Wednesday, September 13, 2017

An opportunity for heroism

A politically ambitious (or genuinely courageous representative of Heritage America) attaches a 'poison pill' amendment to the forthcoming DACA amnesty legislation Paul Ryan, his quisling band of cucks, and Democrats are currently working together to craft. This poison pill amendment expands amnesty to family members of "dreamers".

It immediately bumps the estimated number of amnesty recipients from 800,000 to multiple millions, which will become multiple millions more if the legislation is enacted.

Why not go all the way and amnesty all 11+ million illegals?

Because that's a bridge too far. Democrats will be able to convincingly tell their voters that the amendment was intended to make the bill fail as they vote against its inclusion. Cucks will jump at the opportunity to position themselves as stately moderates who just want to help the poor kiddies--many of whom are older than I, a father of two, am--without rewarding millions who broke the law, and so they too will vote against the amendment.

Additionally, House rules require that riders be relevant to the legislation under consideration. Dealing with family members of those directly effected will meet that requirement. A blanket amnesty may not.

Limiting it to the family members of dreamers will make it too risky for Democrats to vote against the amendment. Juan's parents, who risked so much to give him a shot at the American Dream, are going to be deported just as he's achieving it?! That's a record begging for a primarying, disqualification from aspirations of higher office, the ire of activist groups, unions, celebrities, etc.

Moreover, many Democrats will think the congressman who attached it too clever by half and think the expanded amnesty will pass. A vulnerability of the left is its tendency to overextend itself. That's begging to be exploited here.

Cucks supporting the amnesty already having thrown in with their donors and against their voters will find it difficult to reject the inclusion of such an amendment that promises to "keep families together". Some will vote it down anyway, but it won't matter because the combination of Democrats and immigration patriots voting to include it will be enough to override them.

A veteran of over ten years in these amnesty fights, I'm cautiously optimistic that the DACA amnesty will be snuffed out as is. More than double the numbers eligible for it and that optimism becomes totally unguarded.

Contact your House member here and your senators here. Tell them you oppose DACA amnesty.

Parenthetically, the word "amnesty" is one of the few incantations the right has at its disposal that strikes fear into the hearts of congress critters, especially those with Rs next to their names. Cast it freely in the coming months.

To provide some motivation to get your asses in gear, here's Republican speaker of the House Paul Ryantifa's twitter cover photo:


We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. No DACA amnesty.

24 comments:

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I remain confident that it won't go anywhere but it's funny to see turbocucks like Paul Ryan get off his ass and start scrambling to strike a deal (versus say, infrastructure spending). It's showing the voters the true colors of "conservatives" who represent them.

Not only do we need to press our congresspeople not to pass DACA, we need to find out who the traitors are and immediately start funding and signal boosting their primary challengers for next year if they are up for election.

Feryl said...

RDI:

The greatest story ever sold is that it's "difficult" for our legislators to do their damn job. No it ain't. The closer you get to the top of each party, the more beholden to powerful lobbies each party gets. And when both parties have big-wigs who agree about an issue (in this case, amnesty/porous borders), miraculously it becomes possible to negotiate a deal and both sides can earnestly promote the same piece of legislation.

The same heartland Repubs who complained about Hurricane Sandy relief were able to do so because the Northeast is basically irrelevant to the conservative oil companies while the Gulf Coast and Plains states are irrelevant to the liberal tech companies. What's passed off as regional rivalries are in fact rooted in varying lobbies.

As always: The GOP represents old-school energy, the Pentagon, and agribusiness. The Dems represent public unions, Wall Street, and trendy high-tech. None of these industries are perturbed by high levels of immigration, thus why high level bi-partisan negotiations regarding immigration are so easy to come by.

I'm afraid that until massive numbers of people reject the cynical dog eat dog culture of a high striving era, we're not going see in end to public "employees" with cash falling out of their pockets.

dc.sunsets said...

To the extent political action has effect, supporting those challengers who look genuine is THE Job One. Sent the GOP establishment home for good. With luck, southern WI will wake UP and kick Paul Ryan's ass to the curb. (The last primary there was not encouraging, but times do change.)

Dan said...

"find out who the traitors are and immediately start funding and signal boosting their primary challengers for next year"

Clue: Initials are DJT.

This is turning out to be the greatest con in the history of the world.


benkurtzblog said...

