by Brian Mark Weber: Comprehensive immigration reform. We hear it all the time from politicians of both parties. But does anyone ask what it really means? To Democrats, the term means little more than the appeasement of immigrant groups in the hope of a payback in the voting booth.
To establishment Republicans like RINO-John McCain, RINO-Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham and others, reform means parroting Democrat talking points in order to appear friendly to illegal immigrants.
For years, talk of reforming immigration policy seemed to be just that: talk. But when Donald Trump came to town with a promise to build a wall along our southern border, real reform seemed possible for the first time in years.
But then President Trump had that meeting with Nancy Pulosi and Chuck clown-Schumer.
While some conservatives were despondent over President Trump’s apparent cave-in on DACA, it appears that Trump used his “art of the deal” strategy to place Democrats in a tough spot. Any worry about Trump giving into the other side was cast aside recently when he unveiled a 70-point strategy to end our nation’s loopholes in immigration policy.
Moving forward, Democrats basically have three options – and none works out well for their electoral ambitions.
First, they can fight Trump’s push for stricter enforcement and a border wall by passing DACA legislation. This would entail some serious risks. After all, more than 60 million Americans just elected a president on his promise to build a wall, an election that left the Democrat Party as powerless as it has been in nearly a century. So don’t expect Democrats to put forth a DACA bill anytime soon.
The second option entails Democrats working with Trump to get some aspects of DACA into law. But this would necessitate giving in to some of the president’s demands and would infuriate the Democrats’ raging #Resist constituency, which lives to oppose Trump at every turn.
Third, the other path that Democrats can take is to pander to immigrant groups on the surface while doing little to actually aid their cause. As Mark Alexander has argued for years, this is their preferred and incredibly cynical strategy — perhaps more so now that Democrats have little political clout with which to work.
Jonathan Tobin writes in National Review, “Though clown-Schumer and Pulosi may think widespread public support for relief for the Dreamers gives their party the whip hand in talks with Trump, the Democrats actually have little leverage over the president on this issue. If they want a legislative fix that keeps DACA alive, they are going to have to make substantial concessions to the White House and the Republican congressional leadership — both of which need to show the GOP base that they are serious about curbing illegal immigration.”
Tobin goes on to characterize the current Democrat predicament as one in which they have to choose between fighting for their constituency and fighting against Trump. Right now, they’re opting for taking down Trump, but even this has eased up in recent weeks as Democrats realize two things: Trump’s base of support is fiercely loyal, and working-class voters in blue states are growing increasingly frustrated with a party that bends over backwards for illegal immigrants but doesn’t seem to give a lick about jobs or wages for American citizens.
Indeed, a huge problem for Democrats is that working-class voters are moving away in droves over fear that immigrants are taking their jobs and hampering the growth of their wages.
These “Dreamers” are, in effect, killing the American Dream, and Americans know it.
So while the Leftmedia continuously pontificates about the rupture in the Republican Party between its establishment and its “Steve Bannon” wing, a real divide exists in the Democrat Party, too — and any negotiation with Trump will be met with fury.
Seriously. If you want to see the Left truly lose its collective mind, just wait until “clown-Chuck and Nancy” announce that in exchange for leniency regarding the Dreamers, they’ve agreed to build Donald Trump’s big, beautiful wall. (They’ve come a long way in the 10 years since they all supported the wall.) In the end, they may not go that far in negotiating with Trump, but they’re not going to push too hard for DACA. And here’s why:
Writing for The New York Times, Thomas B. Edsall opines, “The problem for those calling for the enactment of liberal policies, however, is that immigration is a voting issue for a minority of the electorate. And among those who say immigration is their top issue, opponents outnumber supporters by nearly two to one. In this respect, immigration is similar to gun control — both mobilize opponents more than supporters.” Edsall adds, “Among the 13 percent of voters who identified immigration as the most important issue, Trump won, 64-33. This data demonstrates a key element in the politics of immigration.”
So what’s the endgame for Democrats? Were they to regain majorities in the House and Senate, one might assume that they would open the floodgates and usher in a new wave of illegals. But the political landscape has changed, and Democrats know it. They’re hemorrhaging working-class voters and simply can’t bring themselves to actually vote for DACA despite their public defense of the program.
Democrats are thus likely to continue to pander to the Latino community and other constituencies in the hope that it translates into more political power down the road. So much for caring about the fate of the Dreamers.
President Trump now has the upper hand in the art of the immigration deal, and he just called the Democrats’ bluff. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51845
{wnd.com} ~ Please join me on a whirlwind superficial but revealing tour of liberal la-la land as we peek at recent headlines. Meanwhile, liberals call conservatives wingnuts.
Singer Nancy Sinatra tweeted, "The murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad." One wonders whether in her rendering, "murderous" is redundant. One might also wonder whether she thinks other murderous people should be exempt from or perhaps face a less humiliating form of execution.
Responding to Michelle liar-nObama's claim that people are distrustful of politics because the GOP is "all men, all white," Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, said, "I don't know if she noticed, but I am not white and I am not a male." To clarify, in case you are wondering, in this example, Michelle liar-nObama is the inhabitant of la-la land.
Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who is running for the Senate seat currently held by Bob Corker, encountered Twitter's speech police when trying to place an ad saying, "I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts." Twitter's thought cops said the claim was "deemed an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction." They magnanimously assured her that they'd run the ad if she removed the offending statement. If Twitter brass were truly concerned about tweets evoking "a strong negative reaction," the executives would save themselves time and just shut the whole operation down. If you use Twitter much, you know that evoking such reactions is virtually guaranteed in cultural and political tweets, which populate Twitter by the millions every day. It would be much easier to interact with leftists if they could at least be honest with themselves and others about what they are doing in these situations. They have no problem with tweets evoking strong negative reactions from conservatives. But you knew that.
The Daily Wire reported that activists of Abolish Human Abortion were booted from Bedlam Coffee in Seattle because the gay owner couldn't tolerate their presence. After asking members of the group whether they would tolerate his bringing his boyfriend in the shop and performing sex acts with him in front of them, he told them, "Well, then I don't have to f---ing tolerate this! Then leave -- all of you! Tell all your f---ing friends, 'Don't f---ing come here'!" I have no real problem with owners serving whom they choose in a free market, but I'll note that it's unlikely that we'll hear outcries from the left complaining about this discriminatory treatment because here those being denied service were not asking for a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony.
For the same reason, I must omit tons of other examples, but in mitigation for this inadequacy, I think it is only fair that I get props for not opining on the Harvey Weinstein scandal, trusting that the news saturation on this story has reached your homes.
Comments