Tuesday, January 09, 2018

Swamp the switchboards

A DACAmnesty legalizes 800,000. Via chain migration, the number quintuples in a few years and the only sensible vote in 2020 becomes Adam Kokesh running on a platform of dissolving the United States into 51 independent, sovereign states because the last chance at something resembling a nation will be as dead as Trump's reelection campaign.

Contact your House member.

Contact your Senators.

Contact your President. And then tomorrow, when the phone line is open (9am-4pm EST), contact his administration again at (202) 456-1111.

Don't overthink it. The important thing is to put a tally mark on the anti-amnesty side of the debate. Here's what I sent to my three congress critters and the administration. Feel free to copy (CTRL-C) and paste (CTRL-V):
No DACAmnesty.

Six years ago the previous administration ignored the will of the people and forced through an unconstitutional executive order that granted amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. We voted for president Trump and congressional Republicans to make America great again, not to continue the legacy of Obama's failed presidency.

America--and America's children--First!
My representatives are all Republican. If yours are Democrats, particularly if you're in a safely blue district, consider something along the lines of "Don't give the racist Trump administration all the nativist things it wants in return for nothing. The DACA dreamers aren't going anywhere. Trump knows it and we all know it. Don't concede the high moral ground just so Republicans can claim a legislative victory."

However it's phrased, the important thing is to express opposition. Ourselves and our posterity depend on millions of us making the time to do this, tedious though it is.

17 comments:

IHTG said...

Heh, bad idea if the calls to Democrats turn out to be a lot more effective than the calls to the Republicans!

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

Gridlock is, unfortunately yet again, our goal as we find ourselves on the defensive.

joe_b said...

What do you expect to happen if there's no deal? It seems to me the only hope for any immigration fixes would be getting 60 R's in the Senate, and I don't see that happening. Wouldn't it be better to have DACA paired with ending chain migration than letting things continue as they are?

Anonymous said...

I am opposed to DACA, but it is an issue that is easily emotionally manipulated, even for immigration patriots. Since many are older and know of nothing but the US and have been here all their lives, it is difficult to argue for their expulsion, though I do argue it. I would trade in DACA if it meant an end to chain migration, an end to birthright citizenship, a wall etc. I doubt we would get any of these things, not because of the Democrats but because of the Republicans in the Senate, most of whom have poor Numbers USA ratings. It is an absolute disgrace that while the majority of rank and file Republicans support immigration restriction, very few of their Senators do. They all need to be primaried. I e-mailed my Congressman and Senators. Will see.

Jim Bowery said...

Compromise on DACA isn't an option if the 1986 amnesty and follow on amnesties are any guide.

https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2017/09/13/no-amnesty-is-a-good-amnesty-n2381105

Aside from the aforelinked analysis by Coulter showing the true magnitude of amnesties inevitably multiplies via the corrupt court system, we're already seeing programs to relocate voters out of places like Chicago to swing states like Iowa.

Trump's Presidency was the last hope that massive bloodshed could be averted. If he goes for DACA without some credible plan correct the corrupt courts and repatriate massive numbers of _legal_ voters from places like California, Chicago and NY before they relocate to swing states -- you can forget about politics.

Dan said...

How to talk to Democrats? I would emphasize how wages have stagnated for 60 years.

The way to talk to Democrats is simple: Talk about American workers, wages, the plight of blacks in cities...

Anonymous said...

No DACA Amnesty.

We either have a nation or our bonds and ties to our politicians are dissolved.

You are not sworn to the world or to wandering foreigners...but to us.


Defend us or we defend ourselves.

Anonymous said...

"Trump's Presidency was the last hope that massive bloodshed could be averted. If he goes for DACA without some credible plan correct the corrupt courts and repatriate massive numbers of _legal_ voters from places like California, Chicago and NY before they relocate to swing states -- you can forget about politics."

I agree with that except forget about politics.

Nonsense. We shall simply have different and more honest politics. A gun means what it says.

Capogambino said...

The best strategy here would be to reverse the bait and switch from previous amnesties. Under Reagan the deal was amnesty for illegals already here, but closing the border to future illegals. The amnesty part happened, but the closing of the border never did. What Trump should do is promise future amnesty, say in 10 years, if the democrats agree now to a wall, E-Verify, ending chain migration, ending asylum, ending the visa lottery, etc. The catch should be that amnesty is contingent on a future vote in congress and certification by the president that the wall is built, E-Verify is complete, chain migration is gone, less than 500k illegals are left in the U.S., etc. When it comes time to vote for final amnesty, just claim that the conditions aren't met.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I'd like to think that DACA would be ok if it was temporary and they would go home within five years but what red pilled me on this question is a Radio Derb episode a few weeks ago where he said that temporary usually means permanent. So fuck DACA.

I think this all fits my thesis that america is like an old man that can't walk up the stairs. It has trouble enforcing basic laws like immigration and in other cases, executing people. If America was ever in another conflict similar to the two world wars - I sort of wonder if we would lose.

Audacious Epigone said...

joe_b,

The problem with that is that it'll be a 1986 redux. The legislation's DACAmnesty will stick, but other aspects of the legislation will get court-challenged to death. As all the injunction against the ending of chain migration are entered and litigated, the DACA amnesty recipients will chain in millions of relatives.

