcyon , Jan 29, 2017 3:51 PM

The only way for him to avoid that from occuring would be to turn over the office to them and not make any decision they have not given approval to.

The effectiveness of their PR using the msm and their protest events will lessen if Trump ignores them and makes moves quickly and moves on. They will have difficulty getting attention over last months news - Unless they get more destructive or violent.

ich1baN -> BigFatUglyBubble , Jan 29, 2017 12:55 PM

Sorry BigFat, I like Ron Paul as much as you do, but his Libertarian Foreign Policy viewpoint on the Islamic issue is COMPLETELY naive. They want to establish a caliphate REGARDLESS whether they are bombed or not. They are inextricably linked to following what the Koran says about murdering Christians and Jews and establishing Sharia Law to dominate and subdue unbelievers (yes even naive Libertarians).... goodness me bro, educate yourself. Watch this school in Britain that is teaching students crazy Sharia Law viewpoints and ask yourself if these people in its current form are really compatible with Western Society:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=708_1470922102

It took Charles Martel "The Hammer" to put a stop to the Islamist creed of conquering Europe after the Moors completely took over Spain and were headed north towards France and the rest of last vestiges of the West. It looks as if we need a revival of his bloodline in order to really bring about peace and security in the West.

Yog Soggoth -> BigFatUglyBubble , Jan 29, 2017 1:28 PM

Criminal factions in the USA created ISIS. The American people are trying to undo that crime and bring those responsible to justice. This ain't gonna happen in a week.

Everyman -> HelloSpencer , Jan 29, 2017 11:42 AM

No, you are wrong, VISAS and Green Cards are NOT "Forever documents" granting the holder full citizenship or voting rights. It CAN be suspended for ANY reason deemed proper under the ALREADY WRITTEN LAWS. The President can suspend ANY entry:

"8 US Code 1182 Inadmissable Aliens

Section (10) (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."

Additionally, theree can be action that can be taken on any airline or transporter that accepts fradulent documents for admission. The United States Law on immigration was NEVER get here stay here. WE get to choose and it is NOT for democrats or globalists or elitiets to make that call. It is .... wait for it.... wait for it...

WE THE (FUCKING) PEOPLE. WE DECIDE. Not a bunch of libtards that gave up on America.

HelloSpencer -> Everyman , Jan 29, 2017 1:44 PM

I am wrong in regards to what?

The fact that even Green Card holders are aliens (with legal permanent residence in the US) is clear. A Green Card expirs after 10 years, you can apply for another 10 years, but then either become a citizen or leave the country. I understand that.

I was referring to the 90-day ban in the executive order. The executive order appears to me - among many other things - to imply, for example, that all Green Card holders, say, from Iran that just left the US for, say, a week to go on vacation (but have otherwise lived and worked here for years) will be barred from re-entering the US for a period of 90 days until various objectives in the executive order are worked out.

From Trump's executive order, Sec. 3. (c): '... I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order'

The way I read this is that if I am a Green Card holder from Syria who has lived in the US for the past 17 years and has studied and worked here, but who went on vacation to Venice, Italy, I WILL BE (no exception) barred from re-entering the US for 90 days. While your quote of 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) appears to indicate that the president can do exactly that I still think it is not clear cut from a legal perspective. We will see. If I am wrong I am wrong. I maintain that the Trump administration did not think through this executive order carefully. We can reconvene in the near future once this initial transient period is over to see where we are.

Bay of Pigs -> HelloSpencer , Jan 29, 2017 11:40 AM

You obviously don't understand the size and scope of the problems this administration is inheriting. Your agenda is clear. Bash Trump at every turn and deflect from Obama's disastrous policies.

HelloSpencer -> Bay of Pigs , Jan 29, 2017 1:50 PM

I find it interesting that you claim that my agenda is clear from just reading one of my posts. That is not enough information that would allow you make such a grand claim. Maybe you should go back and only claim things, for which you have sufficient evidence. BTW, in my original post I actually do bash the previous administration.

Got The Wrong No -> HippieHaulers , Jan 29, 2017 5:41 PM

Cater Banned Iranians and deported Students during the Hostage situation. The Left needs to get a grip.

Max Cynical , Jan 29, 2017 11:46 AM

Why the fuck not?

Obama was giving out green cards like candy.

Chart: Obama Admin. On Pace to Issue One Million Green Cards to Migrants from Majority-Muslim Countries

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/17/obama-admin-pace-issu...

ANOTHER OBAMA DHS SCREW UP: 20,000 GREEN CARDS HANDED OUT LIKE CANDY

In the latest instance of the Obama administration's neglect and indifference toward America's immigration problem, around 20,000 green cards have been wrongly distributed or contained false information.

The DHS report highlights that at least 19,000 green cards were issued with either incorrect information or sent in duplicate, while the USCIS also received over 200,000 complaints that cards had either been sent to the wrong address or not received at all.

Furthermore, the OIG report found that over 2,400 immigrants who had only been cleared for two-year conditional residence status were inadvertently issued cards that don't expire for 10 years.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/another-obama-dhs-...

I Write Code , Jan 29, 2017 11:32 AM

Lance Prius makes a good enough case, actually.

_SILENCER , Jan 29, 2017 11:34 AM

Well, three of the countries on the list are countries we totally shit all over: Iraq, Libya and Syria. Legit call there.

That whole bloody region should be in immigration quarrantine.

But goddamn I'd add Saudi Arabia t

Wahooo , Jan 29, 2017 11:34 AM

Amateur Hour, Starring Drumpf.

Oh, and BTW, these countries where Drumpf has businesses or business interests are exempt:

1. Saudi Arabia

2. United Arab Emirates

3, Turkey

4. Indonesia

Of course, no terrorists ever came from those nations. Oh, wait...

It's one thing to try to tighten immigration overview. Quite another to knee-jerk your way into an international political blow-up with a fucked-up bull-in-china-shop approach to strategy and tactics.

Lots more of that with this bi-polar president.

buckstopshere -> Wahooo , Jan 29, 2017 11:45 AM

1. Saudi Arabia is the centerpiece of the petrodollar. An attack on Saudi Arabia is an attack on the dollar and worthy of a military response. Nixon and Kissinger laid the foundation of this monetary order and Carter made it very clear about US defending Saudi Arabia.

2. UAE is a key ally of Saudi Arabia.

3. Turkey is a key NATO member, contributing a large percentage of troops and vehicles, and also controls a key outlet for Russian warships based in Crimea.

4. Indonesia controls the Strait of Malacca, a strategic chokepoint for oil headed to East Asia.

Ilmarinen -> buckstopshere , Jan 29, 2017 12:07 PM

I would refer everyone complaining about KSA and friends not being on the list to your post.

Become self-sufficient (money/energy/manufacturing not critically dependant on others), then you can tell KSA what you really think of them. With all the winning these days, maybe it's not so far-fetched a dream...

Got The Wrong No -> Wahooo , Jan 29, 2017 5:51 PM

Obama picked the Countries ass hole. Trump said he may expand the list. Trump Haters are Funny Pukes

Xena fobe , Jan 29, 2017 11:39 AM

It's a difficult issue. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Some risk must be accepted in order to remain within the law. Obama issued these visas and we have to abide by them and that is that. We can not have witch hunts in this country. Fortunately going forward, we can refuse new visas. And what is taking President Trump so long to ban new border crossing "refugee" claims? That is actually a more pressing issue.

There , Jan 29, 2017 1:10 PM

It is not a matter of we vs. them, it's we vs. us. This Administration is proving in 7 days to be rank amateurs.

So many statements and decrees have been walked back, cancelled or corrected. No one thinks these things through or understands what is lawful or possible.

So many statements and numbers have been proven objectively wrong and changed on the fly.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, he cannot be trusted.

The Administration appointees and the Vampire Squid already control more wealth than 1/3rd of the population.

Today we learn that the National Security Council has been downsized so as not to include the Dec Def, or White House Security Adviser. A joke that only President Paranoid can love.

When will the loyalists realize we have been PUNKED by this Administration?

PleasedToMeatYou , Jan 29, 2017 1:14 PM

Good thing there's no Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor anti-Western Jihadis in Turkey, etc.

What I want to know is - regarding the drone ordering, cakewalk promising, WMD swearing terrorists who started all shit to begin with - when will they be banned permanently from sunlight and fresh air?

old_cynic , Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM

Do you really think for a moment that Google is so desperate to hire good programmers that it needs to recruit from Syria/Iraq/etc???

The Obama administration and its henchmen for years has preyed upon the generosity of businesses like those in Silicon Valley, to get them to hire from these Muslim countries. This is how a Muslim governs. Obama did this with the express intent of cirumventing any limitations on refugees, this way their status was immediately legal.

This is a Muslim invasion. They are not refugees. And Islam is an evil cult, which should not be given the title of 'religion'.

Pitchman , Jan 29, 2017 7:09 PM

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

This story is about an investigation by George Webb that takes us back to the Dulles Brothers and the birth of the CIA in 1947. It includes a cast of characters, entities, and events leading up to Snowden; including Booze Allen; the Carlie Group; the Enron scandal; Kosovo; Somalia; Argentina; East Timor; the Clinton Foundation in Haiti; Hillary's arming of ISIS, and destruction of Libya. And then there's the FALSE FLAG attack on Syria, using Sarin Gas from Libya, for which Assad was blamed.

Webb began investigating of the Clinton Foundation and has descended into a labyrinth of a Rabbit hole. Be assured the prima facie evidence against Hillary in Libya and the Foundation, including Bill, is overwhelming.

