Trump’s New Immigration Policy

The Trump Administration has presented a new immigration policy plan.  The reaction by mainstream media has been predictable: shout racist! invoke the statue of liberty! but those poor immigrants who deserve to come to the USA!

If you want to see a pretty funny exchange about this, watch Trump adviser Stephen Miller smack down CNN’s Jim Acosta who is a little confused about the differences between a) a poem on the Statue of Liberty and Federal Immigration Law, b) the difference between Legal and Illegal Immigration, and c) the difference between liberal fantasy and history.

Here’s Tucker Carlson reacting to some clips from the press briefing:

If you can stand to watch the whole painful thing, you can find it here. Acosta doesn’t seem to notice how dumb he’s making himself look or realize that he should be embarrassed.  And if you really want a cringe-fest, you can read this from the Washington Post which, surprisingly, is actually labeled as opinion rather than news. This apparently is how liberals see things through their narrative glasses.

One of the dumb things Acosta says is: “It sounds like you’re trying to engineer the racial and ethnic flow of people into this country.”  Well, yeah, what’s so wrong with that?  And how is that any different from past immigration policy?  As Miller points out, “speaking English is a requirement of becoming a naturalized citizen.”  Although there are exemptions available to the English language requirement (you have to be older than 50, live in this country more than 20 years, etc.), taking a ‘civics test’ is still part of the requirements.  Because the actual law still trumps Acosta’s “statue of liberty poem law of the land” (as Miller put it).

Helicopters Help

Migrant hunter buys himself an armed helicopter to round up ‘potential jihadis’ after ‘being given immunity by Bulgarian government’

A migrant hunter who has had a bounty put on his head by ISIS has now bought himself a helicopter gunship to help patrol on the look-out for ‘potential jihadis’.

Dinko Valev, 29, made a name for himself last year after posting internet videos of himself chasing down immigrants who fled into Bulgaria from neighbouring Turkey and war-torn Syria.

The former semi-professional wrestler was shown chasing terrified migrants through woodlands along with other armed vigilantes.

The films showed women and children forced to cower on the forest floor while the men were made to lie on their stomachs with their hands tied behind their backs.

But he became a hero to some Bulgarians and the government in Sofia has reportedly given him their support and helped him acquire two military amphibious troop carriers.

Now he has got his hands on a military helicopter, believed to have formerly belonged to either the Bulgarian or Russian air force.

 

To be honest, the first thing I thought of was “Ooh! That’s a Hind! Like from Monster Hunter!”  The guy’s got good taste in helicopters.

Enoch Powell, Prophet

Even ignoring the literal rivers of blood, Powell saw what was coming:

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

Strangers in their own country; murdered in their own streets.  The bloody foam covers the Tiber.

Why is the American Catholic Church opposing Trump’s immigration policies?

It’s old news that many individual Bishops and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have leveled criticism towards Trump’s attempts to temporarily stop immigration, to assess and reform the process – basically every iota of his immigration stance.  The most radical of these is San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy who called for opponents of Trump’s policies to “become disruptors” and that immigration is the “key [issue] we have to face in our local church at this moment.” (Bishop McElroy’s radicalism should come as no surprise; he’s a big fan of LGBT “rights” too.  Apparently just an SJW tool?)

Lisa Bourne writes for LifeSiteNews that the “harsh tone leads to questions that some bishops’ concerns could be more driven by political and fiscal interests than by compassionate motives.  Government funding and Catholic identity don’t easily mix, say critics.”

It’s a rather cynical interpretation that has occurred to many: it’s about the money, not compassion.  Why the vociferous response to Trump’s plans to pause immigration, when previous presidents’ similar policies brought not a word of opposition? It certainly does not speak to a consistent position.

Why are US bishops so concerned about Trump’s refugee orders? Follow the money trail: Is a conflict of interest behind some of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ strong criticisms of President Trump’s immigration policy, in particular his two temporary travel bans? That’s the question being raised by a number of experts in foreign policy and Catholic charitable work…

These critics are pointing out that in Fiscal Year 2016, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received more than $91 million in government funding for refugee resettlement. Over the past nine years, the USCCB has received a total of $534,788,660 in taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement programs, reported Ann Corcoran, editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch.

