A Perspective on the President’s Plans for the Wall

Well, this from the Family Research Council is a bit more hopeful than most of what I’ve been reading lately.  It’s also interesting, if unsurprising, information about the legal status of the President’s plans.  (Although, the USA is still probably doomed and it’s just a matter of time… )

If liberals wanted to sue over the border wall, they’re about 13 years too late. Congress already gave its blessing back in 2006 when it passed the Secure Fence Act. The same goes for the president’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel. The House and Senate have been on board since 1995 when they authorized it. If the Left’s being honest, its problem isn’t that the president is moving forward with the wall. It’s problem is that the president is Donald Trump.

Back in 2014, the Washington Examiner’s Eddie Scarry points out, the media had no problem calling it a “border crisis.” Neither did Barack Obama, who stood in the same Rose Garden as Donald Trump did on Friday, and insisted, “We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all.” Five years, one administration, and who-knows-how-many caravans later, and suddenly, this president is doing something “immoral” by addressing the situation. That’s not because the dilemma changed. It’s because the occupant of the Oval Office did.

Take columnists like Karen Tumulty. In 2014, Scarry explains, she had no problem writing about the “current crisis on the Southwest border.” Well, it must have magically fixed itself, because last month, she accused the president of “manufacturing an emergency.” California, New York, and 14 other states want you to think that Donald Trump was acting outside of his constitutional authority when he used his executive power to finish the job Congress gave the greenlight to over a dozen years ago. But, as Ken Klukowski told me last night on Washington Watch, nothing could be farther from the truth.

“It’s critical for everyone to understand: the president is not invoking any of his inherent constitutional powers — none of his Article 2 powers, like commander-in-chief authority. In this case, you have a president who is only acting under a specific act of Congress, a federal statute called the National Emergencies Act of 1976. It’s been used 59 times before. This is just number 60. In fact, the 59th time was earlier this month — also by President Trump — regarding U.S. relations with Venezuela, because of course the turmoil going on over there. Maybe I missed the press release, but I didn’t hear the sky fall [when he declared that emergency]. I didn’t hear a news story from the National Archives that the Constitution burst into flames. One would almost think that this is just part of the rule of law. And that’s exactly what’s going on here.”

President Trump’s request is simple. He wants to move money that’s already been approved by Congress from one bank account to another. This president hasn’t “conjured funding from thin air (the military construction and Army Corps funding has already been appropriated),” the Federalist argues, “nor is he using funds for purposes explicitly prohibited by Congress (to the contrary, Congress explicitly authorized the construction of a border wall).”

In other words, there’s no constitutional crisis here. The only reason these leftist states are suing Trump is because he wants to protect American sovereignty and security. Juxtapose that with 2012. When conservative states took Barack Obama to court over his health care mandate, it was for the exact opposite reason. Unlike Trump, Obama wasn’t in the business of protecting freedom — he was in the business of undermining it. Obviously, after eight years of Obama, a lot of people are out of practice when it comes to operating within the limits of presidential authority. But in this instance, the contrast between the two parties has never been clearer.

 

Advertisements

A very radical view – from a Libertarian.

Attached is a link to a book review on Amren.  (I know, I know, they’re the locus of Evil itself. Take a deep breath and read it anyway.) Given the usual Libertarian support for open borders, it’s more than a bit surprising that a Libertarian would come to realize that unlimited immigration is a disaster.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, professor of economics at University of Nevada Las Vegas, is a different kind of libertarian. He shares — even surpasses — the usual libertarian contempt for government intrusion and compulsion, but recognizes “free immigration” for what it is: forcing strangers into communities of natives who want to be left alone. Prof. Hoppe recognizes that the right to discriminate, to keep out undesirables, is a fundamental freedom that only the servile would ever give up.

https://www.amren.com/news/2018/03/hoppe-democracy-god-that-failed-libertarians-race-immigration/

Make America Mexico Again

It’s clear where Fred Reed’s loyalties lie.  Good thing he acted on them and left the US.

To understand many Mexican attitudes toward the United States and immigration, you have to go back to the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, of which most Americans have never heard. The United States attacked Mexico in a war of territorial acquisition, occupied Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona, and drove south to conquer Mexico City. It did it because it could.

The attitude of Americans who have heard of the war is usually, “Get over it.” Mexicans have not gotten over it. People get over things they have done to others more easily than they get over things others have done to them. Tell Americans to “get over” Nine-Eleven, or Jews to get over Germany.
***
This does not make for a keen appreciation of the Exceptional Nation. Nor does memory of the conquest arouse sympathy about immigration–or, as Mexicans see it, emigration. It explains the occasionally heard phrase, “La Reconquista.”

The Jews need to get over Germany.  Sorry, it’s been long enough.  And when enough time has passed Americans will get over 9/11 just as they have Pearl Harbor.  If Mexicans have a right to the territory that the US took, then I guess I can show up in Gdańsk shouting “make Danzig Germany again!” and not expect the Poles to chuck me out on my ear.  Jerks, that’s my ancestral home.  I’ve got a right to it!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, American imperialism is bad.  So what?  That doesn’t give anyone the right to come screw up the country of people who probably don’t even know the names of their ancestors who were alive at the time of the Mexican-American War.

American attitudes toward Latinos, chiefly contempt, do not get a rousing welcome here. Americans both north and south of the border tend to see Mexicans only as gardeners, waiters, maids and, here, a few English-speaking doctors. Typically they have no idea of the lands between the Rio Bravo and Tierra del Fuego. They have not been there, do not speak or read Spanish. Americans, increasingly losing their own intellectual tradition, are unaware that Latin America has its own rich intellectual history going back for centuries. Fortifying this blankness is the charming view that Latinos are stupid and so, obviously, cannot have an intellectual anything. This annoys Mexicans.

Latin America has in fact produced a great many writers of the first rank, not to mention philosophy, architecture, and music. Pick a few: Vargas Llosa, Garcia Marquez, Juan Rulfo, Pablo Neruda, Borges, Ortega y Gasset, Octavio Paz, Carlos Monsivais, Mario Benedetti, on and on. I didn’t know most of them either, but my wife Violeta, a Mexicana, does. All of this ties in with the literature and art of Spain, the mother country, just as ours does with that of England. There is a major civilization down here, despite the views of internet louts.

They have to do backTHEN WHY DOES EVERYBODY WANT TO LEAVE?  Why do Mexicans tell Americans things like “I’m glad my parents took me out of that hellhole”?  If Mexico is so great, then Mexicans would want to stay in Mexico, reconquista or not.

Reed thinks that listing a few hard working or sad cases means we should reconsider our opinion of hispanic immigrants as being low-IQ criminals but for every positive example of people coming to our country, taking jobs which Americans could occupy, and sending the wealth they earn to other nations there are plenty of ones which reinforce the bad stereotypes.  Stereotypes come from somewhere.  They aren’t just invented by racists.

Yes, it is illegal. No, it is not good for the United States. Yes, immigration should be stopped. But–if you were Eduardo, which would matter more to you, your wife and children, or some law in a remote country where, in any event, a lot of people want you to come and work? What would you do? Would it not be irresponsible not to do it?

If they can work so hard, they can work hard to make their own country a better place.  It’s irresponsible to abandon their family, their community, and their country.  It’s selfish and wrong to do so at the expense of people living somewhere else.

They have to go back.