Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Email *
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Beating Trump on Immigration, the Easy Way

    Posted by TM Lutas on August 24th, 2015 (All posts by )

    From a common sense perspective, Donald Trump is weak on immigration. He is weak because he’s more focused on rabble rousing and being a blowhard rather than actually creating a humane solution consistent with American principles. A competing GOP candidate could easily get to the right of Trump while getting more of the Latino vote. All it takes is being an ordinary human being that looks at these people as equal to everybody else.

    A candidate can say the ugly truth that unaccompanied minors from Latin America are victims of child abuse by US standards. Cooperating with originating-country governments to open and manage a child abuse case would be a primarily federal responsibility due to the international nature of the case, though there would be room for a strong state role. Just think about it. If a mother from Miami, FL put her 12 year old on a freight train, destination, San Francisco, CA there is no question that child endangerment and abuse would be on the prosecutor’s menu when the kid’s caught. It would be unthinkable to have different treatment if the point of origin were Boston, MA. This is America and we believe in equal treatment under the law. So why is the legal treatment different when the kid’s from Guatamala, Mexico, or Panama? Their children are not inferior to ours and their treatment should be held to the same standards when they are within our borders. Trump’s plan doesn’t do this. That is weakness. For the general election, this line has the additional advantage of setting up Hillary Clinton as soft on child abuse.

    On the larger issue of immigration, the US civil war provides lessons. The destruction of slavery and the plantation system left an enormous pool of labor at loose ends and in desperate need and we mobilized to meet that emergency during the war. Today, the mitigation and end of several types of economic slavery has put the whole world in the same boat. The Deng reforms mitigated the Maoist economic slave system and unleashed hundreds of millions of people in search of jobs. The end of the Permit Raj in India released hundreds of millions more. The end of the Soviet system unleashed yet more within both Eastern Europe and all over the third world. As Republicans we rejoice in the mitigation and the ending of human bondage whether it’s outright slavery, serfdom, or goes under some modern label like communism. But the problems of how such recently liberated people are integrated into the world economy are just as daunting today as they were during our own civil war.

    While much of the adjustment to that tidal wave has already taken place, the global political class is failing to create enough work to occupy all those idle hands which will put pressure on wages so long as the failure continues. In desperation many seek to enter the US illegally and our system for welcoming and integrating newcomers is swamped, something that is as dangerous as swamping a boat, or overfilling a house to the point of collapse.

    We should not forget that for the vast majority of these economic migrants, plan A is getting a good job in their own society. Migration, especially illegal immigration is pretty far down on the list of preferred life plans for the vast majority of illegal immigrants.

    So long as large pools of unemployed and underemployed exist anywhere that connects with the global economy, wages will continue to have downward pressure and Americans will feel the economic pain. A wall on the border is a single layer of defense. It is not enough.

    The best defense is a defense in depth. While we build the wall, we need to significantly increase the number of jobs we create so that we drive unemployment down to its frictional rate of 3% and keep pressing on with job creation even after that so that jobs on the other side of the border increase and migrants stop there instead of here. The ideal is for people to have jobs in their own countries, in their own hometowns.

    This can only be accomplished by getting government out of the way in terms of job creation and encouraging people to become part time or full time capitalists where they can.

    Trump’s plan is weak because it is reactive and offers nothing in terms of reducing immigration pressure beyond our border where the first level of defense should be.

     

    57 Responses to “Beating Trump on Immigration, the Easy Way”

    1. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Fine sentiment. The political class of both parties is bought and paid for however and is in the service of he Oligarchy. What’s best for them is what happens. What happens to the nation or Americans is irrelevant. They could care less.

    2. TM Lutas Says:

      If I was pitching this to establishment types, I’d talk about how this is “consistent with George W Bush’s 4% project” and how the child abuse enforcement portion is “an act of true love”. There’s nothing inherently involved here that steps on establishment toes. Show where I’m wrong about that.

    3. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Migration, especially illegal immigration is pretty far down on the list of preferred life plans for the vast majority of illegal immigrants.

      Then why do they give coyotes so much money to make it happen? It tells you what hell holes their homes are and how much risk and misery they willingly endure to escape them.

    4. Xennady Says:

      Trump’s plan may well be weak, but it’s far better than the plans of the other candidates, which don’t actually exist.

      That’s the amazing thing about Trump- simply by running his mouth he completely demolished the prevailing narrative that nothing could ever be done.

      Bluntly, Trump brought hope back to the American political process- hope that someone would actually do something about the actual problems of the United States instead of lamenting, endlessly, how bad it is for all those poor foreigners who have to live in their own miserable countries instead of this one.

      I’m sorry that those myriad countries are so messed up that people want or are forced to leave, but this is not my not my problem to solve. The ugly fact that foreigners can put their children on trains, send them here, with the end result that Americans will be forced at gunpoint by the regime to feed, cloth, and educate them whether we want to or not is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong with American governance. And, as an added bonus, since these people are generally not considered to be of European ancestry, they will also be beneficiaries of the government enforced discrimination known as affirmative action.

      I oppose all this, to put it mildly.

      Yet aside from a certain former reality TV star none of the leading candidates of the Republican party has bothered to mention or notice that any of these sort of issues exist. I was not pleased to watch my former favorite Scott Walker tamely come out with the idea to deny birthright citizenship. Since any attempt to do away with birthright citizenship will end up in the courts, who will very likely decide to keep it, it’s almost as if this was deliberately chosen as something he could say to compete with Trump but which would be completely meaningless later.

      Believing that, I see no real point in discussion any sort of defense in depth against illegal immigration, because nothing will be done by the present political leadership of the United States.
      Get rid of them, then we can discuss options in more depth than those presented by the Donald.

