Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump takes action on immigration!

For naysayer commenters who insisted that Trump would be all talk no action, according to the NY Times, Trump has already taken a lot of actions to begin enforcing the immigration laws and building the wall. Much to the outrage of liberals and the mainstream media.

* * *

Is Trump really doing anything, or just making some PR? Well, it’s clear that the liberals believe he is really doing stuff, otherwise they wouldn’t be outraged. If liberals believed his executive orders were just for show but with no tooth, then they’d be smugly lecturing Trump supporters that Trump is reneging on his campaign promises (instead of praising Trump for being more moderate now that he’s in office).

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 26, 2017 at 9:21 am

Posted in Immigration, Politics

68 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Maybe he is a mensch. I still think the wall is a dumb idea in reality – nice symbolism, but it will be ridiculously expensive, and an easy ugly target for pro-immigration forces to rally around. Enforce existing immigration laws and crack down on employers who hire illegals, and the flow of illegals will dry up pretty quickly.

    Peter Akuleyev

    January 26, 2017 at 9:25 am

    • The wall is stupid but he needed it to win over the morons in the GOP primary and it is a great way to troll the shit out of Mexico and liberals. Also it will force the Democrats to run on the platform of tearing the wall down which will be politically suicidal.

      Really Trump can just put up the unbuilt 600km of fencing that has already been authorized by Congress and just declare victory.

      Otis the Sweaty

      January 26, 2017 at 11:07 am

      • “is a great way to troll the shit out of Mexico and liberals.”

        It’s the most epic troll job of all time, and I say tax dollars well spent!

        Memes are becoming self-aware. What a time to be alive!!

        Two in the Bush

        January 27, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    • what is a mensch? Speak English.

      Andrew E.

      January 26, 2017 at 11:12 am

      • It would have taken you less time to look the word up, and then you’d have a new useful vocabulary word.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 26, 2017 at 11:31 am

      • what is a mensch? Speak English.

        Mensch = The Lion

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 26, 2017 at 5:20 pm

      • Only an untermench doesn’t know what a mench is.


        January 26, 2017 at 6:30 pm

      • Only an untermench doesn’t know what a mench is.

        Now don’t strain his already limited brainpower by asking him to research ‘unter’.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 26, 2017 at 7:28 pm

      • I’ll be nice. Yiddish for ‘person’, but the general meaning is ‘a good guy’.

        I actually think Trump is more of a macher, long as we’re using Yiddish, but it makes sense Lion would like him–with a white-identity following but lots of Jews in his organization, you get white nationalism without antisemitism.

        Well, a couple of people paint swastikas on synagogues and give the Forward fits, but I imagine lots of people here see annoying liberal Jews as a feature not a bug.


        January 26, 2017 at 8:43 pm

      • Mensch is actually German. Germans use it the exact same way that Jews do. Germans ‘n Jews – have so much in common! Kissin’ cousins!


        January 27, 2017 at 10:58 am

    • How is the wall stupid? Walls work. Israel’s southern border wall reduced illegal immigration there by ~99%.

      And “ridiculously expensive”? The cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of taking care of illegals (see tweet below).

      Enforcing existing immigration laws and cracking down on employers makes sense, but it won’t affect drug mules or pregnant women coming over to give birth to American citizens. It’s stupid not to build the wall.

      David Pinsen

      January 27, 2017 at 4:11 am

      • @Dave,

        Not stupid at all, and I don’t understand why Otis says stuff like this. It’s totally doable and rational, which is why the left hates it so. It can work if we want it to. All the objections are idiotic.

        Analyze the border. Parts are very difficult to pass via foot. Counterintuitively, those are the parts that should be surveilled most assiduously, because they are the areas that illegals and their agents, being more desperate and clever than we are, focus their activities. But it can be done with drones, satellites, etc. The easier areas are for the wall. I concede that this is partly theater, for the reason I’ve already states, but the illegals would be forced into the open if we surveilled the harder areas.