If you are interested in the depth of the Rabbit Hole and the psychopaths within, please see:

" DynCorp, Haiti & Me: Will Trump Drain the Swamp? This is How We'll Know "

https://notionalvalue.blogspot.com/2017/01/dyncorp-haiti-me-will-trump-drain-swamp.html

[Jan 30, 2017] The ban on Muslim immigration is so much more useless and immoral than selling cluster bombs for the Sunni to 'do' Huthi in Yemen!

Jan 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : , January 29, 2017 at 06:55 AM
Paul Krugman ‏✔ @paulkrugman · 1 hour ago

Deep thought: The abruptness and extremism of the refugee ban make no sense in terms of policy, even racist, anti-Muslim policy 1/

Best understood, I think, as an attempt by Trump to resuscitate a narrative of personal dominance after a humiliating first week 2/

Which makes the judge's stay a big deal -- a new humiliation -- even though it only protects a relative handful of people already here 3/

Trump's response is predictable: there will be new, bigger crazy in a couple of days, just to show that he's really in charge 4/

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 06:56 AM
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/825698148152520704
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 07:07 AM
Yup!

The ban on Muslim immigration is so much more useless and immoral than selling cluster bombs for the Sunni to 'do' Huthi in Yemen!

or a hundred other immoral neocon tactics espoused by libruls at nyt and subsidiary humbug mills.

JohnH -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:30 AM
Good point. Much as I disagree with both bombing Muslims and denying refugees, it is refreshing to see a president actually try to accomplish what he believes in...after eight years of a president who just shrugged his shoulders, told us it can't be done, and that Americans should just suck it up...the jobs are never coming back!

What 'liberal's fail to understand is that Trump probably cares less about whether he succeeds in banning Muslim immigrants and is more concerned about how deplorables perceive how hard he is trying.

If Obama and Hillary had tried half as hard as Trump to accomplish things that working Americans wanted, then Trump wouldn't be president. It is tragic that Democrats were more interested in rolling over and having their bellies rubbed by wealthy and powerful interests than beating their heads against the wall for American workers.

Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , January 29, 2017 at 07:38 AM
Hmmm. Perhaps you are picking up on the irony
of US munitions sales driving immigrants to
our formerly welcoming shores.
JohnH -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 08:41 AM
Or maybe ilsm is picking up on the liberal hypocrisy of complaining when Muslims are denied entry to the US but being happy when Muslims get bombed...
Dan Kervick -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 08:54 AM
In one way, the things that Trump is doing are similar to what other newly elected presidents have done. In their first weeks they try to reward the base voters by pushing through a huge number of changes that are high on those voters' agendas. Then they turn back to more normal, professional, DC-oriented politics.

But in this case, we might not get a return to normal. Possibly the most worrisome thing he is done yet is put the lunatic cretin Bannon on the NSC, and demote the Joint Chiefs and DNI. He's creating his own little radical, ideological national security directorate of wild-eyed, amateur outsiders and Holy Warriors.

He has already started a process for reviewing the US's ISIS policies, including looking for ways to avoid international law constraints. I expect that within a relatively short time, he will launch a major, ruthless military blitz against ISIS. He will team up with Putin to do it. It will be combined with a domestic campaign of persecution and intimidation directed against various kinds of Muslims and non-Muslim political dissidents.

Peter K. -> Dan Kervick... , January 29, 2017 at 09:16 AM
Trump believes he's the head of a movement, one that overthrew the Republican establishment and faces unyielding opposition from the press.

It's the economic and cultural nationalism of Jeff Sessions and Bannon etc. He's a populist which is why he is concerned with how popular he is. It's why the size of crowds matters to him. It's why it matters whether or not he won the popular vote. It's why he tweets directly at his supporters.

He repeatedly called Iraq a disaster on the campaign trail. Many of his voters agree. I don't see him putting boots on the ground, at least not for any extended period of time or for an occupation. He's isolationist. America First. They want to withdraw from the world, from alliances.

His Defense Secretary Mattis says torture doesn't work and Trump said he'll defer to him. We'll see. Yes he'll probably do some sort of military adventure but it will be drawn up by Mattis and the generals. He'll declare victory and go home and change the subject. When all is said and done he's a real-estate developer and a con man. He'll use bombing ISIS as a distraction. I see him as more like Berlusconi. Corrupt.

Just a guess. Trump is unpredictable.

Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 29, 2017 at 09:18 AM
"They want to withdraw from the world, from alliances."

But in a way he's sees himself as part of the international populist movements in Europe like with Brexit, UKIP and Farange.

DeDude : , January 29, 2017 at 07:36 AM
How many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? So if all but one came from that country the travel ban on people from 7 countries must certainly include Saudi Arabia, right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/

No apparently not - because it could hurt Trumps personal business deals. The criteria to select countries for this cruel and completely unnecessary travel ban (leaving many students at american universities stranded in their home countries) has apparently not been designed based on actual likelihood of terrorism.

[Jan 30, 2017] The judge's ruling blocked part of the president's actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order.

Jan 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : Reply Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 06:33 AM , January 29, 2017 at 06:33 AM
Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos
and Outcry Worldwide https://nyti.ms/2jHS6tQ
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, NICHOLAS KULISH and ALAN FEUER - Jan 28

WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Brooklyn came to the aid of scores of refugees and others who were trapped at airports across the United States on Saturday after an executive order signed by President Trump, which sought to keep many foreigners from entering the country, led to chaotic scenes across the globe.

The judge's ruling blocked part of the president's actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump's actions. ...

Boston judges temporarily block Trump edict on immigration
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/29/judges-put-temporary-stop-trump-immigration-order/UQiz2kEXJMDQHuiIFoguuJ/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - Maria Sacchetti - January 29, 2017

In a rare middle-of-the night decision, two federal judges in Boston temporarily halted President Trump's executive order blocking immigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

At 1:51 a.m., Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Dein imposed a seven-day restraining order against Trump's executive order, clearing the way for lawful immigrants from the seven barred nations – Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria – to enter the US.

"It's a great victory today," said Susan Church, a lawyer who argued the case in court. "What's most important about today is this is what makes America great, the fact that we have the rule of law."

The ruling prohibits federal officials from detaining or deporting immigrants and refugees with valid visas or green cards or forcing them to undergo extra security screenings based solely on Trump's order. The judges also instructed Customs and Border Protection to notify airlines overseas that it is safe to put immigrants on US-bound flights. ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 06:42 AM
Judge Who Blocked Trump's Refugee Order Praised
for 'Firm Moral Compass' https://nyti.ms/2jDI930
NYT - CHRISTOPHER MELE - January 29, 2017

The federal judge who blocked part of President Trump's executive order on immigration on Saturday night worked for years in the Manhattan district attorney's office, where she was one of the lead prosecutors on the high-profile Tyco International fraud trial.

Colleagues remembered the judge, Ann M. Donnelly, as an astute lawyer unfazed by the spotlight. She found herself in its glare unexpectedly on Saturday night, when she heard an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the executive order barring refugees. She granted a temporary stay, ordering that refugees and others detained at airports across the United States not be sent back to their home countries.

Enforcing Mr. Trump's order by sending the travelers home could cause them "irreparable harm," Judge Donnelly ruled.

The order, just before 9 p.m., capped an intense day of protests across the country by opponents of the order, which suspended the entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely and blocked entry for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. ...

President Trump takes to Twitter urging 'extreme vetting'
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/29/president-trump-takes-twitter-urging-extreme-vetting/hnkdLMTzmCWELYbcuYBBqN/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - Sean Smyth - January 29, 2017

President Trump was handed two losses in federal courts overnight regarding the executive order on immigration he issued Friday.

On Sunday morning, Trump appeared to refer to those court rulings on Twitter.

"Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW," he wrote.

Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

Our country needs strong borders and extreme
vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over
Europe and, indeed, the world - a horrible mess!

8:08 AM - 29 Jan 2017

He also took aim again at The New York Times, a frequent foil for Trump during the presidential campaign and afterward.

Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy
the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run
it correctly or let it fold with dignity!

8:00 AM - 29 Jan 2017

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 06:50 AM
Protest Grows 'Out of Nowhere' at Kennedy Airport
After Iraqis Are Detained https://nyti.ms/2jDgKhA
NYT - ELI ROSENBERG - January 28, 2017

It began in the morning, with a small crowd chanting and holding cardboard signs outside Kennedy International Airport, upset by the news that two Iraqi refugees had been detained inside because of President Trump's executive order.

By the end of the day, the scattershot group had swelled to an enormous crowd.

They filled the sidewalks outside the terminal and packed three stories of a parking garage across the street, a mass of people driven by emotion to this far-flung corner of the city, singing, chanting and unfurling banners.

This was the most public expression of the intense reaction generated across the country by Mr. Trump's polarizing decision. While those in some areas of the country were cheered (#) by the executive order, the reaction was markedly different for many in New York. References to the Statue of Liberty and its famous inscription became a rallying cry.

Similar protests erupted at airports around the country.

Word of the protest at Kennedy first filtered out on social media from the immigrant-advocacy groups Make the Road New York and the New York Immigration Coalition. It seemed like it might stay small.

But the drama seemed to rise throughout the day. ...

#- Trump's Immigration Ban Draws Deep Anger
and Muted Praise https://nyti.ms/2jBezLG
NYT - RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA - Jan 28, 2017

A group of Nobel Prize winners said it would damage American leadership in higher education and research. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and some relatives of Americans killed in terrorist attacks said it was right on target. An evangelical Christian group called it an affront to human dignity.