I think good old-fashioned hostage-taking is the best kind of poison pill:

For every "Dreamer" to be amnestied, an illegal alien (preferably a friend, relative or parent) would have to surrender and be deported. And none of this weak-sauce "self-deportation," either. The hostage would have to be fingerprinted and denied the right to return legally to the U.S. for a minimum of ten years, or whatever the standard is for deportees.

If the parents of these "kids" really want to sacrifice for the good of their children, well, here's their chance!

Jim Bowery said...

"The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to emotionally comprehend the exponential function." - Edward Teller

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." - Al Bartlett

So-called "family reunification" is an exponential process. You can do anything you like to restrict immigration but if you don't stop "family reunification" the entire population of the world could end up US citizens sooner than many imagine.

Feryl said...

Trump couldn't kick his sentimental side, neither could he magically remove from influence every agent of the Pentagon, Wall Street, Chamber of Commerce, etc. From 2015-March 2017, Bannon/Sessions/Flynn were able to fantasize about bringing about much needed change. Then.....Flynn got slapped out on an incredibly bogus charge (and others could've had the courage to stand by Flynn and fight the charges, but nope....). The Pentagon always comes first.....After WW2 the Pentagon has done far more damage than good; we emerged as #1 after WW2, and far too many people came to believe that everything possible had to be done to ensure that the US stayed at the top, because......How else was the military/intelligence complex going to justify massive and endless expenditures on "defense"?

Bannon saw the writing on the wall after Kelly and McMaster purged Islam critics from the security council. The Pentagon baby-sitters got emboldened and began to heavily monitor Trump and what he heard, and who he talked to. Bannon knew his time was up, and got back to Breitbart in a (vain?) effort to mount resistance to the de-facto coup.

Sessions is still there, though his immigration goals will never fully come to pass in his lifetime. He still can accomplish other things, and he's probably concerned about trying to repair the damage that's been done to the stability and security of the country by previous regimes. It's just that immigration is off the table; his hands our tied. Ya'll remember Kelly promising to be nice to DACA, way back at the beginning of the year? His job was maintain the status quo, where it matters most to the globalists (not reining in neo-liberalism, uncontrolled immigration, maintaining or starting wars and coups).

Feryl said...

It can't be emphasized enough that we must begin, as we did in the 60's and 70's, to encourage people to stay the hell away from the military. Why the fuck would you die for a government that's done jack shit to help out ordinary Americans since the late 70's?

As always, Fuck the Pentagon.

BTW, the latest amnesty is yet more proof that the GOP elite, and it's key associated lobbies, just wants cheap labor and ever more money thrown into our country's black hole of a "defense" budget.

Reagan? Sun-belt governor, was told that poor people had to "come out of the shadows" and that employers would be punished for hiring illegals. Amnesty passes, rest of the policies included are ignored (why bother when companies were booming in the 80's and 90's?).

GW Bush? Non-stop pressure to have another amnesty starts but we don't get another. Pressure continues into the Obama era, which gives us DACA.

Agribusiness, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Pentagon don't give a fuck about the Rust-belt. Never have, never will. If the GOP remains in thrall to these foes, they're scarcely any better than the Dems. Hell, back in the 70's and 80's the GOP in many ways was worse than the Dems in terms of whoring out to robber barons.

We asked nicely for changes, then got blown off brusquely. We can't even get a few pity token actions to help us out. The time for being diplomatic and patient is over.

How many cucks understand these things? People in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Youngstown, etc. don't give a rat's ass about corporate farms on the Plains or paying the salaries of Deep State and military men (or women, or trannys) making a career out of serving globalist Pentagon ideology. If Trump can't reign in the excesses, and the Dems have a non-retarded candidate, we're looking at Trump losing many people in the Northeast and Midwest.

I don't think it's out of the question that, possibly under the aegis of Bannon, a populist challenger for the GOP nomination emerges in 2020, or runs 3rd party, if we can't make any progress. Think about it: such a candidate could rail against the failure of not just the system in general, but would also be able to point to Trump himself as evidence that both parties are desperately out of touch.

Feryl said...

Trump got "the talk" by April 2017. The globalists made appeals to his ego, his desire to stay in the job, and to pragmatism ("Listen up! This is how we protect America"). Trump may have criticized our policies in the past, but ultimately like most mature Boomers he has a real weakness for flattering "the troops" (which inexplicably extends to whoever is calling the shots). Trump must figure that well, if I'm getting along with the Pentagon, then gee, I must be pretty good at this.