    5. Jim Says:

      The average Hispanic IQ is about 90. That is not particularly low by world standards. In fact it’s about the average world IQ and somewhat above the average IQ among Arabs. However there is no example of a First World economy with that low of an average IQ. The Japanese population has an average IQ of 107-108 and although we don’t have complete data on China the average IQ there is probably something like 105. The demographic changes occuring in the US today will mean that the US in the future will cease to be a First World country.

      The fundamental problem is not the lack of legality of Hispanic immigration. The fundamental problem is the low quality of the human capital of the immigrants.

    6. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Mr. Lutas,

      Here is the Trump plan to deal with illegal immigration:

      https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

      Everything below “make Mexico pay for the wall” concerns matters done internally, not just border fortification. [n.b. For the record, I personally do favor making the Mexican border a military frontier with the implications for those who try to invade.]

      The removal of the incentives that exist in violation of our own laws will in themselves help reverse the flow. There is no “kinder and gentler” solution, nor one where “everyone lives happily ever after”.

      For those who will not return to Mexico and points south voluntarily, there will have to be an apprehension and arrest process. Once one member of a family encounters the government, it will be necessary to get the rest, because they will not voluntarily come in. We have large portions of our border areas, and urban areas, that are under the practical control of Cartels and gangs from Mexico and points south, and not US authority. This will require use of police and perhaps military force to overcome.

      The problem of “anchor babies” is actually very simple if you are willing to apply the same principles of family law that courts are using every day today, both domestically and internationally. Even if they are citizens, they are minor children and go with their parents and/or legal guardians.

      Subotai Bahadur

    7. Mike K Says:

      I don’t see the GOP getting the “Hispanic vote” anytime short of 2050.

      Trump is a blowhard but illegal immigration is a very emotional issue with a lot of people. So is the lpusy work ethic of young Americans. Some of this is the fact that kids do not get minimum wage jobs in high school because they are all filled with Mexican illegal immigrants.

      This is a tough issue but getting the Hispanic vote is the least of it.

    8. TM Lutas Says:

      Mrs. Davis – They give so much money to make it happen because every better option has failed to materialize for them personally. Figuring out why these preferred options are failing and helping them fail less often means fewer people trying to get in illegally. Every extra successful small business in Guatemala or Mexico reduces the number of illegals trying for the border. This doesn’t have to cost a lot of money and some of the best work will be done by the private sector. This also has the benefit of reducing border pressure while making friends down south, a combination I can live with, happily.

      Xennady – The economic liberation of billions is our problem to solve because the downward pressure on wages affects the US too. Do you think massively outsourcing our industrial base happened out of spite? Do you think that it’s random benevolence that some of that industry is returning onshore now? The labor cost per unit produced is now roughly the same in Oklahoma as it is in China. We’re more productive so our wages remain higher in an absolute sense but it’s purely justified by that productivity gap.

      So illegals coming over the border or outsources exporting jobs, pick your poison. Or, you can go along with the plan I laid out above and strongly reduce the barriers to job creation, drive down unemployment, and let the outsourcers create jobs abroad as we drive down our own unemployment to frictional levels.

      I agree with you, however, that Trump’s done the country a service by raising the issue. That’s not enough to get my vote but it is enough to get my gratitude. I remain uncommitted to a particular candidate for 2016.

      Jim – You don’t give any evidence to support your assertions on IQ. Let me give you some food for thought:
      http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/17/are-hispanics-too-stupid-to-become-ameri

      Subotai Bahadur – I’m much more comfortable with our first line of defense being in front of the wall, not at the wall. Given a heavy enough attack, any wall can be defeated. The pressure at the wall needs to be pared down as much as possible. I don’t have an issue with enforcement within the US and don’t criticize Trump for advocating that. A defense in depth should start ahead of the wall, continue at the wall, and enforcement should continue after the wall. Trump’s to be lauded for bringing attention to two out of three of these zones. He still misses that third zone and does not conceive of the problem systemically as it should be conceived, as a consequence of all those extra workers entering into the global labor force. I probably should have said that a bit better in the original post.

      Mike K – If the GOP were to get 25% of the black vote, the GOP would not, by any means, have won the black vote. Nonetheless the results for Democrats would be devastating. The same dynamic applies (with different percentages) to the Hispanic vote. You can talk about Hispanic rapists and set up one dynamic as Trump did or you can talk about enforcing the child abuse laws regarding those unaccompanied minors and set up a completely different dynamic. The first dynamic depresses the GOP Hispanic vote, the second does not. The general election spectacle of setting up Hillary Clinton (or Biden if he’s the nominee) for a charge of being soft on child abuse is nothing to turn your nose up at either.

    9. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Figuring out why these preferred options are failing and helping them fail less often means fewer people trying to get in illegally.

      Nation building? Colonization? New imperialism? Are we to fix the problems of every failing state?

      Wall first.

    10. DirtyJobsGuy Says:

      I work a lot in Mexico and have held the whole range of mexican immigration permits. The same goes for every other developing area of the world. My latest exercise was the tightening of TN (nafta) professional work permits in Canada, whole lots of paperwork or you get turned back. The Tea party started catching fire when it looked like Obama would be forgiving some peoples mortgage debt because ostensibly they were duped by mortgage lenders. Those of use who played by the rules would pay, while croneys of government and captive voters would be rewarded. The same goes for immigration regardless of all the fancy plans and theoretical discussions. First play by the rules for everyone. A consistent policy would decrease illegal immigration a huge amount. As for guys in the country now, I can tell you they move back and forth across the border for long periods of time with ease. If it’s too tight in the US for working off the book jobs, they head back to Mexico.

      Trust is gained by following the rules or changing them out in the open. Until then those who follow the rules will get pretty angry

    11. Mike K Says:

      “If the GOP were to get 25% of the black vote, the GOP would not, by any means, have won the black vote. Nonetheless the results for Democrats would be devastating. ”

      I think that blacks might start thinking about illegal immigration, once Obama is gone, and that would be devastating, I just don’t see us ever getting the Hispanic vote until they are middle class and that is a couple of decades away.