        Then there are the tunnels which drug cartels have openly & notoriously & flagrantly built under the border, no doubt with traitorous help on our side*, which should be either blown up, filled in with molten lava with the cartel leaders inside, or turned into pedestrian malls with Starbucks, and Gaps, and Gamestops, all paid for by Mexico. These could be our future crossings. Only via tunnel.

        In short, “The Wall” is a many-faceted concept referring to efficient border control. In some places, an actual big, beautiful wall. In others, high tech surveillance. The left is just bullshitting. No surprise.

        *I would not be the slightest bit surprised if the tunnel building corruption went to the highest reaches of the Obama Administration.


        January 27, 2017 at 11:08 am

  2. This is a key issue for Trump – he’s got to do it if he wants to keep faith with his base. Recall what happened to George “Read My Lips – No New Taxes” Bush. He broke faith with his base on this flagship issue and ended up getting clobbered in his reelection campaign. The same thing will happen to Trump if he doesn’t build the wall and start shippin’ ’em back. But I don’t think Trump’s that stupid – he’s going to do what he said he will do.

    BTW, expect lots of weepy stories in the MSM about all the terrible hardships the poor illegal are suffering when the deportations begin. Oh, the pain! The indignity! Boo hoo hoo!

    Black Death

    January 26, 2017 at 9:56 am

    • Trump will not seek a second term.

      E. Rekshun

      January 26, 2017 at 11:53 am

    • It began already a few days ago on NPR. And I agree, it is heartrending and appalling that children be ripped from their families. That’s why we need to repatriate the entire family, mom, dad, and all their anchor babies, back to mom and dad’s country of origin where they have roots and can build a life back in their glorious, beautiful home countries.

      Wow, I can’t believe I agree with NPR! Wow just wow, I can’t even!


      January 26, 2017 at 12:53 pm

      • it is heartrending and appalling that children be ripped from their families.

        Screw that. We do it all the time when we put dads in prison. Children should not be permitted to profit from parental crime, not should parents be given a pass on their crimes because they have children.


        January 27, 2017 at 10:11 am

  3. Trump has been outperforming so far. Awesome president!


    January 26, 2017 at 10:12 am

    • There’s still legislation to get passed: nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity, national required E-Verify, national voter ID (maybe an ID for everything), and possibly a bill for Wall-related funding, unless the Republicans are just wrapping that up in the big budget bill.

      I was delighted to hear he’s been talking with legislators in the White House, since he got there. He needs to be shaking hands and telling jokes as much as possible, because he’s got a country to save.


      January 26, 2017 at 12:08 pm

      • Concealed carry reciprocity would be a bad idea, and also violate the constitutional grant to the states to regulate their “militias.” The Second Ammendment was only intended to apply to the federal government.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 26, 2017 at 12:11 pm

      • @ LotB

        It sems easy to interpret the 2nd amendment to allow it. Regardless it’s a great idea because it will tamp down crime in metropolises where criminals today can assume most people are unarmed.

        Also Trump mentioned it in his policy papers, which I’m sure you remember. Maybe he won’t do it because of legal obstacles… but he really should because it’s brilliant. A great way to make gun rights stronger.


        January 26, 2017 at 12:27 pm

      • I don’t see the practical benefit of ghetto people carrying concealed guns. The 2nd Amendment envisioned white European farmers carrying guns.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 26, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      • @ LotB

        Reciprocity won’t mean that you don’t still have to apply for a permit. You would still have to go through the process, and might still get denied, if you’re a felon, a foreigner, etc.

        What it means, as I understand it, is that all states will have to respect each other’s permits. That means farmers with a CCW permit in Arkansas can carry in New York. Which is basically the opposite situation from what you paint. Ghetto dwellers would generally still be denied, and acquire their guns illegally (what they already do).

        I guess New York could still arbitrarily deny its own residents CCW permits, which is what it does now. But eventually it would probably liberalize it’s process, not to deny law-abiding New York residents. It’s inability to stop, say, Pennsylvania residents from carrying in its borders, would pressure it not to deny its residents privileges it grants to non-resident non-taxpayers.