The reaction on Saturday to President Trump's ban on refugees entering the United States, with particular focus on certain Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, was swift, certain - and sharply divided.

The order drew sharp and widespread condemnation Saturday from Democrats, religious groups, business leaders, academics and others, who called it inhumane, discriminatory and akin to taking a "wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty." Thousands of professors, including several Nobel laureates, signed a statement calling it a "major step towards implementing the stringent racial and religious profiling promised on the campaign trail." ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 29, 2017 at 07:10 AM
'Give me your tired, your poor:' The story behind the Statue of Liberty's famous immigration poem http://ti.me/2keeIFr
Time - Katie Reilly - January 28, 2017

In the wake of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration Friday, many critics quickly took up a familiar rallying cry, lifting words from the Statue of Liberty that have for decades represented American immigration: "Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright all invoked those words - written by American author and poet Emma Lazarus in 1883 - as they condemned Trump's suspension of the country's refugee assistance program. ...

The poet James Russell Lowell said he liked the poem "much better than I like the Statue itself" because it "gives its subject a raison d'être which it wanted before," according to the New York Times.

"Emma Lazarus was the first American to make any sense of this statue," Esther Schor, who wrote a biography on Lazarus, told the Times in 2011. ...

"Wherever there is humanity, there is the theme for a great poem," she once said, according to the Jewish Women's Archives.

The poem was later published in New York World and the New York Times, just a few years before Lazarus died in 1887.

The Statue of Liberty arrived in New York in 1885 and was officially unveiled in 1886, but Lazarus' poem did not become famous until years later, when in 1901, it was rediscovered by her friend Georgina Schuyler. In 1903, the last lines of the poem were engraved on a plaque and placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, where it remains today.

The poem, in its entirety, is below:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Jan 29, 2017] Are the libruls all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?

Jan 29, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
New Deal democrat -> pgl... , January 29, 2017 at 05:24 AM
Agreed in full.

I happen to think the heartlessness of this Order was a feature, not a bug, in order to garner maximum attention. I just read Mish's comment section, and Trump's base is cheering.

But on a longer term scale, heartlessness towards Muslim immigrants and DREAMers is going to turn persuadables against Trump. That and the next recession.

EMichael -> New Deal democrat... , January 29, 2017 at 05:29 AM
We'll differ on this one part, people that voted for Trump are not persuadables. They have always voted the same way in every single election they have voted in.

Amazes me that even now people keep thinking that Trump voters are anything but loyal GOP voters. And I think the best argument against this (besides common sense) is the reaction of Rep leaders to this obviously illegal action.

They're silent.

They cannot afford to speak out against this racist policy, as their own voters are for this racist policy.

ilsm -> EMichael... , -1
silent on ethnic racism and the rest of US so much more guilty ..... on drone assassination and militarist nation building gone awry, tilting with nuclear war to keep NATO less recondite, etc, etc.......

Are the libruls all riled up because the immigrant ban might reduce terror shootings in US to reduce screaming for techno-murder?

[Dec 26, 2016] China Chases Silicon Valley Talent Who Are Worried About Trump Presidency

Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
(cnbc.com) 416 Posted by msmash on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @10:20AM from the aftermath dept. China is trying to capitalize on President-elect Donald Trump's hardline immigration stance and vow to clamp down on a foreign worker visa program that has been used to recruit thousands from overseas to Silicon Valley. From a report on CNBC: Leading tech entrepreneurs, including Robin Li, the billionaire CEO of Baidu, China's largest search engine, see Trump's plans as a huge potential opportunity to lure tech talent away from the United States . The country already offers incentives of up to $1 million as signing bonuses for those deemed "outstanding" and generous subsidies for start-ups. Meanwhile, the Washington Post last month reported on comments made by Steve Bannon, who is now the president-elect's chief strategist, during a radio conversation with Trump in Nov. 2015. Bannon, the former Breitbart.com publisher, indicated that he didn't necessarily agree with the idea that foreign talent that goes to school in America should stay in America. "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ...," Bannon said, trailing off. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society."

[Dec 26, 2016] Fearing Tighter US Visa Regime, Indian IT Firms Rush To Hire

Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org

(moneycontrol.com) 184 Posted by msmash on Monday November 28, 2016 @02:20PM from the meanwhile-in-India dept. From a report on Reuters: Anticipating a more protectionist US technology visa programme under a Donald Trump administration, India's $150 billion IT services sector will speed up acquisitions in the United States and recruit more heavily from college campuses there . Indian companies including Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, and Wipro have long used H1-B skilled worker visas to fly computer engineers to the US, their largest overseas market, temporarily to service clients. Staff from those three companies accounted for around 86,000 new H1-B workers in 2005-14. The US currently issues close to that number of H1-B visas each year. President-elect Trump's campaign rhetoric, and his pick for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a long-time critic of the visa programme, have many expecting a tighter regime.

[Dec 26, 2016] Will Trump Protect America's IT Workers From H-1B Visa Abuses?

Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
(cio.com.au) 400

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @11:34AM from the making-campaign-promises-great-again dept. Monday president-elect Donald Trump sent "the strongest signal yet that the H-1B visa program is going get real scrutiny once he takes office," according to CIO.

Slashdot reader OverTheGeicoE summarizes their report: President-elect Donald Trump released a video message outlining his policy plans for his first 100 days in office. At 1 minute, 56 seconds into the message, he states that he will direct the Department of Labor to investigate "all abuses of the visa programs that undercut the American worker ."

During his presidential campaign, Trump was critical of the H-1B visa program that has been widely criticized for displacing U.S. high-technology workers. "Companies are importing low-wage workers on H-1B visas to take jobs from young college-trained Americans," said Trump at an Ohio rally.

At other rallies, Trump invited former IT workers from Disney who had been forced to train their H-1B replacements to speak.
"What he didn't say was that he was going to close the door to skilled immigrants," one tech entrepreneur told CNN Money -- although Trump's selection for attorney general has called the shortage of qualified American tech workers "a hoax".

[Dec 23, 2016] The economics of open borders - Crooked Timber

Notable quotes:
"... I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc. ..."
"... If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population would be within a set period. ..."
"... Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly with transport but also with other infrastructure needs. ..."
"... The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access. ..."
"... In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability. ..."
"... It undermining social and democratic structures. ..."
"... Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy. ..."
"... What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by citizens? ..."
"... It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable. ..."
"... As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity and stability. ..."
"... Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than 25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies which are exacerbating the problem. ..."
"... So in addition to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows, we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue. ..."
"... I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework. ..."
"... For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon. ..."
"... What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people with no community at all. ..."
"... Think of the million Poles in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland, and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people living in Ireland . ..."
"... At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more or less directly, from a leftist point of view. ..."
"... In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity, but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place. The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled products to others further down the assembly line. ..."
"... It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for their environmental devastation and social dysfunction. ..."
"... Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering. ..."
"... Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create, consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery? ..."
"... John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China, not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product of past and present Imperialism. ..."
"... By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here. ..."
"... I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process), so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the same way. ..."
Dec 23, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

Sebastian H 12.21.16 at 5:53 am ( )

This is definitely approaching it from the right angle–large immigration flows act like globalization. They improve overall average GDP but definitely hurt certain sectors of workers in ways that thus far in the experiment suggests that they never recover.

I wonder about the effect of big city housing costs. They act as a barrier to moving to a better job. Is this something that we should be worried about as part of the immigration issue?

ZM 12.21.16 at 6:15 am

I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc.

If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population would be within a set period.

Also there is already a problem with gentrification in many cities, and associated issues of people having to move further away from family and friends, and not enough affordable housing, and homelessness - open borders would increase all these problems I would think as it would take out all the regulations. And we already have problems with people from poor countries or poor areas being under pressure to migrate for work and financial reasons, and open borders would exacerbate that problem as well.

I think refugees need to be able to migrate the most urgently, but it would still be better for them that there were specific policies for refugee migration that would allow the high numbers of refugees to migrate to safety either temporarily or permanently, rather than open borders.

Most of the bloggers here are not in favour of laissez faire free trade, so I don't see why open borders are favoured when "open trade" isn't?

ZM 12.21.16 at 6:21 am ( 5 )

Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly with transport but also with other infrastructure needs.

Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 9:14 am

I blogged about a bunch of work, including a draft version of the same paper by Kennan, a few years ago John:

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/08/22/open-borders-wages-and-economists/

reason 12.21.16 at 9:19 am ( 7 )

I'm a bit suspicious that this sort of analysis suffers from large measurement biases.

As an environmentalist, I'm concerned that we may be increasing a statistic (GDP) that is just a measure of an extent of how much higher a proportion of consumer is now being captured in the market, and not a measure of actual welfare. I remember very well as young economist wondering when I heard a more senior economists complaining that Australians didn't want to work but just wanted to lie about on the beach. And then I thought about how northern Europeans pay large amounts of money in order to be able to lie about on the beach.

Maybe the beach occupying Australians were being rational and the economist was not being rational. Having more crowded beaches does not show as a minus on GDP as far as I know.

reason 12.21.16 at 9:20 am P.S.

GDP may also measure how rapidly our natural capital is being converted to perishable goods, but not measure how rapidly it is being eroded.

Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 9:34 am ( 9 )

On the immigration surcharge thing, I can see its attractions as a policy, but let me just comment on it from the point of view of principle, not to advocate any particular solution but to notice some things:

The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access.