      “A consistent policy would decrease illegal immigration a huge amount.”

      I think E-Verify and a wall would stop the back-and-forth that you and I know goes on all the time. Then, we could think about amnesty for people who have lived here, paid taxes and speak English. The last Amnesty was a disaster. I know many people who are citizens from the 1986 amnesty. They all vote Democrat. You know who gave them amnesty ? Simpson, Mazzoli and Reagan.

      My cleaning lady, who was legal via amnesty, planned to retire in Tijuana because houses are cheaper. She was a hard worker who worked for me 30 years.

    12. Tyouth Says:

      ” All it takes is being an ordinary human being that looks at these people as equal to everybody else. ”

      I had to look up at the top banner to make sure I wasn’t on Salon or some other liberal site.

    13. Xennady Says:

      “The economic liberation of billions is our problem to solve because the downward pressure on wages affects the US too.”

      There are a limited number of problems the United States can solve. The sudden emergence of billions of people into the labor market is not one of them.

      In my view the massive outsourcing of the US industrial base happened because the US is ruled, essentially, by a cabal globalist post-Americans with no concern for the United States or its citizens. If a job can be outsourced, it will. If a foreigner can be found to move here to do a job that cannot be outsourced, that foreigner will get the job. Falling wages isn’t a problem they want to solve.

      I regard all this not as the warm and wonderful operation of the free market, to which I know I must always express my slobbering love, but as a grim existential problem for the United States and its present government. If the electorate concludes that the free market is what is making them poor, them it will be bye bye free market. Lectures about the awesomeness of outsourcing won’t help. If the electorate concludes that the US government is selling us down the river, then sooner or later it will be bye bye US government.

      That said, I’d certainly like to reduce the barriers to job creation here. But it doesn’t happen, because the post-American globalists ruling the nation don’t care about it.

    14. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Nation building?
      My first thought as well when I read that. We haven’t been to successful with that without first destroying the existing society and then occupying them for decades. And I can’t see us nation building anyone beyond the point they have achieved already on their own. I’m skeptical its possible.

    15. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      That said, I’d certainly like to reduce the barriers to job creation here. But it doesn’t happen, because the post-American globalists ruling the nation don’t care about it.

      I agree with that. And more, those barriers are added to at every opportunity. There’s something going on here which I’ve been struggling to understand. Since the 70’s, the left has been actively hostile to everything that makes the economy work. I attribute that to the rise of the New Left – marxists, communists and anarchists – in the Democratic Party. Hillary and Obama are both of the New Left.

      The GOP leadership however seems to be drugged into a stupor and despite having huge influence are unwilling to even put the brakes on anything. I keep wondering: did they simply sell out to the highest bidder, or does Obama’s NSA have some serious dirt on McConnell and Boehner?

    16. Roy Says:

      About 4 1/2 yrs ago in another forum I wrote:
      1) Hispanics long ago announced plans to use a powerful not so secret weapon, sex, to reverse the outcome of the Battle of San Juacinto. (I grew up in S Calif, and heard that announcement decades ago, tho I did not understand “La Raza” or its implications at the time.) Indeed, they will join OASDI in colliding with Roe.

      2) Hispanic labor is not actually cheap. The local paper of my present home town in Oklahoma once observed that about half the emergency room visits go to “free” services given Hispanics. The medical community does not serve as a deep pocketed source, but merely as a conduit; others pay the costs with inflated insurance premiums, higher priced medical services, etc. One can make similar observations about public education and can reach the exact same conclusion, except that the costs get passed on via taxation rather than via purchase of services. One could multiply examples. But the debate is not whether consumers actually pay more for the labor, only how they pay and how much more they pay.

      Putting this another way: I don’t disagree with a point another made (in debate with me regarding free enterprise) that some employers of low income workers (in this case, Hispanic) steal by transferring costs (contra, eg, biblical injunctions against grazing one’s herd in a neighbor’s field). Instead, I disagree regarding the response. Instead of the suggested response (the employer should pay more), I think society (civil gov’t) can (and should, because it is, after all, theft): a) cease the subsidy, and b) demand restitution (by serious fines of significantly progressive magnitude increasing up the chain of command leveled against any employer hiring illegal aliens).

      Not only would such steps make the costs real and visible rather than hidden. Two further results would occur, both imho good. First, making the costs open rather than concealed does not change the costs. It simply means the employer could increase the sale price of now subsidized goods, that the employer could pass on the costs of higher wages for those jobs which some claim only the Hispanic illegals will take.

      Second, a (if not the) major draw (jobs coupled with social subsidies) for illegal Hispanic immigrants would vanish. The disappearance of this one draw would almost by itself resolve the issue of illegal immigration. At no cost to the consumer.

      The steps I propose will not happen. Instead: 1) Employers will continue trying to keep that which puts other people’s money in their pockets (right wing politics), while 2) Others will continue claiming gov’t must aid the poor by giving direct aid (left wing politics). Meanwhile, people who should know better will not wish a pox on both houses, but will choose one or the other.

      3) Currently illegal immigration enables Mexico to avoid dealing with its corruption, its fundamental conflicts in constructing a society and gov’t. By this I do not mean that what the U.S. (or any other country) has “arrived”, that I know in detail all the answers and could provide a blueprint. But I do mean that ignoring corruption does have practical implications. I also mean that it is in U.S. national interest (in terms of preserving the order and peace that Paul tells Timothy we ought pray for) that the U.S. not act as an escape valve for Mexican gov’t headaches. Instead, the U.S. should shut that valve and by doing so put pressure on Mexico to take responsibility if it will not improve its condition.

      4) At stake: the rule of law. This is not merely a semantic issue (“illegal alien” vs “honored guest”). Nor is it merely a debate over how U.S. laws will change (in accordance with existing law by the working of a representative democracy vs mob rule). Instead we see contention over what the concept of law will mean in all its practical outworkings. One might observe the same stake surfaces in SCOTUS decisions. But it is the same stake.