        January 26, 2017 at 1:03 pm

      • >>It sems easy to interpret the 2nd amendment to allow it……

        This is precisely how a leftist Democrat thinks. When one cannot get his way through the legislature find a convenient judge to “discover” something in the Constitution that compels it by judicial fiat. This little trick of the Democrats has to be exposed and annihilated. The Republicans should not resort to the same trick for expediency.


        January 26, 2017 at 4:23 pm

      • stop and frisk + full, complete national CCW without gun-free zones would be a great idea

        – it would put pressure on California, too..which is very important. The less gun restrictions there are the better get people used to (owning) guns, which would lead to better protection of the 2A

        your stance on gun rights is pretty stupid, your ghetto blacks and spics have plenty of weapons, including knives and feet…you are practically begging to get kidnapped and tortured (to death)

        the most obvious and the best things to lower crime would be to sentence young minority women to very long prison terms even for moderate crimes + extreme punishements for violent crimes (talking about males, here)

        than you’d straigthen up the work market by kicking out the illegals and tailoring the benefits, so you’d get the meekest and brightest to reproduce more causing eugenic enviroment in the lower classes


        January 26, 2017 at 4:55 pm

      • @ Daniel

        It isn’t a stretch. It’s not clear that national CCW would even interfere in the states’ ability to maintain militias… but even if it does, are militias what the 2nd amendment protects?

        I guess legal scholars might say yes, but maybe that’s just what motivates it, not what it protects. Maybe you could argue that in court.

        It’s not even worth worrying about, really, because this is about protecting our shared heritage, our liberty, and our way of life. Those thing are bigger than the wording of the Constitution. They’re its spirit. It’s not worth listening to the people who’ll cry that he’s breaking some petty rules.

        The Founders certainly didn’t write the Constitution to enable short-sighted, effete people to disarm law-abiding citizens, and embolden thugs, and if legal theory has to change to show that, then it should.


        January 26, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      • “This little trick of the Democrats has to be exposed and annihilated. The Republicans should not resort to the same trick for expediency.”

        First use it to unwind leftism, then get rid of it.


        January 26, 2017 at 6:29 pm

      • This is precisely how a leftist Democrat thinks. When one cannot get his way through the legislature find a convenient judge to “discover” something in the Constitution that compels it by judicial fiat. This little trick of the Democrats has to be exposed and annihilated. The Republicans should not resort to the same trick for expediency.

        Nope. The Democrats have made the rules, now let’s play by them to win. It is stupid, stupid, stupid to play by the rules when the other side doesn’t. That’s the reason the Wuss Right always loses.


        January 27, 2017 at 10:13 am

      • Agree with tarl.

        Stop cucking, Daniel. It never works.


        January 27, 2017 at 6:47 pm

  4. “The former Florida governor [Jeb Bush], who dropped his bid for the White House in February, on the night of the South Carolina primary, said voters will ‘feel betrayed’ by Trump because some of his campaign promises – from building a Mexican border wall to banning non-American Muslims from the country – would never materialize.”

    Mike Street Station

    January 26, 2017 at 10:35 am

  5. You think he has the balls to after the 14th amendment? No welfare and no 14th is one of the cheapest ways to get rid of these colonizers.

    Mayor of Space

    January 26, 2017 at 11:11 am

    • He doesn’t need an amendment to go after it, even. The wording of the natural-born clause is ambiguous, and can be interpreted such that illegals’ anchor babies are not citizens (since illegals are not fully “under the jurisdiction” of the United States). He needs to get at least one appointment on the SCOTUS, then get one of his friends or allies to sue the US gov’t over the issue.

      Of course it’s a long term plan, but ending birthright citizenship would cement his legacy, perhaps as one of the greatest presidents in history.


      January 26, 2017 at 11:48 am

    • Trump needs to appoint SCOTUS justices who clerked under Thomas. Then we can start rolling back FDR’s Administrative state, the incorporation doctrine, etc.

      Andrew E.

      January 26, 2017 at 11:50 am

    • If you think getting rid of DACA would be controversial, going after the 14th amend based on extremely dodgy legal theories would make that look like the annual turkey pardon.