(Adding in some plausible history, we might further note that the existing domestic infrastructure hasn't, in many cases, been built up simply from the unaided efforts of the ancestors of the natives but often reflects the efforts of the colonised or dominated ancestors of the would-be immigrants.)

Then notice also another asymmetry, that the proposal is to charge the incomers for the benefits they derive from the infrastructure, whilst allowing the natives to benefit for free from human capital that has been created elsewhere through educational and training programmes. That issue, the so-called brain drain problem (I'm not a fan of the term or many of the associated claims btw) forms the basis for a quite different set of proposals for taxing immigrants, the so-called Bhagwati tax. So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!

reason 12.21.16 at 9:35 am

P.P.S. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not totally against open borders in all circumstances (in fact in a fairly equal world with a stable population I would be all for it), but I see a distinct danger of very rapid immigration:
  1. In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability.
  2. It undermining social and democratic structures.

Tom Davies 12.21.16 at 9:42 am ( 11 )

"Chang, who opposes open borders" "Currently a reader in the Political Economy of Development at the University of Cambridge"

Open borders for me but not for thee?

ZM 12.21.16 at 9:45 am Chris Bertram,

"So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!"

Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy.

I would rather make improve inequality between countries, and then experiment with freer migration after that. Since I think there would be less incentive to migrate if countries were more equal, and then freer migration would be more likely to run smoother.

Tom Davies 12.21.16 at 9:46 am ( 13 )

And (didn't see comment 7) - while yes, a surcharge isn't strictly fair, it is a far lesser evil than not letting immigrants in at all.

I think it's plausible that remittances would more than make up for the investments home countries had made in 'their' immigrants.

SamChevre 12.21.16 at 11:14 am

On a surcharge–I proposed one years ago in the context of the proposed "amnesty," that I think avoids some of the problems Chris Bertram notes above.

What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by citizens? This would be a "pay your share of current costs" tax, not an additional tax.

For the US, it would be roughly $10,000 a year for the federal government (20% of per capita GDP)–and any taxes paid to the federal government (FICA and income tax) would be credits against it.

Dipper 12.21.16 at 12:16 pm ( 15 )

It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable.

As an example, it is possible to get as many workers as you want into the UK within a few days. If you have a warehouse that needs staff they can be here from anywhere in the EU, all well educated, speaking English, with accommodation and ready to work. I'm not saying its a good or a bad thing. But its a thing that has consequences.

One organisation that has resisted Open Borders is the Corbyn clique in the Labour Party. Entry into the employment opportunities within that sector of the economy appears to be only open to relatives, children of political allies, school mates and children of celebrity chums.

BenK 12.21.16 at 1:50 pm '

Not allowed to vote' is political smokescreen. If those people have for some reason not established voting in the country they currently live in, then yes, they haven't paid the price for liberty there. If they can, then they are voting – just not where they would apparently prefer to be voting.

As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity and stability.

Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than 25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies which are exacerbating the problem.

William Meyer 12.21.16 at 2:46 pm ( 17 )

A surcharge might be a useful approach. I will say, echoing Reason, that massive waves of immigration into a region change a lot of things, and not necessarily in ways that the natives would view as positive.

I've lived in L.A. for the past 35 years, and during that time millions of immigrants have come into this metropolitan area. Traffic problems, noticeable in L.A. when I arrived in 1981 but something that could be reasonably dealt with, got much, worse.

The public school system went from fair to actively problematic. In both cases, the problem was made much worse by lagging public investment, particularly in transportation systems.

Maybe L.A. was uniquely dysfuntional politically, but I would suspect that most regions would see degradations in public goods in times of massive in-migration. The significant investment required for massive population growth will, in all likelihood, not be made, especially in a timely way, and the sort of planning that would actually be necessary for a pleasant transition to a more populous future seems likely to be beyond the capabilities of most cities, at least the ones I've lived in.

The inevitable resulting problems will not endear the newcomers to the natives, even if those problems are solely the fault of the immigrants.

William Meyer 12.21.16 at 2:48 pm

Sorry, my mistake, the last sentence should read "even if those problems are NOT solely the fault of the immigrants.

divelly 12.21.16 at 3:50 pm ( 19 )

#7
Reminds one of the old story of the Capitalist who berates the local for quitting fishing after catching enough for today's dinner so he can lay about playing guitar and drinking beer on the beach.

"You should fish from dawn to dusk 7 days a week. Sell your surplus. Buy another fishing boat. Do this for 30 years."

"What for?",asks the local.

"So you can retire and lay about, play guitar and drink beer on the beach!"

Omega Centauri 12.21.16 at 5:10 pm

I think its a very difficult sale politically. But, you already know that.

There also is the issue of potentially large scale population flows from less "productive" areas to more "productive" areas.

We have this same issue within countries, such as rust belt to coastal cities in the US, and we've seen political consequences -Trump_vs_deep_state become ascendant.

So in addition to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows, we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue.

Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 7:25 pm ( 21 )

@divelly it is from Adam Smith, Theory of the Moral Sentiments, part 3, ch. 3 :

"What the favourite of the king of Epirus said to his master, may be applied to men in all the ordinary situations of human life. When the King had recounted to him, in their proper order, all the conquests which he proposed to make, and had come to the last of them; And what does your Majesty propose to do then? said the Favourite.-I propose then, said the King, to enjoy myself with my friends, and endeavour to be good company over a bottle.-And what hinders your Majesty from doing so now? replied the Favourite."

Stephen 12.21.16 at 8:10 pm

Moral sentiments of less desirable people: I propose to enjoy myself by being revenged on and utterly destroying my enemies, and to be good company over the finest available bottle with those who dare not contradict me.

Not my sentiments, not CB's but

Matt 12.21.16 at 10:43 pm ( 23 )

I think we should be extra skeptical of any paper that claims that the "economics of open borders" hasn't received "much" attention. Maybe not as much as many other things, and there may be some hedging about what, exactly, fits, but the economics of migration has received _lots_ of attention. In The US, the National Academy of Science did a huge study on it in the mid 80's, and updated it again just recently.

Jagdish Bhagwati has written quite a bit on it, both popular and formal. George Borjas has written a lot on it (most of it not good, in my opinion, but a lot on it.) Lots and lots of people, including some very famous economist, have responded to Borjas. Paul Krugman has written on it. One of my mentors, Howard Chang, a lawyer-economist at Penn Law, has written a lot on it. Etc. So, already we know that there is something a bit fishy here.

Next, this sort of thing typically assumes, for its strong conclusions, that everyone will move to where he or she will get the "highest" return for his or her skills. We know this is false, because it doesn't even happen within any particular country, where there are no restrictions, no "surcharge" to pay, and fewer cultural barriers. So, the gain will certainly be much smaller than is projected.

I'd also suggest that this bit from John, Moreover, in a world where more than a billion people travel internationally each year, it's inevitable that vast numbers of people are going to have close relationships of all kinds with citizens of other countries. Restrictions on movements across borders impose costs on all those people ranging from minor to calamitous.

Would need to be _much_ more rigorous to do any work. I travel quite a bit, yet unless "close relationships" means "people I know somewhat", this isn't true for me. Is it true for "vast" numbers of people? I'm not sure. It's too flabby to do work now. And, do we have in mind visits, temporary residence, permanent residence (with or without access to full membership?) Etc. There are really a huge number of details here, and the absolutely must be worked through, carefully, before you can say anything useful. I'm in favor of reducing most barriers to movement. But, the arguments, if they are to be any good, really do need some care.

Chris Bertram 12.22.16 at 12:00 am

I'm puzzled by your last paragraph Matt, given what I know about your work. I don't know how large a number has to be to be "vast", but the spouses separated from one another and the children separated from one parent by the UK's spousal visa income requirements already number in the 10s of 1000s. Add to that elderly dependent relatives who are separated from children, lone refugee children separated from family members in other countries. And then multiply all this separation by the number of countries that make things difficult for people. I think that probably adds up to a vast number of people in close relationships with others who are separated by border regimes and who are currently incurring costs that are often calamitous. Don't you?

Matt 12.22.16 at 2:41 am ( 25 )

Hi Chris – yes, the cases you mention are interesting and important ones. It goes a little way towards making John's too flabby to work statement a bit better. But even in these cases, it's important to work through what's wrong with the different examples. (This is what I try to do in my work, and it's why I'm annoyed by what seems to me to be handwaving that blurs and distorts more than it helps.) I would insist that "making this difficult" for people, or causing them to "incur costs" isn't a good way to think about these issues at all. (I will go see my parents for the first time in over a year next week. It will be difficult and I will incur may costs to do so. Nothing interesting follows from that at all, I think.) And, John's categories include may more than those you mention. What follows for them? Why are borders, and not other types of boundaries relevant here? (Suppose my best friend is admitted to Harvard and I am not. But I'd like to study with him! Is it unfair that I'm not allowed to? Why not?) There are answers here, but we'll not get at them from the approach in the post, I think, and especially not if we follow the approach in this paragraph. The issues need to be dug in to, even though that take time.

(I might note that I've just finished a semi-popular short piece on thinking about immigration post-Trump and post-Brexit. I started it by thinking about some of your discussion of Joe Carens' book from a few years ago, and tried to think about reasonable strategies for working towards fairer immigration policies in our dark times. One thing I suggested was fighting against needlessly mean (in both senses of the word) restrictions like the too-high social support requirements for family members in the UK. So, I see that as a real problem. But, I don't think that helps rehabilitate the claims made, or suggested, in this paragraph. If and when the piece comes out, I'll send it to you.)