Capogambino's method is reasonable. If there is any good faith on the open borders side (lol!), they'll go for something like this. That won't happen.

Anon,

Alternatively, if we can beat a DACAmnesty, we can potentially beat anything on the immigration front. This is a hugely important legislative battle.

Jim,

Exactly. We've seen this movie before, a generation ago.

Dan,

Yeah, Bernie Sanders used to know how to do that. There are sympathetic ears out there.

Anon,

If all our political options have the same undesired outcome, it'll come to that.

Capogambino,

Very well put. That's marketable to moderates. "We want to act in good faith, but we've been burned before, many times. No look, Americans have been burned before many, many times. So we're going to do the enforcement first. We're going to make sure that works, that it's all up and running and that Americans are safe and secure. Only then will we look at what to do with those who have put themselves in a bad place."

Krusty,

The Salvadorans were here for 15 years, but even that may finally end. If we can end after 15 years, we sure as hell can end after 5. And we must insist on nothing less.

Jim Bowery said...

To give an idea of how hopeless the political situation is, the only deal that "The Great Negotiator" could make in exchange for a DACA amnesty without resulting in
massive bloodshed is:

1) Revive the Laboratory of the States, including ethnostates, each with their own absolute immigration control authority -- taking any additional measures necessary to ensure the Federal Government can never again arrogate to itself social policy. That means there is no more nonsense like the "bill of rights" let alone the execrable 14th Amendment's interpretation to impose on all locales whatever the Federal Government decides that laundry list means.
2) Add territory to the US in proportion to the post 1965 immigration population -- legal and illegal -- taking it from countries of origin -- and put in place mechanisms so that any State that admits foreigners must bear the cost of conquering new territory belonging to the countries of origin and, if that be inadequate, closely related countries.
3) Put in place mechanisms that reapportion US territory among the States in proportion to their respective census as people vote with their feet -- the single "human right" enforced everywhere -- to escape insane social policies that are certain to obtain until people learn.
4) Demand other countries follow suit if they don't want to be on the US's shit list. Being on the US's shit list means the US can treat those countries as it would zombie occupied territories.

Kaelynn said...

My dad has an interesting theory about Trump backing off on immigration lately.

Basically, his thought is that Trump doesn’t have the Senate to pass the immigration reform that he campaigned on. His idea is that Trump is using the idea that Trumpism is bigger than Trump to his advantage.

There are plenty of states that went red in the election that have Democrat senators up for re-election in the midterm elections. Taking himself away from immigration means that those senators can’t associate immigration directly with Trump. Senators seeking re-election in states like Missouri and Michigan will have to explain to their constituents why they are against ending DACA, a wall, chain migration, etc without being able to say they are fighting Trump.

Trump knows after the Healthcare debacle that the things he campaigned on won’t make it past the Senate. The majority of Americans still want us to crack down on both legal and illegal immigration, so that is a losing battle for the Democrats. Making immigration the key issue now may mean that it becomes the key issue in the upcoming midterms, which allows a few Republicans to steal those seats. Trump can then pass the bill that he campaigned on.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Don't forget that immigration enforcement is now determined by a courtroom in Hawaii. What are the odds some ninth circus judge says that Trump is not allowed to build a wall, use e-verify, etc. This is a very realistic possibility considering their track record. So you get amnesty and then the (((judiciary))) strikes everything else down, totally destroying this supposed deal of deals. I'd say the percentage of that being a likelihood is greater than zero, given the ninth circuit's track record.

Jim Bowery said...

Why I'm now focusing on developing weapons technology that individuals can fabricate from at-hand materials, tools and skills; and VERY reluctantly, having to de-emphasize Solomonoff Induction of social data as a last ditch attempt to bring discipline to "The National Conversation"...

Jim Bowery said...

As my civic duty, I sent that to President Trump, modified appropriately to speak of him in the first person.

Here's a all-too-accurate caricature of what we're _really_ up against in the military of the anarcho tyranny.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

Right. Realistically, then, there is simply NO deal that includes DACAmnesty that will be anything less than the mortal blow that finally does in the republic. We're not being histrionic here. It's the truth.

Kaelynn,

That's one hell of a white pill.

A white pill that got a big plausibility boost today with Trump rejecting the 'gang of six' (plus Perdue and Cotton, thank god) and telling them to get back to the drawing board. If the inaction continues through March, we really are getting dangerously close to primary season. Here's to hoping!

Random Dude,

Absolutely. My family (of origin) has a group message going on about politics, etc. Some of what I wrote yesterday:

"The 1986 Reagan amnesty, which this is shaping up to look like a redux of, legalized 3 million illegals who in turn brought in nearly 15 million family members (which is a large part of why the Hispanic population has gone from 5% of the country in the 1980s to approaching 20% today).

With DACA, we're looking at 800,000, which will, at 1980s chain rates, lead to 5 million more.

If, better case, ending chain migration is included in the DACAmnesty, it is ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED to get tied up in the courts immediately, with several appeal courts issuing injunctions forbidding restrictions on chain migration while the legal wrangling goes on (but the DACAmnesty, of course, will not receive any injunctions)."