      (The text of the amendment is not the slightest bit ambiguous; “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” just excludes children of foreign diplomats and the no-longer-existent category of noncitizen Indians).

      Of course, I want the POTUS to appoint right-wing hacks to the courts, who use whatever extremely dodgy legal theory best suits them to write their policy preferences into law. It’s what the other side does, and it’s why their nominees are always slam-dunks and the GOP’s have a better than 50% chance of being disasters.

      But the POTUS shouldn’t address the 14th amend issue directly, only indirectly through court appointments.


      January 26, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    • If you think getting rid of DACA would be controversial, going after the 14th amend based on extremely dodgy legal theories would make that look like the annual turkey pardon.

      He doesn’t have to if all of the illegal immigrants are deported; they can’t give birth to US citizens and collect welfare if they are off US soil:

      Specifically we assess the impact on Hispanic population growth by merely deporting all illegal aliens and deterring new illegals, with no changes to legal immigration. Isolated from other actions, the effect of turning back just illegal immigration would be significant:

      Since 1990 the net annual increase of the Hispanic population has been in the range of 1.4 to 1.5 million persons. Assuming net annual illegal immigration is at least 500,000, blocking new illegal Hispanics would slow their annual growth rate to 900,000 to 1 million. Assuming illegal immigrants give birth to 400,000 to 500,000 children each year, the removal of existing illegal immigrants (who when off United States soil would be unable to give birth to new citizens) would decrease their overall population growth to only 400,000 to 600,000 a year.

      This slowdown would occur absent any changes to legal immigration policy. Were legal immigration lowered to 300,000 or less, the growth of the Hispanic population would become stagnant; possibly going into reverse as their birth rate declines, and limited to no inflows make up for the out-migration or deaths of existing Hispanics.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 26, 2017 at 5:29 pm

      • You’re preaching to the choir here.


        January 26, 2017 at 5:34 pm

      • You’re preaching to the choir here.

        The choir didn’t know there was an option to ending anchor babies aside from throwing the dice in another Supreme Court battle – if the illegals are not in the country they can’t give birth to US citizens. Keeping so many hundreds of thousands of non-white babies from being granted citizenship at birth also helps increase the proportion of white babies born every year.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 26, 2017 at 7:08 pm

      • I like you, but that’s a bit rude; I’m fully aware of the obvious fact that illegals can’t have anchor babies after they’ve been deported. Hence why I just said that we’d have more success going after immigration in other ways than attacking the 14th head-on.


        January 27, 2017 at 12:00 pm

      • I like you, but that’s a bit rude; I’m fully aware of the obvious fact that illegals can’t have anchor babies after they’ve been deported.

        Very well then – more are aware of the option than were not before.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 27, 2017 at 6:47 pm

  6. Enough with employers having to be the first line of defense in enforcing immigration law. This is the job of our government – period. Here in the Boston area they are framing funding withdrawal as an attack on immigrants rather than illegal immigration. Of course no one from the press questions this fact.


    January 26, 2017 at 11:14 am

    • Legal immigrants are no better than illegals. Don’t be a cuck.

      Otis the Sweaty

      January 26, 2017 at 11:53 am

      • You can use legal immigration to skim the cream off other countries and raise the IQ of the American gene pool. Of course, you want to allow few enough in that they actually assimilate.


        January 26, 2017 at 8:44 pm

      • Reversion to the mean. No matter how smart the subset of the ethnic group, the offspring will still revert to a mean that is low, albeit influenced by the parent’s mean.

        Also siphoning off the best and brightest from other countries might functionally be an act of war since it produces similar results to our bombing of Syria and the refugee crisis it creates (which we then have to deal with).

        I think La Griffe wrote an article on critical mass needed to maintain high level civilization.


        January 28, 2017 at 1:10 am

      • People keep repeating this “regression to the mean nonsense” without understanding it.

        People don’t regress to the mean of their race, they regress to the mean of their ancestors. You can think of that as people regressing to the mean of their great-grand parents.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 28, 2017 at 12:16 pm

    • It’s only rational to hire illegals, if you run certain kinds of business. Construction, restaurants, and landscaping come to mind.