John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 3:22 am

Matt @24 It was an aside of course, but one that I didn't think needed a detailed exposition. The calamitous cases Chris mentions are well known, as is the fact that lots of people suffer no, or only trivial, problems of this kind. Rather than multipy such trivial examples as you do in @26, why not explain why you think the calamitous cases are rare, or need to be explained in detail?

Faustusnotes 12.22.16 at 5:10 am ( 27 )

Matts response is to glib. My own family was driven into poverty by separation in the 1980s and the long term pressures on all of us of that experience were huge. Yes nothing follows from that if you're a wealthy academic, but quite a lot follows from it if you're not.

Dave 12.22.16 at 10:05 am

I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework.

For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon.

What people in the urban professional class tend to forget, however, is that the old model of village life never went away . In truly rural or otherwise undeveloped areas, it's mostly stayed the same, and other cases it was remapped onto urban neighborhoods or desperately clung to in "small towns" that are, in fact, larger than most Medieval cities.

Now, these people have a problem, which is that they'd very much like to maintain a traditional village lifestyle (well, some of them just want to escape or move to the city and get rich, but I'll get to that), but neither industrial nor post-industrial capitalism has had any patience for people who want to stay put. Industries and opportunities have concentrated in large urban agglomerations, but exactly which industries and which cities shifts every generation or two. Plants close down or move to other countries, higher education pulls millions of people far from home, entire fields of employment vanish or emerge from whole cloth and it's impossible to keep up. So, we as individuals can, at any time, be forced into a terrible dilemma. Either move away from the life you know and the people who keep you happy, healthy, safe, and sane, or forfeit your "optimal" career and some share of prosperity and human capital.

Depending on what class you are, the values you hold, and what the costs and benefits of moving away really are, there may be no choice at all. Really, there are two kinds of migrants. There are the desperate, who migrate for negative reasons, and the ambitious, who do it for positive ones (with plenty of overlap) and only the latter is really making a choice as such. The outcomes are different too. Refugees and economic migrants occasionally become rich and successful, but usually they're just looking for security. Whereas people who move around a lot to get the best education and the best jobs, are often massively rewarded, but too many such people creates a culture of anomy and alienation where no one knows their neighbors and everyone seems to be from somewhere else.

What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people with no community at all.

I grew up in the Southern California suburbs in wake of the Sunbelt migrations and massive immigration from Latin America and had the utterly peculiar experience of being one of only a tiny fraction of the population whose grandparents (well, two of them) also grew up there. Growing up, it seemed like most of my teachers (and really a huge chunk of the professional class in general) were from either the East Coast or the Midwest and many of them had strange notions about what it meant to be Californian, having moved here for the sunshine or the surfing or the jobs or the "vibe" and more able to see the place as an ideal than a reality.

People don't realize the extent to which generations of migration can isolate people from the land, but I saw it. People that luxuriantly watered their lawns despite the climate and planted gardens full of plants from all over the world while treating the native plants like weeds. The tragedy of people in brushfire country not even realizing that having wooden shingles is a bad idea. People mocking the native California accents, affecting them badly to fit in, or refusing to acknowledge that we had one at all (we have several). Or, take the baffling experience millions of California kids get this time of year where adults around them act like our Christmas is somehow "wrong" because there's no snow and we don't have a "real" winter.

There was and is wanton disregard for tradition or the environment. The old growth oaks that once covered much of SoCal were cut down for wood and cattle land and now most people have no idea they were ever there, huge tracts of "empty" desert were flooded with saltwater when the Salton Sea was created, the LA river was turned into a storm drain, massive population increases and utterly unrestricted suburban sprawl has destroyed most of our wetlands and turned the Coastal Sage Scrub into one of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. All that and CalTrans still plants invasive, flammable Eucalyptus by every freeway. These were largely the work of generations of short sighted, greedy migrants who didn't understand or value the land, but will be borne by generations to come. Our land is being paved, poisoned, and pumped dry and most people don't even see it because there aren't enough people around who still remember when it was any different.

If open borders means that places all over the world start getting flooded with migrants and disrespected and debased the way Southern California has been, then I have no choice but to oppose it.

reason 12.22.16 at 10:47 am ( 29 )

A small point: – instead of adding additional taxes, one way to get the same net effect is to have a basic income with a long residency requirement for non-citizens.

Matt 12.22.16 at 3:29 pm

John – there is a lot of space between "not rare" and "vast", isn't there? That space needs to be looked at carefully, and not used as a hand-wave. That's my point.

Faustunotes – I'm sorry to hear that. In published work, I've argued for strong rights for family migration schemes. Without knowing more about your situation (not that I'm asking for details now) I can't say more about, but, for example, the sorts of public support systems I've argued for (and that exist in many countries) can be easily met by lots of people – the US requires 125% of the poverty level for a family of the appropriate size, for example. That is arguably a top acceptable level.

That meant that I was able to sponsor my wife when I was a grad student making $15,000 a year (in 2003), not at all a "wealthy academic". So, again, it's important to get the details right, to criticize particular cases, and not draw strong conclusions from hand-waving generalizations. Failing to do this won't lead to any good work.

Chris Bertram 12.22.16 at 7:08 pm ( 31 )

Matt, I think your quibbling with John on "vast numbers" is pretty silly here. You are an American, and the US is a continental power with a large population. Perhaps it is rare for Americans to have close relationships (let's set the bar at good friendships) with people outside the borders of their country. But many of us live in smaller countries and on continents with lots of borders. I think you'll find that when you tot up all the Europeans and Latin Americans with cross border relationships (to name but two continents) and add in all the people who belong to ethnicities that stretch across many borders, you'll get to a pretty high number.

Think of the million Poles in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland, and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people living in Ireland .

Alesis 12.22.16 at 8:55 pm

The ever present struggle with taking the empirical body of knowledge on gains from migration and making it into policy is that the only salient objections to migration are decidedly non economic. Sure they pretend at an economic basis with admirable dedication to the act but the bottom line is even if you prove that net wages for every single individual would go up from migration it would till have exactly the same opponents you started with.

WLGR 12.22.16 at 9:53 pm ( 33 )

At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more or less directly, from a leftist point of view.

If he was reacting to this post Smith would zero in on the key premise underlying Kennan's model: the idea that global wage differentials inherently reflect global differences in the productivity of labor between nation-states, known as the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis. Kennan seems to handwave away the idea of actually defending it by deferring to "large bodies of evidence", evidence whose interpretation within a more-or-less standard neoclassical framework he takes as a given - although notice how he hedges his initial claims more carefully ("cross-country differences in income levels are associated with differences in productivity", and "large differences [in productivity] remain after adjusting for differences in physical and human capital endowments ", emphasis mine) before moving on to construct a model where "relative wages are used below to measure cross-country differences in labor efficiency", plain and simple. Nice trick!

In any case, here's Smith:

The North-South purchasing power anomaly is sometimes called the Penn effect, after the Penn World Table, which has gathered comparative price data from most countries in the world since 1950. This effect is inversely correlated with per-capita GDP; as Figure 5.2 (page 143) clearly shows, the poorer the nation, the bigger the gap. Mainstream neoclassical economics advances two chief explanations for this anomaly, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, which hinges on differences in labor productivity between rich and poor countries; and an alternative model, proposed by Jagdish Bhagwati, Irving Kravis, Richard Lipsey, and others, which claims to circumvent differences in labor productivity and accounts for the anomaly as the consequence of differences in "factor endowments," that is, the relative abundance of capital and labor in the two countries. Since their arguments are tautological, they arrive at the same conclusion. In the former approach, the relative productivity of labor and capital determines the demand for these two factors and, in conjunction with their supply, determines their equilibrium (market-clearing) prices. In the second approach, different factor endowments affect the supply and demand in markets for labor and capital, determining marginal productivities, so arriving at the other's starting point.

According to both approaches, the purchasing power anomaly arises because of the low wages of workers providing services (for example, a bus journey or a haircut), resulting in the prices of these services being typically much lower in, say, Bangladesh than in Belgium. But equilibrium exchange rates do equalize the prices of internationally tradable goods-in other words, they assume that strong PPP holds in the tradable goods sector. Service sector wages are low in Bangladesh because wage levels in the service sector are determined by wage levels in the tradable goods sector. This occurs because labor is intersectorally mobile but not internationally mobile; in other words, workers can freely move between the tradable and non-tradable sectors within nations, equalizing wages between them, but cannot freely move across the borders between nations, especially those between hard-currency and soft-currency nations. it therefore turns out that the suppression of the free international movement of labor, the great exception to the principle of globalization and whose cardinal importance is stressed in this book, is also at the heart of the purchasing power anomaly.

In sum, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis says that the purchasing power anomaly results from the lack of correspondence between the similar levels of productivity of service workers in Belgium and Bangladesh and the vast differences in their wages. The contrary argument advanced here is that it is the oversupply of labor, not its productivity, that is the prime determinant of Southern wage levels. wages of service providers and incomes of petty entrepreneurs are kept low not by the paltry productivity of workers in the tradable goods sector, as mainstream theory has it, but by the destitution of a large part of the working population. This is why a haircut or a bus journey in Dhaka is so much cheaper than in Amsterdam, even though a pair of scissors or a bus may cost the same in both countries, and may even have come off the same production line. Furthermore, local capitalists are not the prime beneficiaries of the super-profits generated by this expanded employment of low-wage labor. Instead, intense competition among Southern exporters leaves them with only a minor share of the proceeds, the rest passed on to their Northern customers through ever-lower export prices. The purchasing power anomaly results not only or mainly from conditions in goods and Forex markets but is fundamentally the product of conditions in labor markets and in the sphere of production where this labor is put to work. The enormous growth in the relative surplus population combines with suppression of international labor mobility to exert a tremendous downward pressure on all wages and on the incomes of small producers, maintaining or widening still further the distance between real wages in the imperialist nations and in the Global South.