    17. Rich Rostrom Says:

      We can’t isolate ourselves from the problems of the rest of the world. When a country fails – becomes intolerably dangerous for its inhabitants, many of them will flee, and the U.S. will be one of the refuges they seek.

      We then have three choices.

      Admit large numbers of refugees, many of whom will be burdens on our social order. (And some of whom may be major criminals who caused the failure of their home country. The losers in warlordism and civil wars often have to fear lethal retaliation.)

      Apprehend refugees and send them back to die.

      Kill refugees at the border.

      None of these are good, but I don’t see another choice.

      ISTM that the only way to avoid this dilemma is intervention to prevent or reverse state failures. That will be neither easy or cheap, but it will be better than the alternatives.

    18. Mike K Says:

      “The medical community does not serve as a deep pocketed source, but merely as a conduit”

      Both, actually. I wish I had a dollar for every hour I spent operation gone illegal immigrants. Of course, I had to depend on paying patients to keep me going. The LA County hospital which was a pretty impressive place 50 years ago, has been destroyed by illegals.

      The real “safety net” we had for the poor has been destroyed by the poor of Mexico.

    19. Jim Says:

      Rich Rostrum –

      The US-Mexican border is actually probably not that difficult to close. Much of it is pretty difficult terrain to begin with. The Soviet Union, with an economy a small fraction of our’s, had little difficulty keeping a much longer border closed. Closing the US-Mexican border is easy compared to trying to control Afghanistan to mention one place where we are currently wasting billions not to mention lives lost.

      Throughout history many peoples have faced the danger of being overrun by other populations. Our situation compared to that of many other peoples in history is not that bad. It’s nothing compared to Slavs trying to hold off the Mongol Onslaught. Our problem is that we seem to lack the will to survive.

      Wasting lives and treasure on an immense scale by being sucked into the black holes of Third World conflicts in say the Middle East or elsewhere is madness. Talk of “failed states” in the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa is silly. There were never any states there to fail to begin with.

    20. Jim Says:

      TM Lutas – Mestizos have not demonstrated any ability to create First World societies.

    21. Mike K Says:

      “None of these are good, but I don’t see another choice.”

      We tried in California with Proposition 187 in 1994 to block the welfare state attraction, which might have prevented the present influx. It was, of course, overturned by the courts.

      In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[19] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187’s effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a “scheme” to regulate immigration:

      “California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits.”

      The judge was, of course, a Jimmy Carter appointee. It is the welfare state that attracts them, just like the refugees trying to get into England through the Chunnel who are telling reporters that they will “have it made” if they can only reach Britain and the Dole.

    22. TM Lutas Says:

      Mrs. Davis – We spent a piddling amount of money in Romania and no doubt other E. European nations helping them get their land registries rebuilt post communism. I talked to one of the people running Romania’s program and told him that the Romanians would rob the USGS blind. His answer was “we know they’re faking but if they want to continue to get the money, they’ll have to do the work eventually. Once they have a land registry, they’ll never be communist again.” I heartily approved then and still do. As a side note, Greece does not yet have, in 2015, a functioning land registry. I wonder how different the result would have been in their current crisis if they did.

      Hernando de Soto estimates that there’s a trillion dollars in “frozen capital” in Latin America that can’t be used as collateral, mostly held by the poor. A trillion dollars makes a lot of small businesses and enables a lot of job creation. Mobilizing their own assets so they can make their own small businesses and stop coming here illegally doesn’t require the 82nd airborne. It does require some smart relations down south that are friendly. Is that nation building by your definition? I don’t know. I wouldn’t use that term.

      Mike K – My point is that the hispanic vote is going 1/3 GOP and 2/3 Democrat at present. A GOP that goes trump may shift that balance to 25% GOP and 75% Democrat. That’s not good. Adopting the measures above might shift the balance 40% GOP and 60% Democrat. There’s nothing magic about getting 50% of an electoral subgroup, only getting a majority of votes on election day. Trump style messaging makes the map look worse for Republicans. My alternative is designed to make it look better. It’s also likely to be better policy that results in fewer illegals in the US.

      Michael Hiteshaw – As I mentioned to Mrs. Davis, there are things that can be done to effect change, though I wouldn’t call it nation building. The best of them will be profitable. Carlos Slim supposedly got a lot of his early wealth selling to the bottom of Mexican society which helped them economically. Figuring out how to become capitalist at a lower minimum entry level of wealth would help a great deal. With as little as $0.30, you can do a diversified peer to peer lending portfolio using bitcoin. Conventional currencies and old style investment vehicles don’t scale that far down and the gap is several orders of magnitude. Bridging that gap is an exercise in making capitalism better. Making that available in Latin America would reduce immigration pressure.

      Rich Rostrum – There is indeed an option 4 which is to make sure that the nations between the US and the crisis aren’t free riding. You naturally migrate out of a disaster to a bordering country of like culture and language. If someone’s fleeing Belize, it’s natural to go to Mexico, not the US. Mexico works hard to make sure that central americans do not end up in Mexico but are less concerned about migrants passing through Mexico on the way to the US. If they were similarly vigilant about pass through migrants as they are about migrants who try to settle in Mexico, we would have a measurably easier time controlling our own border. This is what I mean about a layer of defense in front of the wall.

      Tyouth – In case you didn’t realize it, the heartless, mustachio twirling image of a conservative is a pernicious stereotype advanced by leftists to shame people into not being conservative. I don’t go along with that. You shouldn’t either. Do you have any actual policy disagreements with what I’ve written?

      Jim – I find that I don’t have a definition of what a first world society is. Searching on the Internet, I was surprised to find that there is no widely accepted definition. What is yours? Without one, it’s hard to judge whether what you say is true.

    23. Ginny Says:

      Small moments that capture your point: Elia Kazan’s America America
      As long as there was no rule of law, his family hid the silver. etc. With it, they built a multi-generational economic productive unit in the U.S. It wasn’t a land they moved to – though its importance for homesteaders in the 19th century can’t be overstated. It was a culture.