      I don’t like big gov’t, or any gov’t at all, but since there already is one, and our culture is in dire need… it might as well do what its laws say it should, and make it _irrational_ for businesspeople to hire illegals.

      Make it so costly, so risky, you’d be foolish to do it. The recipe for that is national required E-Verify, a national ID, and very public arrests of employer’s who ignore the law, followed by stiff financial penalties, punitive and in proportion to their means.


      January 26, 2017 at 11:56 am

  7. Because of the Obama administration, a lot of these illegal immigrants are so arrogant, especially where I live, they think they’re better than black people, they think white people are dumb, the women stay pregnant, and think they’re entitled to all government assistance, because they gave birth to U.S. citizens, the men drink and drive, they dont care nothing about the law,they are so nasty, sneaky and rude, l hope a deportation force come out here, and put an end to that nasty self entitlement mentally.


    January 26, 2017 at 1:17 pm

  8. HuffPo’s poll tracker has Trump at 46.5% approval and 41% disapproval. It seems like Congressional Republicans are behind him and of course Trump is overwhelmingly popular amongst Republican voters. The HuffPo tracker is pretty good. It had Hillary beating Trump by 4.9% in the 3 way race which was only 2.8% off. It was 4% off for Brexit. So you can count on it to give you a relatively accurate result.

    On the surface, Trump’s numbers are weak because he is in what is traditionally the honeymoon phase of his Presidency, but it has been clear for a while that Trump was never going to have a honeymoon phase, so past Presidencies offer no meaningful comparison.

    It’s gonna take a while Trump to get his team in order with all those GOPe traitors around. Sounds like things are starting to tighten up, however. Also looking forward to some good meetings with foreign leaders which will be good PR.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 26, 2017 at 1:35 pm

  9. NeoGaf in disbelief that Congress has indicated they are willing to fund the wall:

    These people have no grasp of reality whatsoever. They really thought Congress was going to go to war with Trump over his number 1 campaign issue.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 26, 2017 at 2:12 pm

  10. NeoGaf quote: “The reason people are so infuriated by Trump’s wall (myself included) is the symbolic horror of walls in history. The Berlin wall, the Isaeli wall with Gaza. The progressive thrust of history is toward internationalism and free movement of peoples. Border walls are misanthropic.”

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 26, 2017 at 2:20 pm

  11. Putting the $8 billion wall into context, consider that according to the Cato Institute, annual cost of welfare programs (both federal and state) exceeds a trillion dollars. On this basis, the Wall will cost the equivalent of about three days of welfare payments. Not a bad deal all in all.


    January 26, 2017 at 2:26 pm

  12. 20% tax on Mexican imports!

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 26, 2017 at 3:28 pm

  13. “Well, it’s clear that the liberals believe he is really doing stuff, otherwise they wouldn’t be outraged…”

    They also think he’s a fascist Nazi. So their impression isn’t a very reliable guide.


    January 26, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    • I wouldn’t say that. “Nazi” means that they believe Trump will roll back some of the crazy PC stuff that has infected our nation.

      Jeb! is not a “Nazi” because they knew he would never roll back open border or support the police against BLM.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 26, 2017 at 5:57 pm

      • Well, it’s complicated. ‘Nazi’ means that they think Trump is going to be a fascist dictator, only going after a different Abrahamic religion that isn’t Christianity.

        What actually is likely to happen, IMHO, is that he will roll back some of the PC crap. But because they’ve tabooed so many subjects, cutting Muslim immigration gets seen as being on a slippery slope to the Holocaust.


        January 26, 2017 at 8:48 pm

      • OK, I’m a kind of guy who’ll look as “antisemitic” to most people at this blog most of the times, but I have something different than usual to say.

        1) Some times, your liberal “cousins” are smarter, or I’d say more sensible, than you.
        Seriously, do you think full-fledged ethnonationalism could NOT bring troubles for Jews?

        That’s very kind of you, but too optimistic about human nature.

        Ethnonationalism is a faith, not a rational political device: either it’s not there, or it can get very sparkly, explosive.