In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity, but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place. The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled products to others further down the assembly line. Here's Smith again:

Statistics on labor productivity, obtained by dividing the value added of a firm, industrial sector, or nation by its total workforce, are highly deceptive. Much of the alleged increase in labor productivity in the imperialist nations is an artifact resulting from the outsourcing of low value-added, labor-intensive production processes to low-wage countries. As Susan Houseman has argued, "when manufacturers outsource or offshore work, labor productivity increases directly because the outsourced or offshored labor used to produce the product is no longer employed in the manufacturing sector and hence is not counted in the denominator of the labor productivity equation." This is extremely important, because "the rate of productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing increased in the mid-1990s, greatly outpacing that in the services sector and accounting for most of the overall productivity growth in the U.S. economy." Thus she argues, "To the extent that offshoring is an important source of measured productivity growth in the economy, productivity statistics will, in part, be capturing cost savings or gains to trade but not improvements in the output of American labor." Houseman believes this solves "one of the great puzzles of the American economy in recent years the fact that large productivity gains have not broadly benefited workers in the form of higher wages. Productivity improvements that result from offshoring may largely measure cost savings, not improvements to output per hour worked by American labor."

Thus, when a firm outsources labor-intensive production processes, the productivity of the workers who remain in its employment rises, even though nothing about their specific labor has changed. Outsourcing therefore has what might be called a "ventriloquist effect" on measures of productivity. But this only scratches the surface of the productivity paradox. Labor-intensive production processes are practically synonymous with low value-added production processes, yet the more labor-intensive it is, that is, the larger living labor is relative to dead labor, the greater is its contribution to value and surplus value-but much of this is captured by capital-intensive capitals, showing up as a much higher value added per worker.

John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 11:17 pm

@Dave You are arguing against internal freedom of movement. Do you support systems of internal passports, as in the Soviet Union or the hukou system in China?

John Quiggin 12.23.16 at 3:14 am

WLGR: I'll look for this book. But on an initial reading of your first quotation, it seems to me that Smith is just restating the factor endowment model. What does "surplus labor" mean, if not a high ratio of labor to capital? Does he spell out the distinction somewhere else?

ZM 12.23.16 at 3:26 am

John Quiggin,

China has a very large population, hukou is problematic and has some undesirable impacts, but China needs to get all the provinces and cities more equal before they can change the hukou system. At the moment the inequality between provinces and cities in China is very very great compared to inequality between States and cities in Australia.

ZM 12.23.16 at 3:27 am ( 37 )

Although inequality has decreased as more people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 10-20 years.

Dave 12.23.16 at 6:06 am

@ John Quiggin 34

That's a very good question and it does show why one should always consider the full ramifications of ones' arguments. I would say that policies against internal migration are not limited to Communist dictatorships - that's what serfdom was, after all. I'm enough of a liberal to find that sort of thing oppressive, but I do think it had a certain social utility (of course, letting people move and travel has advantages too).

It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for their environmental devastation and social dysfunction.

Even in a modern era where resource extraction and heavy industry are less dominant economic drivers than they once were, the combination of free movement of capital and free movement of labor is a consistent recipe for explosive, unplanned, and unsustainable growth in whatever areas are deemed economically valuable. The boom bust cycle of capitalism maps onto the landscape itself and the effects for both the natives and the newcomers can be devastating.

What I would argue though is that free movement of people is a problem only insofar as there is free movement of capital. You won't have millions of people flood a region if that region hasn't already been flooded with millions of jobs. This would require a new international regulatory framework to put the brakes on massive industrial and commercial development and a rejection of the current extreme growth bias in economic thought. In effect, I think that it should be businesses that have to apply for those permits or internal passports, rather than individuals.

Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering.

My worst case scenario is something like this. Lets say a fairly small - but not necessarily tiny - country like Uruguay adopts global open borders. A little while later, they make the shocking discovery that they're sitting on some of the largest reserves of, oh let's say, rare earth metals in the world.

Now, these metals are incredibly valuable so getting the capital to open mines and ore processing centers isn't a problem, the bigger issue is that Uruguay only has 3.4 million people, most of whom already have jobs, so the tens of thousands of employees needed to build the new mining industry will mostly be coming from elsewhere (or the mining companies will start by hiring Uruguayanos, but then they'll need migrants to fill the jobs the natives vacated). It doesn't stop there though, because the great new mining industry will produce secondary industries such as cell phone manufacturing, service jobs for the growing population, construction jobs to expand the national infrastructure, and on and on and on. These jobs bring in new migrants, who help grow the economy, and attract new migrants in a feedback loop that only ends when the bubble bursts or wages collapse.

How big does Uruguay get before the boom goes bust? Does it double in size? Triple? Does Montevideo become one of the biggest cities in South America, with sprawling, polluted, slums to match? What happens to the reasonably stable, reasonably prosperous, reasonably progressive little country that was there before? Would Uruguay still be Uruguay at that point?

These are the things I worry about.

hix 12.23.16 at 7:14 am ( 39 )

Poor former farmers that move to big cities typically wont drive cars, wont handle big industrial manichery and will only heat /cool tiny living spaces. So they are probably not a significant factor for the environmental issues in say big Chinese cities.

Neville Morley 12.23.16 at 7:39 am

@Dave #28:

"Cities as we know them (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old".

No. Ancient Rome had a population of 750,000-1,000,000, based almost entirely on migrants, and more than large enough to create any number of social maladies; at least five other cities in Mediterranean with populations in the hundreds of thousands; series of cities in China with populations similar to Rome.

Evidence suggests significant levels of mobility, not just for elite. I don't think this necessarily has any bearing on the modern situation (capitalism, technology, yadda yadda), but certainly the historical evidence doesn't support your implied "large-scale migration is unnatural" thesis.

Igor Belanov 12.23.16 at 7:58 am ( 41 )

Dave @ 38

"Would Uruguay still be Uruguay at that point?"

What a daft question. When did the 'model' Uruguay exist, the one that we are supposed to preserve for all eternity? Now? Before the Uruguayan nation-state was formed? Before Columbus?

The irony is that the effort needed to prevent change would in all likelihood just lead to other changes of a more dysfunctional nature.

engels 12.23.16 at 12:21 pm

OT and possibly an ignorant question but does anyone know of any meaningful national or cultural difference between Uruguay and Argentina?

bob mcmanus 12.23.16 at 12:27 pm ( 43 )

Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create, consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery?

John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China, not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product of past and present Imperialism.

Matt 12.23.16 at 1:30 pm

Chris – maybe it's silly, but, if my work on immigration has tried to show anything at all, it's that to make a contribution on the subject, it's important to get the facts right, not make assumptions about movement we know are not true (people will move to where they get the best return on their skills, etc.), not assume away other difficulties, and not blur cases together through hand-waiving ("vast numbers", "relationships", etc.) All of that's done here, and even more so in the paper under discussion. I find it really annoying. Maybe I shouldn't let it bother me, but it seems to me to be typical "assume a can-opener" level of discussion, at the very best, and not helpful.

By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here.

Dave 12.23.16 at 2:03 pm ( 45 )

@ Neville 40

You're right, of course. I recognize now that my argument was a bit fuzzy and verges into begging the question ("Modern cities, as I've chosen to define them, only existed under capitalism, therefore urban dysfunction is all capitalism's fault, QED, etc."). "Bigger than Cleveland" is not a universal definition of what a city is and I shouldn't have treated it as one.

I'm not trying to say massive migration was unnatural though. I'm of the opinion that anything humans do is natural, if that helps. Nor do I think migration, even of the large-scale variety is wrong , but rather that it can be immensely harmful if there are no systems in place to mitigate its social and environmental effects. So discussing policy that would tear down all political barriers to migration as if it were mainly an issue of wages and productivity struck me as reductive. Even on purely economic terms, the way migration contributes to urban sprawl outpacing infrastructure is a huge issue that I frequently see overlooked.

@Igor 41:

I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process), so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the same way.

engels 12.23.16 at 3:32 pm

Also would be interesting to see numbers on marriages to foreign nationals by country-a quick google didn't turn it up.

Chris Bertram 12.23.16 at 4:26 pm ( 47 )

@engels – pretty sure that this is because the stats don't exist for many countries. The British government simply has no idea how many of its nationals are married to EU nationals (at least for England and Wales, there may be some record-keeping in Scotland).

engels 12.23.16 at 6:55 pm

Chris, that makes sense-there's a bit about estimates here though:
http://www.economist.com/node/21538103

Dipper 12.23.16 at 7:36 pm ( 49 )

@47. The UK has no idea how many EU citizens are here full stop. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia.

The 2001 UK Census recorded 36,555 Portuguese-born people resident in the UK. More recent estimates by the Office for National Statistics put the figure at 107,000 in 2013. The 2011 Census recorded 88,161 Portuguese-born residents in England and Wales. The censuses of Scotland and Northern Ireland recorded 1,908 and 1,996 Portuguese-born residents respectively. Other sources estimate the Portuguese community to be larger, with the editor of a Portuguese-language newspaper putting the number of Portuguese passport holders in London alone at 350,000. According to academics José Carlos Pina Almeida and David Corkill, writing in 2010, estimates of the Portuguese population of the UK range from 80,000 to 700,000.