    24. Jim Says:

      TM Lutas – You may not understand the difference however I’m sure that the Mestizos coming across the US-Mexican border do understand the difference.

    25. TM Lutas Says:

      Shorter Jim – I got nothing.

    26. East Anglian Says:

      Tyouth – In case you didn’t realize it, the heartless, mustachio twirling image of a conservative is a pernicious stereotype advanced by leftists to shame people into not being conservative. I don’t go along with that. You shouldn’t either.

      As long as the Left have the power to frame issues and define their opponents there is nothing you can do about that. They will constantly move the goalposts. They will invent knew things for you to feel guilty about. They smell your fear and weakness. Standing up to them might even appeal to ‘Hispanics’ as they value strength above freedom and they utterly despise weakness. Trump’s ‘caudillismo’ is probably right down their alley. More importantly standing up for your own people energizes them, something Romney and other milquetoast conservatives won’t do.

    27. East Anglian Says:

      Jim – You don’t give any evidence to support your assertions on IQ. Let me give you some food for thought

      Richwine’s research has not been refuted, not that IQ is the most important thing in the world. Ronald Bailey’s an ideologue, not a researcher like Richwine.

    28. TM Lutas Says:

      East Anglian – I do not accept that I can do nothing about it. In fact, the evidence is pretty strong that the left’s power to frame is eroding as the information age proceeds. A good chunk of the left wants me dead and much of the rest of the left would not lift a finger to stop them. I never forget that.

    29. TM Lutas Says:

      East Anglian – I am agnostic on IQ. Reality is what it is and I try to advocate policies that work no matter which side turns out to be right on IQ. The purpose of that link was to highlight how IQ is not a cut and dry subject with all the angels on one side and all the devils on another and if Jim wants to play in that particular sandbox he really does need to be more specific as to what he’s arguing. Jim, so far, has declined to get specific.

    30. Xennady Says:

      “I agree with that. And more, those barriers are added to at every opportunity. There’s something going on here which I’ve been struggling to understand. Since the 70’s, the left has been actively hostile to everything that makes the economy work. I attribute that to the rise of the New Left – marxists, communists and anarchists – in the Democratic Party. Hillary and Obama are both of the New Left.”

      If the US economy was functioning well and the country was prosperous- what chance would they ever have to take over and fundamentally transform the country? Not much of one, I think. So they must always work and strive to make things worse, ever worse.

      “The GOP leadership however seems to be drugged into a stupor and despite having huge influence are unwilling to even put the brakes on anything. I keep wondering: did they simply sell out to the highest bidder, or does Obama’s NSA have some serious dirt on McConnell and Boehner?”

      I suspect “selling out to the highest bidder” is something the GOP leadership regards as its highest calling. But in light of the news about Dennis Hastert I certainly think the idea of the NSA being used for blackmail is rather too possible. It seems the government is very interested in domestic spying for no good reason they want to admit, while being very dismissive of the threat from islamic terrorism. I note Jeb! has lately has come out in favor of more power for the NSA, to fight “evildoers.”

      Somehow I don’t think he wants those new powers to secure the US border.

    31. Grurray Says:

      Panama is about 2/3 Mestizo, and its economy does reasonably well. It definitely benefits from its position as a major transit point, but doesn’t the United States also benefit from its geography and location in the world?

    32. Grurray Says:

      Depending on who you ask, Columbia is around 1/2 Mestizo. I know a former coworker, bilingual, who was laid off from his job in Milwaukee in 2009 and decided to move to Barranquilla and open a call center. His company is the one you get if you don’t dial one for English. He tells me Columbia is booming. He recently opened another office in Florida, and it’s all thanks to the free trade agreement signed a decade ago.

    33. TM Lutas Says:

      Grurray – Reasonably well is, again, a variable definition that you could spend days arguing over and if you’re dedicated to denigrating mestizos, you can move those goal posts forever in order to deny any accomplishments they might accumulate. That’s why I asked Jim to define 1st world and I believe why Jim won’t.

    34. Mike K Says:

      ” It seems the government is very interested in domestic spying for no good reason they want to admit,”

      It worked like a charm in the Nixon coup d’etat.

      Felt was the number #3 man in the FBI hierarchy at the time J. Edgar Hoover died. He expected to be named as Hoover’s successor but Nixon appointed an outsider, L Patrick Gray. Gray had had an outstanding career but was vilified in the Watergate story. He never spoke of it again until he commented on Felt’s admission of his role three years ago.

      And

      Felt effectively controlled the agency given Gray’s inexperience and outsider status.) The FBI identified its enemies, then used its vast knowledge of its enemies’ wrongdoings in press leaks designed to be as devastating as possible. While carefully hiding the source of the information, it then watched the victim — who was usually guilty as sin — crumble. Felt, who himself was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was not nearly as appalled by Nixon’s crimes as by Nixon’s decision to pass him over as head of the FBI. He merely set Hoover’s playbook in motion.

    35. vxxc2014 Says:

      Trump isn’t scary.

      The Americans are.

      Yes?

      We aren’t under any mandate to save the world and we certainly can’t do it by being invaded by the world.

      We are under obligation to defend ourselves like all men and it appears we’re going to..

      That’s scary and it should be.
      ===============

      All those proposals are quite to the Left and from the Left–open child abuse cases? work with existing governments of home nations? Leftist.

      The only candidate to the right of Trump is a familiar figure from History. I think you’ll prefer Trump. But if he falls we’ll get another leader.

      It’s going to get scarier.

    36. vxxc2014 Says:

      We have to defend ourselves.

      By its very nature it’s scary.

      Take Trump – he’s reasonable and pragmatic.

      A bargain compared to alternatives.

