Saturday, January 07, 2017

Trump's pledge to to deport 2-3 million is electoral gold

From an NPR story headlined "Cities Ready to Resist Trump Calls for Deportations":
In many cities, local officials are getting ready to defy Trump if he carries through on a campaign pledge to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.
Bring it on. This is a fight Trump should welcome. The mawkish crap about breaking up families--the report approvingly quotes (even leaving in the applause line!) NYC's communist mayor Bill de Blasio asserting Trump will do as much--are total lies. The deportees will be welcome to take their children home when they are reunited with the families they left to come to the US in the first place. The lying media's ability to tug at cuck strings is grossly exaggerated.

The breathless warnings about Trump's popularity collapsing if he pushes forced deportations are nonsense. The professional opinion makers are paper tigers. Crush them. There will be no popular backlash against a reclamation of national sovereignty, only more middle Americans jumping on the Trump Train.

Trump's expressed intention to immediately begin deporting 2-3 million of the worst illegals is a political (and civilizational) winner. Reuters-Ipsos conducted a poll last September asking respondents about their views on deporting illegal immigrants living in the US. The results among "likely general election voters" (n = 3,810):


An outright majority, even with almost 10% unsure, favor the deportation of most or all illegals. Trump didn't get an outright majority of the vote, of course. Trump's position on immigration is more popular than Trump himself is.

Given that 11 million is the lower-bound estimate for the size of the illegal immigrant population, deporting 2-3 million comes to around one-in-four, a figure that is reasonably categorized under the response "most should be able to stay in the US".

For those of us who want most or all illegals deported, well, something is better than nothing, and after decades of nothing we're glad to see something. Our jobs will be to ensure that Trump's actions signify an opening salvo in a battle that is just getting started rather than a one-and-done campaign promise kinda sorta being fulfilled.

That leaves 5% of the electorate to gnash their teeth in opposition to the deportations. They're welcome to follow the re-pats back home.

Even among NAMs, support for either deporting most or all illegals is at 30% (with 12% unsure), higher than Trump's vote share. Nearly half of NAMs say most illegals should be able to stay but some should go. Less than 1-in-10 NAMs say all illegals should be allowed to remain in the US.

 Absurd misuse of the word draconian
Here's Durham councilman Steve Schewel:
"What's more important? Is it more important to use your police resources to try to stop violent crime? Or is it more important to use your resources to enforce draconian immigration rules that you don't even believe in?"
Durham's non-Hispanic white population is 37% and dropping, so Schewel may be angling for a political alliance between the city's growing Hispanic population and it's remaining white contingent against the 41% that is black (the city council looks to be about half black, half white, and no brown). For my part, I'll be happy when he's replaced by someone with a last name ending in "Z" or "O".

The objective, neutral NPR reporter--Adrian Florido, who studied history with an emphasis on Latin America and who has a particular love of traditional string music from the Mexican state of Veracruz--throws this line in at the end:
Now that immigration reform seems less likely than ever, Newman says many local leaders are realizing it may be up to them to defend immigrants.
Less likely than ever?! We're potentially looking at the biggest change in immigration enforcement since the Eisenhower administration. ... Oh, what's that you say? "Immigration reform" is just a code phrase for the coupling of amnesty and open borders? I see, never mind then, he seems to be correct.

13 comments:

IHTG said...

Screw "NAMs". What do the blacks think?

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

They're actually less restrictionist than Hispanics are in this poll. I didn't separate the two because the sample size was pretty small but 57% of blacks say most should stay.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The "Trump is trying to tear families apart" meme targets urban and suburban white women who are low information voters and will generally believe whatever is the consensus on their Facebook feeds. The left knows this and this is the angle they will crank up to 11 when it comes time to roll out actual immigration reform. It's a lot like the dead Syrian kid in Turkey or the picture of the injured Syrian kid in Aleppo: both were obvious attempts at tugging the heartstrings of white women.