Raymond Arroyo of EWTN News has this to say in response to the American Church’s position:

“They have a heart for people who are suffering… However… if the country decides, and the president decides that it’s time to take a pause, everybody has to step back and let that happen. President Obama did it, President Bush did it after 9/11. It’s not forever, it’s just for a time. But these groups I think, sometimes their heart, and perhaps the financial motive gets in the way.”

Deal Hudson, editor of The Christian Review, also has his concerns about the entanglement of Catholic organizations and the US government:

“How can either institution [USCCB and Catholic Relief Services] call itself ‘Catholic’ when they have created financial dependency of the federal government? … Doesn’t this level of funding make the USCCB hesitant to publicly criticize the Congress and the administration on abortion, same-sex marriage, fetal stem cell research, and euthanasia?”

Another critic, Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, which has reported on numerous Catholic organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities not living up to their Catholic identity (supporting LGBT “rights” and abortion/contraception, etc.), told LifeSiteNews:

 

Pope Benedict, in his motu proprio, made it clear that Catholic charitable work should begin with the Mass and sacraments, work in conjunction with the local bishops and Church, and hire faithful Catholics to carry out the programs… It seems to me that these refugee resettlement programs fail on all counts… Here again, the Church is behaving as just one more NGO

Just what we need, right?  The Church to be just one more NGO.  Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn shares Mosher’s concerns:

“We never hear the USCCB complain about much except for the decisions to cut funding from the troughs feeding its social programs… The USCCB cried the same sob-story over USAID and PEPFAR, despite the fact that they both work hand in glove for the spread of abortifacient contraception and condoms… The fact that Catholic Relief Services receives nearly two-thirds of its annual revenue from those agencies is most definitely linked to the lobbying efforts… So its concern over refugee resettlement is really no different.”

Faithful Cardinal Raymond Burke (God bless him), told LifeSiteNews that

“We have to give the first priority to the respect for human life and for the family in order to have the right orientation in addressing all of the other questions which are involved with poverty and immigration, the many challenges that any human being faces in life… It doesn’t make any sense at all to be concerned about immigration or poverty if human life itself is not protected in society. It’s an absolute contradiction… The first justice accorded to any human being is to respect the gift of life itself, which is received from God.”

Entanglement with government funding often means compromising principles and the silencing of the organization’s voice when it comes to unpopular positions, especially when it comes to abortion.  Separation of church and state, so often invoked as a way of protecting the state (and secularists) from the supposed abuses and controlling nature of the church, really should protect the church from the state.

Deal Hudson summed it up:

“How can the Catholic Church be a free, prophetic voice when it has created a financial dependence on the federal government? Answer: It cannot!”

 

Kekistan Border Agents

/pol/ continues to take open source intelligence to new heights.

4CHAN Message Board Is Using Border Webcams To Help Report Illegals

The largely pro-Trump 4Chan internet message board has recently taken it upon themselves to help ICE agents catch and report illegals entering the United States.

The mostly pro-Trump 4Chan political page is using border webcams to help report illegal alien crossings.

As reported by /pol/’s News Network Twitter account, they just recently discovered that live streams of the US-Mexico border are available via http://blueservo.com/ . The website has become so popular that it has currently exceeded its bandwith at the time of writing this.

One 4Chan user suggested the Administration turn the live feeds into a “game” for users to help spot and report Illegals crossing, potentially earning points. The two screen shots attached to the original tweet purport to show 4Chan users catching would-be illegals in the act

Weaponized autists would take over the whole world in less than a week if someone convinced them it would make a good game.

Marine Le Pen, Savior of France?

This is a very different type of I’m with her: Marine Le Pen as Joan of Arc.  She gave a speech standing in front of a statue of St. Joan of Arc and inspired supporters to create images like this one:

1487722008717

Despite recent legal challenges (which illustrate France’s free speech problem), Marine Le Pen “remains in the lead in polling for the first round of the French presidential election, three points ahead of centrist Emmanuel Macron.”  She’s certainly got the opposition scared.

French President Francois Hollande has admitted that “There is a threat” that she might actually win and that he would “do everything” in his power to stop her.  He also vehemently opposes her desire to sever France from the EU: saying “it was his ‘last duty… to do everything to ensure that France is not convinced by such a plan’ of taking the country out of the EU.”  First Brexit and now maybe Frexit?

Although The Spectator is no friend of Le Pen (saying her “victory would be the worst crisis for half a century”), they nevertheless had some interesting observations in their article: The French election is now Marine Le Pen vs a collapsing French establishment.