    37. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      TM Lutas Says:
      August 25th, 2015 at 10:47 am

      ….Mike K – My point is that the hispanic vote is going 1/3 GOP and 2/3 Democrat at present. A GOP that goes trump may shift that balance to 25% GOP and 75% Democrat. That’s not good. Adopting the measures above might shift the balance 40% GOP and 60% Democrat…..

      What is the electoral calculus of gaining 7% of the Hispanic vote [best case scenario] to get the 40% GOPe -v- 60% Democrat and simultaneously losing 50 million conservative votes?

      Already a significant fraction of the Republican base hates the Republican Party. It is so bad that even the GOPe pollsters are starting to admit it.

      http://time.com/4009413/donald-trump-focus-group-frank-luntz/

      This is largely because there are no real policy differences between the two wings of the Governing Party once elected. Immigration is the point of the spear. Trump is the only one carrying a spear. If some other Republican was fighting what the Democrats are doing, really calling them out and fighting, then Trump would not be where he is. But no Republican acceptable to the GOPe will.

      Subotai Bahadur

    38. Mike K Says:

      I hadn’t seen that focus group but this is a real phenomenon. I just don’t know that I trust Trump to stay on message and do the job. Perot certainly didn’t. There was a time when I was even thinking of voting for Perot.

      The worst thing that could happen is to give us another idiotic Democrat. Read HuffPo and see that there are lots of people who will vote for Democrats no matter what.

    39. TM Lutas Says:

      Vxxc2014 – You’re joking, right, that child abuse is only of concern to leftists? Tell me you’re joking. Would you like some mustache wax to aid in your twirling? Here we have a perfect opportunity to hit the Democrats as being soft on child abuse and you want to pass on that? What side are you on?

      And you bet I want to work with existing governments to repatriate their citizens who have been victims of child abuse back to their own countries. That means they pay for the air fare. You want us to pay for it? Working closely with other countries is what we did to win in El Salvador, Colombia, and a host of other difficult situations. What do you want to do, spend 10x the money for 0.5x the results by going it alone? Why would we ever do that?

      Hernando de Soto has a very long pedigree on the right and runs the Institute for Liberty and Democracy in Peru. He’s a fan of Milton Friedman. Why are you labelling an effort to implement what he’s advocated for decades left wing?

      Subotai Bahadur – Now we’re getting to brass tacks. What, specifically is offensive to conservatives about instituting a lifetime bar to immigrate to the US for any parent that sends their kid alone to cross our border illegally? What, specifically, is offensive about reducing regulations for job creation? What, specifically, is offensive about getting serious about promoting capitalism abroad?

      I do agree that it’s distressingly common for Republicans to go native in Washington. Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker can make credible cases that they are not going to go native. Trump is an unknown on this. What makes him trustworthy, his bank account?

    40. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      I do agree that it’s distressingly common for Republicans to go native in Washington. Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker can make credible cases that they are not going to go native. Trump is an unknown on this. What makes him trustworthy, his bank account?

      And these three are the only ones of the “regular” candidates that I would trust. The rest of them are merely ¡Jeb! clones to one extent or another and would do nothing different than Hillary. And we know that the three have absolutely no chance of being the nominee.

      I direct your attention to Rules of the Republican Party 40b, which governs who can be placed in nomination. During the 2012 Convention, that rule was changed for the express purpose of not allowing anyone but Romney to be placed in nomination.

      Short form, the old rule was that to be placed in nomination you needed to have gotten the most votes in 5 state primaries. Ron Paul would have qualified under that rule. So they changed it to an absolute majority [50%+1] in 8 states. Which only allowed Romney to be nominated. The new rule is still in effect, and the GOPe will not be allowing any changes.

      We have a metric butt-load [app. 477 liters] of candidates. We have 50 states. Subtract those who have mandatory proportional division of delegates, and the only candidate who has any chance of getting 8 is ¡Jeb! or if he drops out, whoever the GOPe backs. If no one meets the 8 requirement, it goes to a back room for a brokered convention, with the GOPe doing the brokering.

      There will almost surely be a Republican establishment candidate who got far less than a majority of the delegates. In which case, Trump may well go 3rd party and thus destroy the Republican Party. Which will deserve it. Further, if Trump, or one of the 3 who can be trusted gets the nomination, we have all seen [and frequently been the victim of] the Republican willingness and insistence on losing to the Democrat rather than win with a conservative.

      The game is rigged. Those of us who have played it for decades [including in my case running a presidential campaign in my county] know it is. It is not a matter of trust, other than now being able to trust the Republicans to betray their voters. It is a matter of the fact that with Trump there is actually a possibility of getting something Conservatives want, and the surety that we will never get anything from any Republican they would be willing to nominate. And at least Trump has the chance to wreak vengeance on the Republicans if/when they betray us.

      This is not the world of our old high school civics class.

      Subotai Bahadur

    41. Mike K Says:

      “The game is rigged. ”

      I just do not agree. I have spent some time in local politics and agree with Kissinger that the competition is so vicious because so little is at stake.

      I don’t think the GOP is a conspiracy. I do think there are a lot of clueless “Ruling Class” types.

    42. TM Lutas Says:

      Subotai Bahadur – I don’t think that Cruz, Walker, and Jindal should be written off before the first votes are cast. If the GOP is to die, it would be appreciated if the conservative insurgents had the foresight to prepare to induct, train, and network the army of committeemen, poll watchers, and judges necessary to ensure that the election isn’t stolen. There will be very little time to manage the feat and being prepared with a cadre waiting to go might be something that will actually provide a moment of clarity for the establishment GOP and obviate the need to put the plan in action after all.

    43. Rich Rostrom Says:

      Jim Says: August 25th, 2015 at 7:55 am
      Rich Rostrum –

      and
      TM Lutas Says: August 25th, 2015 at 10:47 am
      Rich Rostrum –

      My name is Rostrom. If you can’t read and remember, cut and paste. (That’s my sore toe. I always complain when it’s trodden on.)