Looking at Bannon recently, he seems genuinely pained and disappointed. No coincidence that the press has been going much easier on Trump since Bannon left. The Russian dupe narrative has essentially vanished, and even elite Dems have sought to marginalize Leftist maniacs as opposed to blaming all unrest on Trump not doing enough to rein in neo-Nazis.

We haven't heard the last of people like Bannon and Stephen Miller. Sooner or later, the GOP has to go the way of the Whigs Yeah, I know, the GOP is soooooo popular right now....Give it time. Eventually the Dems will shut up about BLM and trannies, and will claw back more gains, esp. if the economy gets fubard which it will at some point.

The GOP has totally misunderstood their gains; they don't get votes for corporate tax cuts, endless wars, and cheap labor. They get lobbyist dollars for those things, not votes, at least in the Rust-belt. The Dems' offensive focus on attacking trad. Western culture has alienated huge swaths of America, to the GOP's benefit. And to our detriment, since the GOP don't care what we think; they haven't for 40 years, why would they start now? Neither party at this stage is good for anything. As Bannon said, the system has over-turned the 2016 election.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Yep. Those two objectives are complementary.

Feryl,

Exactly. I bet the amnesty legislation is already written up. But after seven years of Obamacare, nothing. It's so blatant.

dc.sunsets,

WI's first is cuck central. I haven't spent much time there, but it mirrors mine closely. It's the type of district that will be exceedingly difficult for someone like Nehlen to win. If he can double his primary support this time around and say crack 30% though, it'll send a message.

Ben Kurtz,

The problem with that is the cucks and Democrats will probably vote such amendments down. And if they don't vote them down, it'll *increase* the chances that the DACA amnesty passes. There are no concessions--not even The Wall--that make that a deal worth striking.

As Jim alludes to, the 800k "dreamers" will morph into twice that number, and then there will be backlogged cases of alleged dreamers who were missed, and there will be massive family reunification, and we'll have something akin to what happened with the Reagan amnesty, when a couple million amnestied ended up bringing in ~13 million more.

Feryl,

What I don't understand: Why doesn't the Pentagon give Trump('s voters) what (t)he(y) want(s) on immigration in exchange for being able to waste more money and lives in stupid wars on the other side of the world that have nothing to do with the national interest? Are they simply able to get whatever the hell they want?

Agribusiness wants cheap labor, but old energy and the Pentagon presumably don't care one way or the other. If Trump held firm on stopping the invite-the-world but made plenty of concessions on invading-the-world, it wouldn't put the loyalty of his base in jeopardy much at all. I'd certainly take that deal.

Feryl said...

When i speak of a party, I'm talking about the collective ability of all it's elected members and the lobbyists to which they are indebted to do one goddam thing to help us out. It's great that Steve King and Tom Cotton and Kris Kobach want to cut immigration off; but what would happen to them if they assumed the presidency? They'd get The Talk about how invade the world/invite the world is just how things are. And if they defied the globalists, they'd be victims of non-stop propaganda about how stupid and crazy and corrupt they are, impeachment attempts, and possibly an assassination.

Ick. I'm thru with either party if the current amnesty sails through and isn't vetoed. Fool me once......

Feryl said...

"What I don't understand: Why doesn't the Pentagon give Trump('s voters) what (t)he(y) want(s) on immigration in exchange for being able to waste more money and lives in stupid wars on the other side of the world that have nothing to do with the national interest? Are they simply able to get whatever the hell they want"

Because America is so intrinsically awesome that we must bestow it on as many people as possible.

Our foreign policy (which btw includes immigration) has been determined by idealists and well, dreamers, since 1946. Initially, America's masses (moreso older people, more on that later) hesitated over Vietnam, which quickly became such a mess that the military was an object of scorn in the 70's. The generations who remembered previous wars understood that war is something to be taken with the utmost seriousness and caution; nothing is to be assumed or taken for granted. Boomers were much more gung-ho, since they grew up with fathers and grandfathers who'd fought with distinction to protect their country. Problem is, they had good reasons to fight; what were the Boomers fighting for? Much of the bitterness towards Vietnam I think arises from the feeling that the Boomers were denied the chance to be celebrated in victory of a war worth fighting; liberal Boomers felt gypped by the whole enterprise, while some conservative Boomers felt that leadership was not competent enough to win (left unsaid is that we had no reason to be there in the first place). I've heard a lot of Boomers lament that they felt like losers who were betrayed by (take your pick) dumb military brass/politicians, the media, whiny college kids, liberals, etc.