Is France on the brink of a political revolution? Already, four established candidates for the presidency — two former presidents and two former prime ministers — have backed out or been rejected by the voters, and another, François Fillon, is on the ropes. The campaign is being taken over by outsiders …What kind of shake-up might it be — socialist (the least likely), liberal with Macron or nationalist with Le Pen? Or can the outsiders still be beaten by an electoral system designed to keep them out of power? … the two-round ballot, designed in the 1820s to prevent hotheads … from winning elections. It gives voters and politicians a second chance, not so much to reconsider their own choices as to react against the choices of others. In the first round you vote for the person you want; in the second you vote against the person you fear.

This evolved historically into what was called ‘republican discipline’: in the first round there could be a range of competing candidates of all shades, but in the second round all loyal republicans, from the mildest liberal to the reddest communist, would vote for the candidate best placed to beat the enemy of the republic — usually a royalist or authoritarian nationalist. … The crucial question in this election is whether the republican reflex still operates. If not, Marine Le Pen could win.

***

France is the most anti-capitalist country in Europe.  There are benefits. Many British people have happy memories of French hospitals, schools or trains. But one does not need very right-wing views to see the accumulating disadvantages. The highest taxes in the developed world, especially on businesses. Chronic unemployment, worst among the young and ethnic minorities. Slow growth, including among small companies afraid of the burden of regulation incurred by getting too big. Crumbling infrastructure. Anyone who arrives at the Gare du Nord must see that something is amiss. People in France do too, and have done for years. Even in the 1980s President Mitterrand lamented national ‘moroseness’. Bookshops have long been piled high with works by economists, politicians and academics warning that France was in accelerating decline. Young people emigrate, over 200,000 to London alone.

On top of this chronic malaise has come the tension between republican secularism and Islam, sparked off three decades ago by a row about girls wearing headscarves in a provincial secondary school. It is a fraught mixture of cultural difference, social deprivation and historic mistrust, but none can doubt its brooding presence, hugely inflamed by a series of terrorist attacks. Had I risked forgetting this, I would have been dramatically reminded a few weeks ago when in a quiet street in Paris I walked into a 25-man military patrol in full combat gear.

None of these observations is unique to France. Characteristic of France, however, is the seeming inability of the political system to do much about them, even over many years. Here we come back to the ‘stalemate society’ problem.

 

***

So is France in crisis? … many voters really have lost faith in the established parties and see change as coming from outside the system. The main embodiment of disillusion is Marine Le Pen. Her Front National continues to grow in rust-belt regions and those with high levels of immigration, largely by attracting disaffected working-class voters. It is probably France’s largest party, supported by nearly a third of the electorate.

Le Pen has laboured since taking over from her father in 2011 to convince voters that the Front National, though still radical, is no longer ‘anti-republican’, and indeed is the staunchest upholder of republican secularism against Islamic encroachment. The message is that voting for her is not a betrayal of the republican heritage so central to France’s self-image.  She has added to her nationalist agenda vehement denunciation of the European Union as a foreign capitalist plot.

***

Le Pen will surely win through to the second round of the election, and it is quite possible that she will head the poll in the first round on 23 April…  Brexit and Trump have created a sense that the unthinkable is possible, which could further weaken the taboo against voting for her. But it will mobilise her opponents too. I cannot believe that enough moderate voters will stay away from the second-round poll to let ‘the fascists’ win. ‘Republican discipline’ should still rally support for whoever polls best against Le Pen, which at the moment looks likely to be Macron.

Nevertheless, few now rule out a Le Pen victory completely, and if Macron’s campaign runs into serious trouble, all bets are off. Every new scandal or terrorist incident plays into her hands. If she did become president, France would face a genuine crisis, the worst for half a century. There would certainly be strikes and violent demonstrations by those who would see themselves as defending the republic against fascism. How she could form a viable government or win a majority in parliament is unclear. We would see a conflict between the Fifth Republic’s powerful president and its parliament under a constitutional system that one liberal critic has called dangerous even in the hands of a saint. The consequences for the euro, the EU, western security and Britain’s relations with one of its closest allies would be dire.

[above emphasis mine] — Sounds like the author is saying is that the establishment, pro-immigration, pro-globalization, pro-EU folks would throw a fit and try to sabotage her at every turn if she were to win the election.  They would paint themselves as defenders of the innocent against “fascists.”  Sounds familiar.  Where have we seen that before?