      Jim also Says: August 25th, 2015 at 7:55 am
      Talk of “failed states” in the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa is silly. There were never any states there to fail to begin with.

      This is rubbish – unless your definition of a state is different from anyone else’s. Is Saudi Arabia not a state? Turkey? Morocco? South Africa? Iran? Kenya? Was Egypt

      TM Lutas also Says: August 25th, 2015 at 10:47 am
      There is indeed an option 4 which is to make sure that the nations between the US and the crisis aren’t free riding.

      So we somehow compel other nations to do the dirty work? And it will be dirty work. Any nation which has desperate people fleeing for their lives on the border has that same set of choices. Suppose that nation is, say, Mexico. How are we going to compel Mexico to kill incoming refugees, or send them back to die? And if Mexico doesn’t do that, then the refugees get to our border – and we have those same three choices, at one remove.

      What would you have done about Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany? That is the archetypical example. We will see parallel cases, if not now, in the near future.

      Perhaps we can arrange it so that more ruthless countries deal with such problem for us. I don’t think that’s anything the U.S. will be proud of.

      BTW, I write as one who believes that any “immigration policy” which does not begin with deportation of at least five million illegals is useless.

    44. Xennady Says:

      “You’re joking, right, that child abuse is only of concern to leftists? Tell me you’re joking. Would you like some mustache wax to aid in your twirling? Here we have a perfect opportunity to hit the Democrats as being soft on child abuse and you want to pass on that? What side are you on?”

      I’m sorry, but this just isn’t going to work. If you attempt to hit the democrats as being soft on child abuse they’ll just propose that an entire new department of the government be created to ensure that our uninvited guests receive only the best of care. And I can’t imagine that conservative voters will be receptive to the idea that we need to do more always moar for people who invite themselves here illegally expecting and demanding endless benefits and accommodations.

      I suggest we simply round up the latest batch of invaders and return them to their country of origin, and let them sort it out themselves. I’m sorry to be harsh, but I’m thoroughly tired of being expected to pay endlessly to solve the problems of foreigners who have no significant attachment to the United States, its culture, or people.

      “What, specifically is offensive to conservatives about instituting a lifetime bar to immigrate to the US for any parent that sends their kid alone to cross our border illegally?”

      This is a fine idea- but why should these folks expect to have any right to move here in the first place?

      I say they should not.

    45. Jim Says:

      To Rich Rostrom – Please accept my sincere apology for misspelling your name.

      Saudi Arabia is a bunch of tribes who are ready to slit each others throats at a moment’s notice.

    46. Jonathan Says:

      Rich Rostrom:
      So we somehow compel other nations to do the dirty work?

      This has been a general problem with recent US foreign policy under both political parties. We have tried to persuade other countries, either by verbal suasion or bribery, to do our work for us on the cheap. What often happens is that the other country interprets our unwillingness to take direct action as weakness, infers that we therefore will avoid taking action in any event, and continues to pursue its own interests, often to our detriment. This is what happened when we tried to get China to pressure North Korea to drop its nuclear weapons program. One might reasonably predict that something analogous will happen if we try to get Mexico to bear the brunt of protecting our southern border.

      If we are serious about keeping illegal migrants from crossing our borders we are going to have to stop them ourselves.

    47. Ediv710 Says:

      “Trump’s plan is weak because it is reactive and offers nothing in terms of reducing immigration pressure beyond our border where the first level of defense should be.”

      This type of argument is too clever by half. We can ask, plead, and beg the Third World to liberalize their economical and political systems, but what if they don’t agree? What if they don’t change? A number of middle and upper class Mexicans don’t care if uneducated and poor Mexicans leave Mexico. So what’s the impetus for Mexico to reform?

      Let’s not wait for the world to become a better place in order for the US to be secure. With his plan, Trump addresses the basic problems that the Left and the Intelligencia on the Right refuse to acknowledge: (1) Mexican Cartel domination of the southern border, (2) illegal immigrant mothers bestowing US citizenship on their children, with no regards to our process, (3) lack of naturalization of immigrants, and perhaps the most galling, (4) Americans as a non factor as to the decision of who and when can people immigrate to their land.

    48. grey eagle Says:

      “If a mother from Miami, FL put her 12 year old on a freight train, destination, San Francisco, CA there is no question that child endangerment and abuse would be on the prosecutor’s menu when the kid’s caught…”. So why not do this to the parents of children shipped on freight trains from Mexico.

      If you capture these parents and put them in US jails, the parents get free room and board in a US prison plus free english language and culture lessons, plus free membership in La Raza and membership in hispanic gangs/underworld. The kid is placed in a shelter and possible adopted out by local millionaires (relatively speaking).

      There is no way to fix the problem except build an impenetrable wall and ignore the suffering by frustrated would-be immigrants. Socialist remedies have been tried by the Mexican government. Laissez faire capitalism is unthinkable. Ony total Soviet style tyranny can force the people to obey a simple soviet-style 5 year plan.

      Socialism has triumphed everywhere in the world. It cannot be escaped by fleeing migrants. There is no hope – only the equality of universal suffering at the hands of a compassionate rling class.

    49. TMLutas Says:

      Rich Rostrom – Sorry on the name thing. You’re entitled to have it spelled correctly. It was unintentional.

      Mexico was selectively enforcing its laws and allowing central americans safe passage during the Obama administration so long as they didn’t try to stop and get work in Mexico. That ended about a week after the major train route going north suffered a derailment and 1,500 central americans found themselves in the middle of Mexico without any reasonable way to continue their journey. Mexico soon thereafter started running train inspections like a normal country. I don’t think that there was a CIA black up to do a derailment but if there would be, it wouldn’t take much effort. Derailing a train is not that hard.

      Getting a country to enforce its own law may be legitimately difficult in a completely dysfunctional mess like Haiti but Mexico is a proud nation that’s making legitimate progress on law enforcement as it gets richer and that progress is happening for its own reasons. Drawing international investment, keeping crime down, satisfying emerging political blocs of middle class voters, these all work in the US’ favor here.