However since most white women voted for Trump, those days may be coming to an end as even they are less trusting of the media and social media. I definitely believe this will be the left's goal: aim their agitprop at women who don't know enough about the situation to believe that Trump's thugs are literally ripping crying brown children from their parents so their parents get flung over the border. There needs to be a way for Trump and Co. to neutralize this propaganda.

IHTG said...

Random Dude:
Have the deportations synchronized with news stories about factories not moving to Mexico? If anybody can pull it off it's the show businessman-in-chief.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG gets right at the heart--Trump has the megaphone and he knows how to use it. His social media feeds reach far, far more people than all the legacy media outlets combined do. Coordinate the high profile stuff and let shitlords like us swarm the shrieking SWPLs and crowing cucks.

FlyingHigh said...

I would guess this poll data under-counts for support for deportations, both in the all or most sub-options. The cultural programming that "supporting deportations = Nazism" has been amp'd up for at least 15 years, and feel have become self-conscious that it is "crimethink" to have deportations or even a strong border.

Would guess that the support for general tough deportation action would be at least 57 to 60%. There has got to be a way to reduce the illegal population cost effectively by: 1) stopping the IRS from accepting fraudulent SSNs; 2) Doubling E-verify funding & activity (is laughably low now); and 3) Doing deportations immediately when illegals are interdicted at the border.

Trump needs to humiliate the hardcore nucleus of CultMarx anti-USA thugs who willfully boost illegal immigration with sanctuary city (& campus) laws, and who are willing to unleash anarchy to block deportations. Let the battle begin.

chris said...

Hopefully Trump will have a chance to charge MSM with sedition when the MSM will undoubtedly incite violence against his government for his illegal immigrant deportations. Will also give him a chance to throw resisting democrats Government workers in jail as well.

Audacious Epigone said...

FlyingHigh,

Probably so. For one, this was conducted before Trump's victory when the general outlook for his prospects were poor. At the time polls showed that his supporters were roughly split 50/50 on whether or not he would win and everyone else thought he had no chance. Additionally there's plenty of residual apprehension about supporting deportations because of all the lugubrious virtue-signaling that is directed at those who do. Despite that, though, more than half of respondents say "most" or "all" should be deported. This is a populist issue as well as a conservative one. Trump has to act on it.

Feryl said...

https://www.amren.com/news/2017/01/california-alt-america/

Yeah, Cali already has been Latinized. One thing that stands out is Kotkin's observation that Cali has gone from being the Future of America (in both demographics but also in overall philosophy) in the 50's-2000's) to being an outlier, as evidenced by Hillary's absurd over performance in Cali while doing mediocre to terrible in most other areas. He also acknowledges that it's a return to the pre-1950's norm of the Mountain and Pacific states being a forbidding and strange frontier from which little influence is exerted.

The rootless, flaky, racially clueless people in these areas need to be a low priority. And besides, at least the Mountain regions outside of Denver and the yuppie ski resorts still do have at least have a strong enough libertarian streak/lack of suicidal Leftism among whites to keep the Dems in line. So lets get East of the Rockies America back on track first. That includes reinstalling a wholesome American vibe to the East Coast (and the regular-Americans here at least partially remember what their Mayflower and Ellis Island ancestors did to strengthen America)and exacting reprisals against Midwestern and Southern urban and college town subversives.

Keep in mind that the Pacific has always been the most culturally liberal region of America. They're more than welcome to start listening to us folks in old-school America for a change. Be our guests. But I don't think a no BS New Yorker is going to be able to talk sense into them.

To the horror of most Silents and Boomers, we've also got to tamp down on black entitlements and cheerleading which is the primary thing ailing the South, the Midwest, and a decent chunk of the urban Northeast. One failing of Trump and most of his Boomer advisors is trying too hard to be mindful of blacks. But he is serious about law and order, and as such he's going to run up against uppity blacks whether he means to or not.