I mention it because informal information from someone at the embassy puts the number closer to 1 million. Many of them well have been born here. But nevertheless the point is that the estimates are all over the place.

Again, its not necessarily a good or a bad thing, but as a scientist with a bit of a measurement fixation I find the fact that no-one has any idea to be quite disturbing.

engels 12.23.16 at 8:31 pm

E.g. on US vs Europe:

[Dec 06, 2016] Very negative sentiment expressed in comment on immigration of progressive web site Moon of Alabama

Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
chipnik | Dec 3, 2016 7:40:26 PM | 42

30

A friend on Facebook made the mistake of posting two declamatory articles on the India financial apocalypse under Modi with the snark line 'this is what passes for democracy (sic) in the world now' and was notified just a day later by FB that their Profile was 'Determined to be an unauthorized Business Space', and would then be shut down, without any recourse, if they didn't provide a confirmed birth name and confirmed cell phone number. Nyet spasiba, ...so their profile went immediately 404.

This FB purge masks the truth for what Modi really is, the Menem of India, for privatization of Indian gold wealth, for taxation of outsourced high-tech workers, and covering up the 100,000s of Hindu HIBs flying into the USA by the 747-load, taking away, by some estimates 98% of new high-tech jobs, and 56% of existing high-tech jobs, where American workers are being forced to train their Hindu replacements, then given a pink slip and six months of COBRA and booted out.

[ASIDE: I was walking off frustration with Trump's financial picks today, and by sheer fate met an older guy who had just been terminated before he reached his employee-share pension age, by a company moving their assembly operations to China. He's hoping to move to Idaho or Montana, where there are so many unemployed meth heads, anyone who is clean and straight can find some kind of job that the Monkey Boys can't get their hooks into.]

Hindus flooded the MSM back-office journalist pool, cratering American journalism careers. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Street, ...all use Hindus to write their news, bloat their comment section, and with more 'legal' Hindu H1Bs in editorial positions within the USA, which is why in the Big Feu-faw since 9/11 fussing over Mexicans, Muslims, Deadbeat Students and UnInsurable Elders, ...even with 95,000,000 Americans unemployed, you will NEVER, EVER hear a single word about Hindus.

Nadella, Ellison, McDermott, Gelsinger, Besos, Zuckerberg, and Trump and his Cabinet are all 100% behind UNLIMITED H1B 'legal' immigration for USA. (Amazon even had to put cones around a dead PT minimum-wage worker, so their robots wouldn't crush his body, then the other day, an 'addlebrained' employee jumped off the roof). With all the jobs going to H1Bs, Trump will have to make America Great Again with his YUUGE infrastructure program : The Few, The Proud, The Brave!

[Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
Notable quotes:
"... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
"... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
"... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
"... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
"... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
"... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
"... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
"... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
"... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
"... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
"... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
"... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
"... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
"... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
"... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
"... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
"... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
"... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
"... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
"... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
"... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
"... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
"... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
"... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
"... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
"... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
"... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
"... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
"... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
"... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
"... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
"... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
"... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
"... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
"... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
"... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
"... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
"... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
"... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
"... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

♦♦♦

The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

"Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

♦♦♦

So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

[Dec 05, 2016] The Democratic Party Presidential Platform of 1996 – On Immigration

Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
"... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
"... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

What follows is from Today's Democratic Party: Meeting America's Challenges, Protecting America's Values , a.k.a., the 1996 Democratic Party Platform. This is the section on immigration. I took the liberty of bolding pieces I found interesting.

Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship , and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.

We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape, and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and truly call America their home.

Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.

Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries. We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be held legally responsible for supporting them.

[Nov 30, 2016] Ten Points on Immigration

Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

I have written a number of posts, some using data and some not, on immigrstion. Some of those posts attracted vitriol in comments, including from some who keep accusing me of hiding my punchline. Personally I find myself repeating myself, or trying to restate a point yet a different way so it will sink in. I figured it is probably time to put everything in one place, so here it is:

1. Some cultures prepare their people to function well in the US, some don't.

2. Ability to function well in the US is not the same thing as intelligence. As an example, consider me. I lived almost a third of my life in South America. I have never been to Central Asia. All else being equal, I can hit the ground running more easily in Argentina than in Iran. In Argentina I know how to behave in a seamless way that won't raise eyebrows. In Iran, I would need to put effort into day to day activities. Additionally, my communication skills wouldn't work as well. It isn't just a matter of not speaking Farsi, but also being unable to unconsciously read and display the myriad of social signals Iranian society uses. Therefore, my productivity will be greater in Argentina than Iran (again, all things being equal). And yet my traits – the degree to which I am or am not intelligent, creative, diligent, sane, honest, etc. – will be the same whether I am in Buenos Aires or in Teheran. Most of my work related skills (less those involving communication) will also be the same in both places. The difference between my productivity in Argentina v Iran will be due entirely to differences in cultural compatibility.

3. Cultural compatibility runs the other way too. Arriving in the US doesn't automatically confer respect for Western values. In many countries, anti-Christian or anti-Semitic attitudes are common. In the West people argue about gay marriage. In some countries, the debate is whether gay people should be stoned or thrown off tall buildings. Similarly, the treatment of women and children in some countries would be criminal in the US. Think honor killings, child's marriages, FGM or bacha bazi. (And yes, we are seeing those things happening here now.). Writing again from the role of someone who was a guest in other peoples' countries for a third of his life, it should be the responsibility of the newcomer to adapt to his/her new home, and not of the residents of his/her new home to adapt to the newcomer.

4. In Western countries, immigrants who don't manage to bridge cultural gaps are more likely to end up dependent on the taxpayer. Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare. In general, it seems (at a minimum) to be bad form to request entry into another society only to become a burden on its people. It is one thing for refugees with no other option to do it, but most immigrants to the US are not refugees.

5. Being overwhelmingly reliant on government largesse in a foreign society built by strangers has got to be dispiriting to most thinking adults. It can only add to a person's feeling of alienation. That in turn can lead to various dysfunctions – vices, crime, anti-social behavior and even terrorism. It is no surprise that some of these issues exist disproportionately in some immigrant communities.

6. Countries whose emigrants do well in the US also tend to be countries with Western values and strong economies. More precisely, countries whose immigrants do well in the West have economies which thrive from the skills of its people, and not countries whose economies is based mostly on raw material extraction directed by foreigners or on financial transfers from wealthier nations.

7. Countries whose emigrants function well in the US also function well in other Western countries. Conversely, countries whose emigrants don't function well in the US also don't function well in other Western countries.

8. Within any society, there are some who are more able to function in the US and some who are less able to function in the US. To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries. Place of origin shouldn't be enough to, by itself, weed out one potential immigrant or guarantee entry to another to another.

9. The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction. The fact that there is need and poverty in this country that doesn't receive sufficient aid is an argument against importing more need and poverty from abroad.

10. There are far more people who would like to immigrate to the US than we allow into the US. Given that, it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US.

I note that none of these points are new. I have stated them all before, but not all in one place.

[Nov 30, 2016] Welcome to the world of Europes far-right - Al Jazeera English

Notable quotes:
"... Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties. ..."
"... Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners. ..."
"... "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," ..."
"... The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol. ..."
"... On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector. ..."
Nov 30, 2016 | www.aljazeera.com
Around a decade ago, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton rightly pointed out how "a fascism of the future - an emergency response to some still unimagined crisis - need not resemble classical fascism perfectly in its outward signs and symbols ... the enemy would not necessarily be Jews.

An authentically popular fascism in America would be pious, anti-black, and, since September 11, 2001, anti-Islamic as well; in Western Europe it would be secular and, these days, more likely anti-Islamic than anti-Semitic; and in Russia and Eastern Europe it would be religious, anti-Semitic, Slavophile, and anti- Western.

New fascisms would probably prefer the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time." Does any of this sound familiar across the Atlantic?

Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties.

Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners.

There is also a sense of decline and threat that was widely exploited by interwar fascism, and by these extreme-right parties, which - after 1945 - resisted immigration on the grounds of defending the so-called "European civilization".

The future of Europe?

The future of European societies could, however, follow these specific lines: "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," as Marcel de Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom group in the European Parliament, declared.

Another fellow party, the Belgian Vlaams Belang , calls for an opposition to multiculturalism. It "defends the interests of the Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary", and would "dissolve Belgium and establish an independent Flemish state. This state ... will include Brussels", the current capital of the EU institutions.

The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol.

On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector.

She also wants to renegotiate the European treaties and establish a " pan-European Union " including Russia.

At the end of these inward-looking changes, there will be no free movement of Europeans across Europe, and this will be replaced with a reconsolidation of the sovereignty of nation states.

Resentments among regional powers might rise again, while privileges will be based on ethnic origins - and their alleged purity. In sum, this is how Europe will probably look if one follows the "moderate" far-right policies. The dream of building the United States of Europe will become an obsolete memory of the past. And the old continent will be surely less similar to the post-national one which guaranteed peace and - relative - prosperity after the disaster of World War II.

Andrea Mammone is a historian of modern Europe at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is the author of "Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy". He is currently writing a book on the recent nationalist turn in Europe.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

See also:

rickstersherpa November 30, 2016 11:35 am

I note that some of your factual assumptions e.g. "Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare" appear to be wrong and may be drawn from corrupt sources (FAIR and/or AIC, in particular Steve Camarota). See https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it .