Sadly, the ongoing neurosis about Vietnam and the antipathy towards the military in the 70's seems to be affecting our current decisions; we can't pull out of a foreign country and acknowledge defeat like we once did (which soured people on wars for a good 30 years). We also cannot accept or permit any criticism of the Pentagon, military policy, military leaders, etc., lest we rekindle the culture of military caution which much of the public once believed in. Certainly, we can't ever risk having another decade like the 70's where joining the services was barely a step above joining the circus.

At this point we need a populist (undoubtedly from the left) who leads a movement to say no to the military. I can't see any other way to neuter the Pentagon then to have large numbers of people give them the finger. The Right goes on and on about using the military "better", but the utopian clowns who infest the Pentagon are beyond reform. Period. Let's destroy the Pentagon in order to save it, to repurpose a phrase that became a rueful joke in late 60's Vietnam.

Feryl said...

Also, the Pentagon has got to be humbled like it was in the 60's. We were getting closer to this in Bush's 2nd term (and indeed many of the players involved in 2000's foreign policy have been marginalized....Only for other fools to be replace them). But the Obama era managed to pull one helluva pendulum swing, away from attacking stupid wars (which even a lot of Righties were on board with by the mid 2000's) and toward cultural Marxist horseshit which has become a huge distraction to everyone.

The Left even managed to sell the idea to most liberals that since Putin is a traditionalist who aided Trump, we must therefore commence greater hostility to Russia. Of course, most conservatives over 45 still aren't aware that:
-The Soviet Union is dead
- The modern Russian nation has little in common, politically or ethnically, with the Soviet Union
- The US and NATO have blatantly provoked Russia via military bases and war games on territory thought to be neutral after the dissolution of the Soviets

So selling a lot Righties on hating Russia isn't too tough.

Feryl said...

Also to put things in perspective:

The GOP still hates unions, often not bothering to draw a distinction between private and public unions. Even as private job wages and job security have greatly diminished since the late 70's.

When sincere (and misguided) ideology collide with lobbyist dollars......See also:
- Pentagon idealists and war companies
- Enviro zealouts and high-tech companies

It's the intersection of naive idealism/ambition and cynical greed that tell us a lot about how we've managed to screw so much up. Both need to be reined in.

Sid said...

If Trump trades DACA for e-verify, funding for the Wall, and the RAISE Act, then it's not a good deal, but at least it's a trade. I could begrudgingly vote for Trump again.

If Trump recognizes DACA amnesty for, um, good will?, then this will be a catastrophe for America and there won't be any point in voting for Trump again.

What's worrisome is that I think Pelosi and Schumer understand that Trump wants the "Dreamers" to stay:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908276308265795585

It's not just our Congressmen we need to hit up. Write your letters to the White House too.

Anonymous said...

According to Pat Buchanan, chain-migration rules were established in 1965:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/pat-buchanan-will-daca-amnesty-be-a-read-my-lips-moment-for-trump

If the "Dreamers" are amnestied, no further cucking is required to legally import their entire third-world village.

Trump is done.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The temptation is to call it hubris--pissing people off to get things that don't even benefit you directly as the Pentagon is doing--but there has to be a reckoning for it to genuinely be hubristic.

Sid,

Because I bought so much MAGA merchandise during the campaign--gave hats, bumper stickers, and tons of "#BuildTheWall" pins--I get regular emails soliciting donations. Not sure how it's set up, but it's not a do-not-reply bot, so I've been responding to every one with "No DACA amnesty. America--and America's own children--First!"

Anon,

Yep. I'll cut him slack on a lot of things--hell, just about everything--except for the National Question. He goes astray here and he loses me along with millions of other deplorables.

Feryl said...

Bill O'reilly says it "isn't possible" to deport 800,000 illegals, so why try?

Uh, yeah. It's not like we know where immigrants live. It's not like we can't demand proof of citizenship. It's not like certain companies and industries hire them. It's not like we have Americans willing to report suspected illegals.

Reminds me of Trump being chided for suggesting that there are "ways" to better monitor areas that may be harboring radicals (e.g., Muslims).

Liberals and cucks are delusional. They don't want to be accused of unkindness, or unfairness, or worst of all, profiling. They'd rather lie their asses off about how supposedly vexing and enigmatic it is to discern who is dangerous, criminal, etc.