To Western raised libertarians like Kotkin, it must really be harsh slap in the face to think that the whites of the region are such strivers and so devoid of cultural/ethnic pride and nativism that they did squat to stop the invasion of commie 3rd worlders. Kotkin, a Cali Boomer Jew, couldn't care less about the spiritual/moral imperative to create and defend a homeland for one's kin/extended kin. Yet, on a strictly empirical and logical level, he basically implies that after all, strictly enforcing demographic and behavioral norms is necessary for peace and prosperity. Cali's population of strivers from all corners, and Pacific raised Boomers and X-ers have done an abysmal job of stewardship. They can't even conceive of framing anything in wholesome ethnic integrity and security terms; rather, it's just about technical details and abstract muddy values.

You just don't see this kind of ethnic apostasy among Staten Island Italians, or Chicago Poles, or Fargo Swedes, or Appalachian Scots-Irish.

Sadly for us all, most Ashkenazi Jews can't even bring themselves to Kotkin's level of awareness, let alone be a Stephen Miller Europhile. Miller is an '84 birth, so chalk up another victory for our earlier 80's mini-cohort (we tend to be less cynical and detached than '66-'80 Gen X-ers but aren't as nerdy as post '85 or '86 Millennials). I do think that as crime rises, so too will testosterone. As Silents toughened up in the late 60's/70's, so too will Millennials circa 2025. I heard a movie podcast which can be rather snarky admit earnestly that actors in the 70's and 80's often looked much older than their age. Part of this is sheer demeanor (people often looked quite nerdy in the 50's, as they do right now) while some of it probably is chemical.

Anonymous said...

The only important thing in California is the Pacific Ocean as Western Flank.

The fate of the people there is irrelevant, their wishes and votes and indeed their very lives insignificant - even to them it seems.

If we have a desert into the Pacific Ocean as our Western Flank that works as well as a irrigated desert that has become a weakness indeed better as it won't invite itinerant gypsy troublemakers.

VXXC

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Regarding blacks, Trump's strategy was an implicit appeal to Old America, not just to white America. For better or worse, that's what it was. Blacks are a part of Old America. Whether that was out of expediency or sincerity (I guess the latter), it's where Trump's heart seems to be. Don't know how viable it is, but discord between blacks and Hispanics/Asians is conceivable and could irreparably fracture the Coalition of the Fringes. Get a few high profile black Dems to get on board with America First and we get a lot of moral cover for kicking illegals out by the millions.

Anonymous said...

"The breathless warnings about Trump's popularity collapsing if he pushes forced deportations are nonsense. The professional opinion makers are paper tigers. Crush them. There will be no popular backlash against a reclamation of national sovereignty, only more middle Americans jumping on the Trump Train.
"

"The results among "likely general election voters" (n = 3,810):"

Yeah. Like those polls which predicted something like 58% or 60% of total votes for Hillary or Remain in the UK.
Propaganda and propaganda. The downright lying they are resorting full-time means, well, the elites are a little worried they could lose their power or have to come to a compromise with the people they rule over.

The importance of dep... ehr, I mean repatriation is enormous. This is a cultural, political, social battle, the battle of battles. Because (if it's done) it will shift the inertia of the whole game.
Many people support repatriation, but not as many as it would be good that they were care a lot about it.

The point is it will motivate more people, and will be just the beginning, as you correctly said.

(I am not optimistic, though! Too few people realize what is at stake.)

Joshua Sinistar said...

This makes me laugh. That clown Wilhelm is circling the drain. Piss and shit are accumulating on sidewalks while he plays the sad song of globalism. All this crap is subject to economic reality. Make no mistake, every revolution ever had an economic reason behind it. The American revolution had taxes, and so did Lincoln's War. The media, academic, government Axis tries to mislead you with sad tales about slabery and unequal treatment, but it was taxes and economics that made men pick up guns and fight.
Diversity and Multi-Cult crap are both luxury items. Only people who are wealthy enough to avoid the downside will "go along to get along". People who have nothing to lose will line up first. Those who see a brighter future will back them up. Dullards and idiots usually sit on the sidelines. Any that choose to get involved will be easy pickings on the OTHER SIDE.