Exception of course are refugees (which one could say we have some moral responsibility to rescue since our 15 year war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria (since we are bombing quite a bit in Syria), and many other places has more than done or bit fan disorder and violence from which the refugees flee rather than die, ditto the children fleeing Mexico and Central America where our war on (some people) who use drugs has created both right wing Governments and drug gangs and associated violence.)

I think it is bad form when left wing sites repeat right-wing memes (falsehoods and half-truths), particularly when the new right-wing authoritarian kleptocrats who are taking over the Government are talking about rounding up, placing in concentration camps, and deporting millions of people, citizens and non-citizens alike..

rickstersherpa, November 30, 2016 11:46 am

Just out curiosity, since Mr. Kimel used the example of Iran, there was a huge Iranian immigration to the U.S. In sense they both support (since many of the these people were high skill immigrants) and rebut his point (since they came from a culture he marks as particularly "foreign" to U.S. culture. http://xpatnation.com/a-look-at-the-history-of-iranian-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ It has actually been an amazingly successful immigration, with many now millionaires (a mark of "success" that I find rather reflects the worse part of America, the presumption by Americans, Rich, Middle, or poor, that if you are not rich, you are nothing, a loser; but still it appears to be a marker that Mr. Kimel is using.

Beverly Mann, November 30, 2016 3:47 pm

To add to Rickstersherpa's comments, I'll also point out that among the Muslim immigrants who've committed acts of terrorism in this country, none to my knowledge was on welfare nor were their parents on welfare, None.

This post is just the latest in what is now many-months-long series of white supremacist/ white nationalist posts by Kimel, whose original bailiwick at this blog was standard left-of-center economics but obviously is something close to the opposite now. He left the blog for two or three years, and came back earlier this year unrecognizable and with a vengeance. Literally.

I was a blogger here for six-and-a-half years until earlier this month, and was among regulars who comment in the Comments threads who repeatedly expressed dismay. Kimel's last few posts, lik this one, are published directly under his name. Before that Dan Crawford and run75441 were posting them for him and crediting him with the posts.

In my comments int those threads, I've suggested as you did here that this blogger belongs at Breitbart, or more accurately, you say that this blog is providing the same type of voice as Breitbart.

But at least Breitbart hasn't been known as left-of-center blog. Allowing these posts on a blog that has misleads readers into thinking, if only for a moment, that maybe this guy's saying something that you're missing, or not saying something that you think he's saying. It's really jarring.

The Rage November 30, 2016 3:49 pm

Sorry, but leftists were the originators of anti-immigration. They blasted classical liberals and their "open borders" to buy talent on the market rather than "building within" and using the state to develop talent.

"right wing" Christians are some of the worst people in terms of helping the underground railroad for immigrants in the US.

The Rage November 30, 2016 3:54 pm

Beverly, Breitbart loves illegal immigration and wants it to stay, indeed quite illegal.

You represent the problem of modern politics. Anyone you don't agree with, you start making dialectical points rather than going under the hood to find out the point.

Jack November 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Kimel,
Your points leave out any consideration of the cultural variabilities of this host country. Given that the USofA is a country made up of immigrants from a wide variety of places across the globe I would think that there is some benefit to varying the sources of immigration in the present given the past. Some of the cultural distinctions that you suggest as different from our own are not homogeneous within our own culture. For example, I wouldn't choose to live in some parts of the US because of the degree of antisemitism that I might find even though I am what one might call an agnostic Jew. There are many Americans that don't make that distinction.

Face it Mike, there is probably a place for just about anyone from any place that would be suitable for their emigration within the US. We don't all have to share the same values with the new comer. We don't share values amongst ourselves as it is. We've got large numbers of immigrants and their off spring from the Far East, South East Asia, Africa, South America and the middle East. We even have many Europeans. Keep in mind that that last category is made up of people who have spent the past two thousand years trying as hard as possible to kill one another. So who is to say what immigrant group is best for the US? We've been moving backwards for the past several decades. Maybe we need some new blood to get thinks going forward again.

Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:27 pm

Apparently you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and immigrants willing to work for lower wages irrespective of their race and ethnicity, on the other hand, The Rage. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:34 pm

CORRECTED COMMENT: Apparently, The Rage, you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias, that immigrants willing to work for lower wages will put downward pressure on wages in this country, irrespective of the race and ethnicity or the immigrant willing to work for the low wages. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

(Definitely a cut-and-paste issue there with that first comment, which I accidentally clicked "Post Comment" for before it was ready for posting.)

Jack, November 30, 2016 4:45 pm

I will accept one category of immigrant for exclusion. No identifiable criminals allowed. We haven't always done so well on that trait. So let's do a better job of excluding those seeking admission who can be shown to be actively involved with any form of criminal behavior. That goes for Euros, Russians, Chinese, South Americans, etc. That also includes very wealthy criminals whose wealth is the result of their positions of authority in their home country.

"The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction." What manner of dysfunction beyond criminality did you have in mind?

" it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US." Please define "unlikely to function well" more precisely. Remember that the goal of our immigration quotas is to allow a reasonable balance of people from varying countries to achieve admission.

"To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries." That statement is generally problematic. What measure of attitude do we use here? Is it the rabble rousers that you want to give preference to? Then why only from non Western countries?

[Nov 20, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

Notable quotes:
"... The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
"... Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. ..."
"... Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
Nov 20, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
Stillgrizzly 3d ago

The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.

RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago

Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense.

Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.)

greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution.

Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago

Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house.

[Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

Bruce Wilder @102

The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

Thomas Pickety

" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

The Guardian

kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

--

Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

.

This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

Eventually something is going to break.

dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

Does anyone notice a pattern here?

This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state

efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

Faustusnotes @147

You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

[Nov 19, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

Nov 19, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
Stillgrizzly 3d ago 85 86 The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago 48 49 Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.) Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly greenwichite 3d ago 9 10 The liberals "horror" at Corbyn is because he is bringing out reactionary "hard" left elements amongst other things, which are destroying what was a kind of consensus.

This is fracturing the opposition and driving people towards the right or "protest" parties. Corbyn is the best recruiting tool UKIP never had. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report icansee Stillgrizzly 3d ago 6 7 If you think that this was a universal backlash to the effects of immigration on jobs , then you are missing the point .
My advise is for you to check the archives of mother jones and other blogs to find out how this faux rage developed .
Trump's primary voters have an average income of $70,000. They are not affected by mass migration .
This is a rage against Marriage equality ,Seperation of the church and state ,continuation of the war against affirmative action ,environmental protection ,union etc .

The faux rage was engineered by l

1 Remnants of Koch brothers tea party
2 Fox news
3 Alt right
4 Evangelicals
5 Gun manufacturers

They created an hurricane and carried other unwilling groups like blue collar democrats with them .
However , they wouldn't have stand any chance if progressives had turned up . Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago 0 1 Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly icansee 3d ago 2 3 Trump is allied with the Republican party, people seem to have overlooked that. Therefore, shock horror, a lot of Republican voters voted for him.

Also in the US, the level of non voting is huge, suggesting a level of ignorance / disillusionment with either of the choices. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly Jaisans 3d ago 3 4 You're arguing for protectionism, just like Trump, effectively state subsidy of the incumbent population via tarriffs / subsidies / buy British / American campaigns / increased welfare etc, the net effect is the same.

If you're arguing for better "welfare" for the incumbents also, you'd have to discriminate between the incumbents and migrants, something which is anathema to the left in particular and the EU. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 2d ago 0 1 You're arguing for protectionism

isn't controlled immigration also protectionism? employers exploiting foreign workers at the expense of local labour is just plain wrong, it's not market forces. and it's not the fault of freedom of movement. and it causes trouble...even keir hardie saw that

better welfare would be a good idea. a better one would universal credit. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Its_me Stillgrizzly 2d ago 3 4 Yep, they hate Corbyn because he's rocking their cosy boat where they could wear Red while having Blue policies. The people who hate Corbyn are the same ones who were vociferous against UKIP, for the same reasons - they threatened to disrupt their LibLabCon club and the opportunities they think they deserve.

[Nov 18, 2016] A "Grand Bargain" on Immigration Reform - The Unz Review

Ethnically divided population is easier to control. This is what identity politics is about...
Notable quotes:
"... In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10. ..."
"... The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere. ..."
"... Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox ..."
"... These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
www.unz.com
I think this one short paragraph provides a better clue to the unexpected political rise of Donald Trump than would a hundred footnoted academic articles.

In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10.

Demographic changes so enormous and rapid on a continental scale are probably unprecedented in all human history, and our political establishment was remarkably blind for having failed to anticipate the possible popular reaction. Over the last twelve months, Donald Trump, a socially liberal New Yorker, has utilized the immigration issue to seize the GOP presidential nomination against the vehement opposition of nearly the entire Republican establishment, conservative and moderate alike, and at times his campaign has enjoyed a lead in the national polls, placing him within possible reach of the White House. Instead of wondering how a candidate came to take advantage of that particular issue, perhaps we should instead ask ourselves why it hadn't happened sooner.

The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere.

Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox's Ezra Klein, and explained that "of course" heavy foreign immigration-let alone "open borders"-represented the economic dream of extreme free market libertarians such as the Koch brothers, since that policy would obviously drive down the wages of workers and greatly advantage Capital at the expense of Labor.

These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox colleague joined in the attack, harshly denouncing the candidate's views as "ugly" and "wrongheaded," while instead pointing to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as the proper font of progressive economic doctrine. Faced with such sharp attacks by young and influential Democratic pundits less than half his age, Sanders soon retreated from his simple statement of fact, and henceforth avoided raising the immigration issue during the remainder of his campaign.