The nerve they have. Illegals routinely break all kinds of laws, and the current amnesty being floated would absolve all kinds of criminals of practically any accountability. Yet we're to feel that we are breaking some kind of moral code to ask our government to enforce laws that any functioning nation would enforce.

We really are broken if ostensible conservatives claim that our law enforcement is too inept to even locate illegals. Meanwhile, these same charlatans act like the Pentagon, with the right people and resources, can nation build anywhere. The gap between the deliberate negligence of domestic law enforcement and the utopian foolishness of our foreign adventures is pretty shocking. And oh btw, the Obama era ushered in the likes of Bill DeBlasio, who after 2 decades of declining crime are now free to blow smoke up everyone's ass that the law enforcement policies of the 80's, 90's, and 2000's were a ghastly imposition on a bunch of innocent babes. So besides 50+ years of immigration negligence, it looks like our dealings with domestic criminals are going down the same route, too.

Audacious Epigone said...

He's testing the waters. His heart is with a DACA amnesty, but as he's shown on countless occasions, his base can persuade him. This isn't over.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

We really are broken if ostensible conservatives claim that our law enforcement is too inept to even locate illegals.

They're either naive, mendacious, or both. Encourage local law enforcement to pair up with DHS and the DOJ and it would happen outside of sanctuary cities. Then target the sanctuary cities at the federal level. Simple.

Feryl said...

The Red Star Tribune published a graph showing very low crime rates from 2001-2013. Then in 2014, there was an uptick (Sailer's depressingly predictable Late Obama Collapse, which didn't just affect ghetto Baltimore or Ferguson) which has continued.

Lord, whenever a Dem over panders to blacks, look at what happens. LBJ presided over much of urban America being looted and in some cases, burned. The first brotha in chief didn't immediately affect most people's day to day lives (though the blackest administration ever quickly succumbed to corruption), as perhaps most ordinary blacks felt good in a pretty bland way, as opposed to acting like dumb asses who win the lottery and go broke within a couple years.Besides, child-like blacks are easily suggestible, and Obama actually was pretty low-key with his inital rhetoric. But other elite liberals sensed the time was right to dial-up the Marxism, and of course several years later Obama himself got in the drivers seat (what a let down if he stayed out of it) and pushed the pedal down more often. The whole sordid business hit it's (apparent) nadir with the mid 2010's BLM crap. BLM officially commenced in mid-2013.....Go figure.

BLM activity has been almost non-existent in 2017, suggesting that the movement is centrally controlled and artificial, with tacit (former?) approval from most mainstream outlets and figures, whereas 1960's protests were largely organic and genuinely threatening to the entire establishment (let's not forget that the US government for all intents and purposes treated radical Left-wing groups like enemy combatants back in the 60's and 70's). Anti-fa appears to be the continuation of the phony "radical" Left, which poses no threat to neo-liberalism. Anti-fa may not be based on entirely on black people, but it still fits well into the current Leftist mainstream culture of coddling crime and disorder.

Feryl said...

Those crime stats are from downtown Mpls, btw. Which is why I referenced other places that you'd expect to have a big increase in the mid 2010's.

Elites like O'reilly don't want to be called stern and callous for kicking out so many people. We're all supposed to just live and let live, right? As usual, this kind of sentiment bears no resemblace to the dour pragmatism of the Anglo-Teutons among whom no self-respecting "man" would dare give in to such insecurities. Then again, O'reilly is Irish, so there ya go.

Sid said...

I totally understand that Trump doesn't want the bad publicity shots of young adults who speak fluent English getting deported by jackboots in blue.

Go ahead and call that cowardly, but he's a politician now, and successful politicians strive to not be associated with unfavorable feelings and imagery. It's part of the job.

Let's have the scary imagery fall on MS-13 members and guys trying to cross the border. With the "Dreamers," let's leave them be and systematically root out their educational and vocational opportunities in America. Let them self-deport.

Hell, I'd be happy to spend $100 billion on an economic development program where illegals in America can go back to Mexico and Central America and partake in an economic program in their countries. It would cost us a pretty penny, but I'd rather spent a lot all at once than even more over several decades.

I'll draft my letter to the White House tomorrow. It's not over yet.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Realistically that is the "best case" outcome. The 'dreamers' aren't going to be deported in significant numbers. None of the sympathetic ones will be.

But that doesn't mean there is any reason to legislate an amnesty for them. Even if most end up staying here for years and decades, it is important that they never be granted the legal right to do so.