        Due to your skills + ethnic cohesion/networking +, if I can say so, very assertive average personality, you’ll be the first to be in trouble wherever ethnonationalism takes roots.

        Wherever there are differences in skills, peaceful cohabitation requires deception and political correctness.

        T Clock

        January 29, 2017 at 8:18 pm

  14. Spicer said that a tax of 20% on mexican import would being 10 bn, but it’s stupid. Because the tax wouldn’t be on trade deficit but total import, so that would be 60 bn (300 bn import, 240 bn import). We can imagine there would be a 50 M on import so probably it would be 30 bn. Then certainly they would be taxes on export, and you’ll export no more than 120 bn. So a big part of the 30 bn would be needed to help exporters who would lose their market (agriculture etc. ) because internal demand can’t easily replace exportation. I think this “arrangement” would bring a combined lost of at least 250 bn (60/40). For the USA it’s 1% of GDP. For Mexico, it’s 12%. It’s so shameful and stupid ….

    Bruno from Paris

    January 26, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    • Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, he’s keeping his promise.

      Trump sees it as punishment against Mexico for allowing their country to be a porous conduit for people breaking U.S. laws.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 26, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    • @ Bruno

      Imagine the Mexican gov’t’s motivation to avoid a 12% decrease in GDP.


      January 26, 2017 at 6:13 pm

    • A tax on Mexican imports doesn’t work as that will be paid for by the American consumer in the form of higher prices. Mexico won’t contribute anything, although it will hurt their economy as of course imports from Mexico would then decline. The tax needs to be applied on remittances sent from the US to Mexico, as then at least Mexicans are paying the tax, if not Mexico itself. I can’t think immediately of any other simple way of getting Mexico to pay – except obviously by requesting the Mexican government to make lump sum transfers to the US Treasury. But that’s not going to happen as any Mexican government would then face annihilation in the elections. Trump is certainly playing hardball on this one, but the wall is more important than who pays for it, and he might have been better off not being quite so dogmatic on Mexico paying the full cost. But of course that’s not Trump’s MO, and maybe he wouldn’t have won with a less “in your face” approach. It’s certainly interesting watching him from across the pond, and how the left in the UK are going bananas every time he says or does anything – especially his comments on waterboarding! Apparently the left doesn’t mind Obama obliterating people into atoms with his drone strikes, but saying mean things and using waterboarding is beyond the pale (pun intended)

      The lioncub

      January 26, 2017 at 6:32 pm

      • Well, now they are not arguing about whether to build the Wall but who pays for it.

        And what happened to that Peace Movement anyway? Suckers.


        January 27, 2017 at 4:08 am

      • This is just basic microeconomics and incorrect. A tax is paid by both producers and consumers as demand and supply curves shift to a different equilibrium.

        The wall will ultimately be paid for by both Americans and Mexicans on a purely supply/demand curve shifting basis, BUTTTT, and this is a big BUTTTT, our current trade deficit of $60B with Mexico is a massive unaccounted for variable in all these analysis because our trade deficits are expensed to the national credit card and will be bad in the long term (they contribute to our bankruptcy). So to the extent the tariffs correct our trade imbalances it will ultimately be entirely Mexico that pays for the wall because we will eliminate a $60B current account deficit with the nation of Mexico.

        Oh, and they will pay american prices.


        January 28, 2017 at 1:20 am

    • Tariff’s worked for Lincoln.


      January 27, 2017 at 8:42 am

  15. It is unclear how much some of Trump’s executive orders can do. Congress authorized a border fence about 10 years ago, but never funded a fence on the whole border. I think there is 600 miles of fence, of which only about half is intended to stop people walking across the border. The other half of the fence will only prevent vehicles driving across the border (these fences are easy to climb over). Congress has not funded the construction of more of the fence.

    Trump can use the fence legislation to symbolically start building the wall, but he will need to get Congress to allocate money to really start construction. Republicans leaders in Congress seem willing to allocate the money. It remains to be seen if they can get it through the Senate.