      This is all a numbers game. If 1 illegal alien crosses the border, the republic will endure. If a billion cross the border, the republic will not endure. The task at hand is to get as close as reasonably possible to the former case. By creating a psychological space to consider measures to reduce the numbers before these migrants hit the wall, Trump’s competitors have a wide open area to shine on immigration and reduce Trump to me-to status. That’s my point, that Trump doesn’t have to own this issue.

      Xennady – Since the child abuser is outside our borders, our only legal obligation is to put them on a no-entry list. That’s cheap. In fact, doing more than notifying the host country of these people’s child abuser status is anti-westphalian and thus against our national interest as one of the world’s largest beneficiaries of the westphalian international system.

      I think I’ve been clear that returning people to their point of origin is a lesser included measure. If I wasn’t clear, sorry on the poor presentation. We simply don’t disagree on deportation. The post is about getting to the right of Donald Trump (and peeling off some of his supporters) while at the same time, not alienating all the people that Trump has been alienating. Casting the unaccompanied minor issue as a child abuse story does this electorally and objectively leads us to a superior policy result.

      Jim – Still waiting for that definition of what is a first world country.

      Jonathan – Mexico does not want us to undertake anti-migrant operations in Mexico. We won’t have to if Mexico simply enforces Mexican law on the issue. The power dynamics are fundamentally different than the analogy you make with China-North Korea.

      Ediv710 – You’re miscasting my proposal as either/or. It’s not. Building a wall is common sense as a component of a proper strategy to control migration into the US. But a wall without a good numbers reduction effort aimed at winnowing down the problem before they get to the wall is going to end up getting bypassed by various breaching strategies known at least as far back as Vauban in the 1600s. Trump’s number reduction strategy in front of the wall is a blank page. That gives other candidates an opening. That’s my point.

      Grey Eagle – A criminal in another country that committed their crime there is generally not kidnapped and put into US jails. If they come to the US’ attention, they generally get put on no entry lists as undesirables. I do not believe the families of unaccompanied minors are currently getting listed this way, nor are their co-conspirators in the US. Why would you jump to the conclusion that recognizing this foreign crime requires US incarceration? We are not the world’s jailer. Child abusers are, rightly, considered a category of people that we don’t want as immigrants. But that is only relevant if we do not use prosecutorial discretion and decline to create a case file to get them listed as ineligible for visa or naturalization.

      Simply listing them as child abusers stops any paperwork for legal entry, imperils any current naturalization processes (for in country co-conspirators), and generally sends the right message that 14 year olds riding the rails on freight trains is a monumentally irresponsible act. The Obama administration got this policy challenge really wrong in a way that moms all over the country would understand, but only if the issue is raised. Trump hasn’t raised it. Another GOP contender should.

      Concrete and steel are good components of a winning strategy. I endorse them. They are not the only good components. I think that it is simply wrong to limit yourself to defending the border via a wall (“[t]here is no way to fix the problem except build an impenetrable wall”).

    50. Jonathan Says:

      TMLutas,

      If we enforced our own migration rules in this country Mexican policy wouldn’t be an issue.

    51. TMLutas Says:

      Jonathan – So we should ignore the Mexican dirty tricks they pull with their wink and nod acceptance of illegals so long as they don’t settle in Mexico but go to the US? That’s not a friendly act.

    52. Jonathan Says:

      We have limited control over Mexican policy, but we have complete control over our own policy. If we got serious about blocking illegal migration through our southern border, people in Central and South America would quickly learn that the costs and risks of the trip North aren’t worth it.

      If we want to try to persuade Mexico to stop tolerating illegal migration, that’s fine. Maybe some good will come of it. But if Mexico doesn’t cooperate to the extent we want, the correct response is not to try harder to persuade Mexico. That is weakness. The correct response is to do what we need to do on our own.

    53. TMLutas Says:

      Jonathan – There’s a conceptual difference between working three zones and working two. Trump’s plan works just two zones. Adding that third zone in to start the process of reducing illegal immigration is a conceptually superior plan that doesn’t have alienate hispanics. This conceptual difference is what I’m talking about when I’m talking about an easy way to beat Trump on immigration. It’s the difference between a full court press and just waiting for the guys to dribble the ball down to your half of the court before you start playing defense.

      The implementation details, I’m pretty flexible about. The conceptual difference is more important for me. But one thing I’d clarify is that the sort of persuasion I’m talking about is not necessarily the cuddly version. The second step if Mexico doesn’t leap to help us fix things isn’t to try to bribe them or beg them harder. It’s to go over the government’s head. I don’t think that Mexicans would like the idea of their country being labelled soft on child abuse anymore than the Democrats would like their party to bear that label.

      Mexico is not shy about entering our courts to press their interests. We shouldn’t be either.

    54. Grurray Says:

      There’s a lot of ethnic and, to the extent of skin color, racial discrimination in Mexico. That’s why the Central American migrants get treated so badly. I’m sure you could find some reasonable and compassionate people to help, but I’m not sure they would likely be found in official positions of sufficient influence.

    55. Mike K Says:

      “Mexico is not shy about entering our courts to press their interests. We shouldn’t be either.”

      Mexican courts are a joke.

    56. Sgt. Mom Says:

      I’d be fine with the US utilizing Mexico’s standards for treating resident aliens. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

    57. TMLutas Says:

      Grurray – Any zone one effort is one of driving down the numbers that might otherwise overwhelm the wall. It’s not about solving the problem entirely there. I agree with your analysis of the difficulties but it’s somewhat beside the point.

      Sgt. Mom – We handle 20% of the world’s migrants. Handled right, with a robust americanization process that is not overwhelmed by too many coming at once, this influx is an advantage for us. Today, we’re not handling it well. That doesn’t mean that Mexico is handling it better.