    Mexico has made clear they are not going to directly pay for the wall. Trump is now talking about a 20% tax or tariff on Mexican imports or maybe all imports to pay for the wall. This will have to be authorized by Congress. It is highly likely that Mexico will retaliate against these new US tax/tariff by imposing similar a tax/tariff on US exports to Mexico. It remains to be seen if Congress wants to start a new trade war.

    It is questionable whether the order to cut off funding to sanctuary cities will actually do anything. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government can only withhold funding authorized by Congress from state and cities if Congress clearly stated in the legislation the conditions for the funding. It is doubtful that the Supreme Court would allow a president to make up completely new conditions on existing funding. Now Trumps order says the funding should only be cut off when it complies with the law, but current laws do not allow Trump to withhold any of this funding. Congress could of course change the law in the future.

    The proposed order to halt issuing visas for people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen does not seem to me as doing much of anything. The proposed halt is only for 30 days. It could be extended longer. None of the 9/11 attackers came from any of these countries. The San Bernardino attackers were not from these countries. What exactly is this suppose to do?


    January 26, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    • What the courts say on Sanctuary cities means nothing. We will soon have a majority on the Supreme Court and Trump can just ignore the courts anyway.

      The tariff isn’t going to happen and the administration has already walked it back. I would have supported it because it would have devastated Mexico but it didn’t really do much else.

      Congress has already agreed to pay for the wall. It’s getting funded and built. It will be packaged with the necessary spending which will force the Dems to shut down the govt if they want to filibuster it.

      The Muslims ban is a good start and is to be followed up with a suspension of the Syrian refugee program.

      The real importance of Trump’s EO’s are the parts nobody is talking about: reinitiating the Secure Communities Act and tripling the number of deportation agents. This will lead to all time high deportations. It is extremely realistic to expect 1.5 million deportations by the midterms even if the Sanctuary Cities aren’t defunded.

      Otis the Sweaty

      January 26, 2017 at 7:04 pm

      • Trump has the power to veto any spending bill, which does not include defunding sanctuary cities. Sheesh this is old news. How do you think Congress has been coercing states to do things since the interstate highways were built? Duh… why is alcohol a 21 and over thing. Same story, but now the right wing is back in action.


        January 28, 2017 at 1:24 am

  16. Lion, can you write a post on Jeff Session’s confirmation hearing.

    Do the Democrats actually have the ability to stop him from becoming attorney general?

    My IQ is 150+, so I have difficulty understanding these sorts of things.


    January 26, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    • No they do not. They are delaying Sessions because they know he will get to work right away on the destruction of the immigrant community but they can’t delay past the 31st.

      Otis the Sweaty

      January 26, 2017 at 10:33 pm

  17. The sanctuary city looks like a simple name hiding the true problem. The judiciairy police (looking for criminals) and the general administrative police (protecting public order) are not equipped to pursue a deportation police aims. That’s obvious that such a police would interfere with the other two goals. That means that if you want to actually deport massively people you need :

    – laws to cut all social advantages to illegal migrants and criminalize those who employ or help them
    – a big federal police specialized in immigration crime deployed in all big cities

    1) It’ s insane to try to starve mayor of big ‘liberal’ cities to divest their police to pursue aliens, both those who doens’t pose pbs and those who do.

    2) The mission of mass deportation will not reduce crime but massively increase crime both by definition (the more a police is efficient, the more crime is revealed by its activity) and because a part of those people who would be put in the margin of society (losing jobs, housing, school of children, healthcare) will “naturally” embrace pitty (and even major) crime.

    So the benefit would be at 10/20 years agenda, and it would need a very big effort. I doubt a democracy can achieve such a big public policy goal.

    Bruno from Paris

    January 28, 2017 at 1:33 pm

  18. Deporting all people who have criminal records (1 or 2 millions) would be an achievable goal + managing the border with Mexico (700 K per year ) and the overstay (500 K per year) would do the job. It”s true that for diminishing the incentive to come, deling harshly with the 11 million is essential, but seems too difficult to be done.

    Bruno from Paris

    January 28, 2017 at 1:38 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: