A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about Donald Trump's immigration speech. This follows this post about the allegations about Donald Trump doing housing discrimination. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.

<

Trump’s Great Immigration Speech–If It Doesn’t Save America, Nothing Can

---

Washington Watcher

After two weeks of speculation of whether he would soften his stance on immigration, Donald Trump gave an amazing, astounding, detailed and rock solid speech outlining his patriotic immigration reform agenda. Trump reaffirmed his pledge to secure the borders, oppose any Amnesty, restrict refugee admissions, and enact tough interior enforcement measures. Additionally, he supported strict enforcement of E-Verify and laid out principles for legal immigration reform which unmistakably implied lower numbers and high quality immigrants.
In this piece I will answer three questions:

• Did Trump backtrack?
• Why did he seem to be waffling before the speech?
• Will this help him win?

The short answers: No; I’m not sure; and—almost certainly, yes.
Did Trump Backtrack?
Trump clarified and, in some cases, finessed his previously bluntly-stated positions. However, he did not alter the substance away from patriotic immigration reform.

• No wiggle room for Amnesty: Even some of Trump’s supporters have worried that he would support some form a “touchback” Amnesty, whereby illegal aliens would have to leave the country, but could immediately re-apply for citizenship. But Trump in his speech said specifically that the “one route” for illegals to obtain legal status is “to return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else, under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above.”

Touchback amnesty plans–like the one Mike Pence proposed in 2006–include a special visa under which the illegals are to re-apply, or simply greatly increase legal immigration numbers so they can quickly gain re-entry. Trump, however, made clear that illegals “will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to apply for entry under the immigration caps.”
Trump concluded that we would not have any “discussion” to “consider the appropriate disposition” of the remaining illegal aliens until “several years” after “illegal immigration is a memory of the past.”
In other words: well into Trump’s second term, after all the bulk of the illegal aliens have been deported or left on their own, Trump might—might—consider giving Amnesty to the few that remain.

• Deportation priorities: Trump said he would “set priorities” for those he would deport, specifically “removing criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays, public charges.”

It’s noteworthy that “visa overstays” constitute around 40% of the illegal population–including 60% of recent illegals, and Trump cited a Center for Immigration Studies paper that found that 62% of illegal alien households received welfare.
Of course, the Obama administration has always justified its non-enforcement of the law by saying it was prioritizing removal of terrorists, gang members, and violent criminals. But unlike Obama, who uses prioritizing enforcement against terrorists and violent criminals as a euphemism to mean he won’t deport anyone else, Trump clarified that under his administration “anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation.”

• Deportation Force to Deportation Task Force: Probably the biggest buzz over the last couple of weeks was whether Trump would drop his call for a “deportation force.”

In his speech, Trump stated that “within ICE I am going to create a new special deportation task force focused on identifying and quickly removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice.” This is not what the Main Stream Media really had in mind by “deportation force.” But of course, ICE is supposed to be a deportation force to begin with.
Actually, Trump never proposed a deportation force. When Mika Brzezinski asked him  “Are you going to have a massive deportation force,” Trump just let her put words in his mouth he would support it without elaborating. [Trump: You’re Going To Have A “Deportation Force,” They’ll Be Humane, by Tim Haines, Real Clear Politics, November 11, 2015]

• Muslim Ban to Country Ban: Trump stated he would suspend “suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur,” specifically singling out Syria and Libya.

This differs from his previous statement that he would suspend all Muslim immigration. This is not news, as he had modified this statement earlier. As I’ve written, there are pros and cons to each approach, but his fundamental premise—that excluding potential terrorists, even if that means keeping out some perfectly innocent babies in the toxic bathwater, is the most effective way prevent terrorism– remains
So what was going on?
Trump and his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway have been giving mixed signals over the last few weeks, implying he was “softening,” might be open to some limited Amnesty or would really back off of deportations. Ann Coulter was so annoyed that she said she might cancel the publicity tour for her excellent new book In Trump We Trust if Trump embraced Amnesty [Trump’s immigration pivot a buzzkill for Coulter’s book tour, CNN, August 26, 2016]
So why did Trump give all of his most dedicated supporters heartburn worrying he would back down? I have no inside information, but here are a few possibilities:

• Trump was making Beltway immigration patriot arguments poorly. Black MSNBC reporter Joy Reid tweeted

ADVERTISEMENT

Non nobis domine! In our modest opinion, Trump’s speech sounded distinctly more like NumbersUSA’s Roy Beck, Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian and other herbivorous Beltway immigration patriots, who have emphasized that we do not need massive deportations to get the illegal population to return to their home country. Krikorian calls this “attrition through enforcement”—combining E-Verify, cutting off welfare, and increasing interior enforcement through cooperation with state law enforcement.  [Pew Report Shows Attrition of the Illegal Population Is Possible, By Mark Krikorian, CIS.org,  November 2015]
Prior to the speech Trump rarely discussed immigration enforcement beyond deportations—something I criticized way back in November 2015. Now he has finally adopted the more sophisticated attrition approach, citing CIS and using its buzzwords like “jobs magnet.”
But while Beck and Krikorian are good at making pretty strong policy proposals sound much less tough than they actually are, this requires them to use words very carefully. Trump, we must concede, does not choose his words carefully. Thus Trump could take Roy Beck’s argument that “we aren’t going to deport everyone, most illegals will return on their own if we remove the jobs magnet” without mentioning E-Verify and it would sound like amnesty.

• Internal debate: Still, Trump’s trumpeting does not fully explain the “softening” stories. Obviously, some of his more precise surrogates did prepare the MSM for a pivot.

The campaign recently replaced the relatively establishment Paul Manafort with Breitbart chief Stephen Bannon as campaign CEO and pollster Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager. Conway was the main voice suggesting that Trump might soften his tone ahead of the speech, telling Face the Nation “he is not talking about a deportation force, but he is talking about being fair and humane.” Bannon and former Jeff Sessions aide Stephen Miller wrote the Arizona speech (though that was always the plan). It’s possible that there was an internal struggle with Conway, which they won.
However, it’s worth noting that Conway has been pretty solid on immigration long before Trump and she may have simply been pushing the aforementioned clarifications as the “fair and humane” policies. Indeed, as I noted, Trump even called the “Deportation Force” humane. Conway also took the fight to Clinton’s “Full Merkel” Amnesty/ Immigration Surge proposals, as Trump did in his speech. [Kellyanne Conway: Clinton camp made ‘grievous error’, By David Wright, CNN, August 22, 2016]

• 3D Chess: If nothing else, Trump knows how to manipulate the media. Could that be what he was doing here?

The MSM would probably have paid no more attention to Trump’s speech than to his other recent strong statements (here and here and here) if they thought he would just give a few extra details to the same policies he’s promoted the entire campaign. However, because there appeared to be a big chance he would flip-flop on his signature issue, it became his most anticipated speech since the Convention.
Maybe that’s what Trump wanted the whole time. As it is, Trump’s rumored flip flop ended up further cementing hardline immigration patriotism as the centerpiece of his campaign.
But will it help Trump win?
The MSM is predictably claiming that immigration patriotism will doom Trump’s chances. The Washington Post’s James Hohmann, typified this conventional wisdom:

Republicans facing four more years in the wilderness will long recall the raucous rally in Phoenix as a low point of the Trump campaign, perhaps even as the moment that he definitively extinguished his hopes of becoming president.
[Trump triples down on a losing immigration position in Phoenix, September 1, 2016]

Hohmann goes on to bring up the spectre of Proposition 187 and the damage it supposedly caused the Republican brand.
And Trump had (ill-advisedly) allowed pro-amnesty consultants like Alfonso Aguilar onto his National Hispanic Advisory Council. The original rumors that he would flip flop came from this Council and now many members are withdrawing their support [Several Hispanic Trump surrogates reconsider support, by Katie Glueck & Kyle Cheney, Politico, September 1, 2016]
VDARE.com has repeatedly debunked the myths about Proposition 187 and the Hispanic Vote. Without repeating all the arguments, it’s notable that less than half of Hispanics are eligible to vote, that they are concentrated in non-swing states and that they turn out at the lowest level of any other group [Why Hispanics Don’t Have a Larger Political Voice, by Nate Cohn, New York Times, June 15, 2014]. Even though Trump is the first Republican Presidential nominee to run on a true immigration patriot position, Hispanic apathy persists, with recent polls showing they are less worried about the outcome of the election than any other ethnic group [In U.S., Hispanics Least Worried About Election Outcome, Gallup, July 13, 2016]
That being said, of course not every single white voter is an immigration patriot. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton is running on an openly anti-American immigration policy and making it central to her campaign. The more cautious course would have been for Trump to focus on 80-20 proxy-type issues like Administrative Amnesty, Official English, and sanctuary cities to turn out the White Vote.
Still I think Trump made the right decision. Had he focused on these popular, but ultimately peripheral issues, immigration would not be central to the campaign. And American voters have not only never had a choice to vote on immigration patriotism—they have never heard the arguments for it.
Take total immigration levels. Polls show about half of Americans support reducing legal immigration levels, while 15% think it should be increased, and 34% think it should stay the same [U.S. Public Has Mixed Views of Immigrants and Immigration, Pew Research Center, September 28, 2015]. If Trump had simply said immigration should stay the same while focused on attacking Hillary for increasing legal immigration, 85% of the country would agree with him more than her.
Yet after hearing Trump say “legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers,” and we should “select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient,” I believe there is every chance that reducing immigration will become an 80-20 issue.
Perhaps I am putting too much faith in the common sense of the American people. But if Trump’s great speech in Phoenix cannot convince them to save their country, it is already lost.
Washington Watcher [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Allegations of Housing Discrimination against Donald Trump

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about the allegations about Donald Trump doing housing discrimination. This follows this post about the false charge of racism towards immigration enforcement. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.

<

Who Were the Racist Tenants Who Insisted Fred Trump Not Rent to Blacks in Coney Island and Brighton Beach?

>

---

Steve Sailer

As part of the big push behind Hillary’s Alt-Right speech, the NYT is rolling out breaking news articles about how nearly a half century ago Trump’s dad, with the young Donald’s assistance, tried to prevent white flight from his apartment complexes in places like Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Forest Hills. As Hillary said on Thursday:

When he was getting his start in business, he was sued by the Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to black and Latino tenants. Their applications would be marked with a ‘C’ – ‘C’ for ‘colored’ – and then rejected. Three years later, the Justice Department took Trump back to court because he hadn’t changed.

This subject has been gone over repeatedly over the years, but one little explored question about this old story however is: Who exactly were these white racist tenants who were renting in Trump properties in Coney, Island, Brighton Beach, and Forest Hills but who would have white-flighted out to Long Island if too many blacks had flooded in to the Trump buildings? The young Jared Taylor? The unborn Richard Spencer? Haven Monahan’s grandpa?
To help the NYT in its investigations into the festering heart of the roots of racism in Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Forest Hills, I’ve found this home movie of David Duke’s upbringing under the Coney Island roller coaster:
Seriously, I explained the answer in passing in Taki’s Magazine a year ago in answer to a Washington Post article taking the opposite tack from the latest round of attacks. Last year’s article denounced Donald for not being like his dad Fred who built for the white middle class. I responded:

The evolution of the Trump brand name in housing over the past two generations strikingly illuminates how race has played a role in American life becoming so much more biased in favor of billionaires.

ADVERTISEMENT

A recent Washington Post article is headlined “How Donald Trump abandoned his father’s middle-class housing empire for luxury building.” The Post celebrates Fred C. Trump (1905–99) as one of the biggest builders of affordable apartments in the outer boroughs.
But it forgets to mention that Frederick Christ Trump would have been one of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ demons, since he typically built with the help of the Veterans Administration and other government agencies in redlined neighborhoods, such as the 3,800-unit Trump Village in heavily Jewish Coney Island. (Fred sometimes asserted his parents were from Sweden to sidestep his tenants’ prejudices against German-Americans.)
Fred Trump’s company was rewarded for all its contributions to middle-class America by being sued by the Nixon administration in 1973 for violating the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Only 4 percent of its tenants—in places like Forest Hills in Queens and Brighton Beach in Brooklyn—were black. The young Donald fired back, hiring Roy Cohn and arguing that allowing welfare recipients to rent in his father’s complexes would risk “massive fleeing from the city of not only our tenants, but communities as a whole.” Eventually, Donald signed one of those consent decrees with the feds, not admitting to doing anything but promising never to do it again.
Perhaps that episode played a role in the son’s determination to get out of his father’s business of building affordable housing in the outer boroughs, with its constant danger that antidiscrimination laws would trigger white flight to the suburbs among their largely middle-class Jewish customers, and instead follow the new generation of nouveaux riches New Yorkers to Manhattan. In 1983 Donald proved that New York’s 1970s economic malaise was definitely over by opening on Fifth Avenue the gaudy Trump Tower, which has since been home to numerous celebrities such as Jay Z and Beyoncé.As the saying goes, “Our prices discriminate, so we don’t have to.”

[Comment at Unz.com]

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the "Lost 10 Tribes." This follows this post about Political Correctness. This follows this post about Iran. This follows this post about Zika. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Where Are the "Lost 10 Tribes" Today?

 by Good News 5 comments Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Where did the northern 10 tribes of Israel go after their Assyrian captivity? They became known to historians as the "lost 10 tribes." What happened to them, and how do they fit in with the present peoples of the state of Israel?

We need to realize that Israel today includes far more territory than just this tiny modern Middle Eastern nation. Most people associate the name Israel with the Jewish state of that name. However, the Jewish people are descendants of primarily two of the 12 tribes that made up ancient Israel—Judah and Benjamin, along with a considerable portion of the priestly tribe of Levi.
After the reign of King Solomon, God caused the kingdom of Israel to divide into two separate nations because of Solomon's sins. The northern 10 tribes retained the name of Israel while the southern portion with its two tribes was called the kingdom of Judah. The word Jew is merely a shortened form of Judah. The first time the word Jews appear in the King James Version of the Bible, in 2 Kings 16:5-6, the northern nation of Israel is actually at war with the Jews! So clearly they are not one and the same people.
After the time of Solomon, these two nations became two politically distinct geographical entities. The Jews are part of the Israelites descended from the patriarch Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. But he had other sons, and the descendants of 10 of them formed the northern nation of Israel, including the descendants of the patriarch Joseph.
Joseph had two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. In due time their descendants became two great modern nations, one with an empire that stretched around the world. Joseph's descendants became the easiest to identify in contemporary history because the prophetic blessings they were to receive stand out so distinctly (see Genesis 49:22-26 and Deuteronomy 33:13-17).
The intriguing story of how the modern descendants of the patriarch Joseph eventually became Great Britain and the United States of America is told in our free Bible study aid The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy . Much of God's prophetic plan cannot really be understood without the national identifications carefully laid out in this publication.
Both Great Britain and the United States played major roles, one following the other, in the restoration (after nearly 2,000 years) of the Jewish people to nationhood in the Middle East in 1948. The Balfour Declaration in Britain (1917) was followed by U.S. President Harry Truman's crucial political backing in the late 40s. The destinies of all three nations—biblically known as Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh—are intertwined and will be a big part of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy at the time of the end, albeit in different ways.

News and Prophecy

You might also be interested in...

The Lost Tribes of Israel: Why They Matter

Today's Jewish State of Israel does not comprise all the "Israel of God."...

Let Us Keep the Feasts: Why the Exodus Matters

This is the second part in the Bible study series: Let Us Keep the Feasts....

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Political Correctness. This follows this post about the Virginia Tech shooting. This follows this post about Iran. This follows this post about Zika. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

How Correct is Political Correctness?

 by Janel Johnson Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Since political correctness will be part of nearly every college class you take, what should you know about it now?

Sometimes it seems like political correctness (PC) has been around forever. Some commentators peg the beginning of political correctness within the decade of the 1980s.
But the politically correct movement already had a foundation long before that in moral relativism and in situation ethics. Both of these philosophies are based on the idea that there is no such thing as “absolute truth.” Those of us who know and accept the “absolute truth” of the Bible know that such thinking is flawed. We also discover that there is more to the business of PC than “correctness.”
PC is so prevalent and powerful because it is based on our innate desire for love, peace and justice for the underdog. But without the true biblical principles to guide these desires, they can run amok.

What does it sound like?

PC nouns and adjectives include words such as “privileged,” “entitled,” “majority rule,” “diversity” and “individual rights.” While “tolerance” is a favorite buzzword of the politically correct, PC actually creates its own intolerance that often quickly shouts down alternative viewpoints.
You'll hear all about “imperialism” in history, “reason” in English, “exploitation” in economics, “evolution” as fact in biology and “connecting to the greater world” in sociology. And, if you listen very carefully, you'll hear that the words spoken are not really about equal opportunity for all.

How does it look and feel?

PC embraces minorities, but not because it respects everyone like God does or as the Constitution of the United States and its amendments advocate. According to author and radio host Laura Ingraham, political correctness uses polarization to reinforce division and ends up creating classes among our citizens ( Shut Up and Sing , 2003, p. 62).
Your PC classroom will be one with an emphasis on personal right of choice—but, when you stand back and take an overview, this turns out to be a shortsighted approach that is rarely for the collective good of all . The barometer of the politically correct movement tends to be the gratification of one person or one particular group of people.
Your PC classroom will be one in which each student is encouraged to lobby for that right of choice but will rarely follow up on the personal responsibility needed in taking that action.
In the politically correct worldview, abortion is a reproductive right and homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle just as valid as any other. All religions, from animism to Wicca, are equal (except one that would claim to know absolute truth). You'll be made to feel ostracized and intimidated if you hold an alternative opinion.

What difference does it make to you?

While being politically correct will put you in a generally comfortable place with your professors and peers, it will slowly take you away from biblical values.
Our freedoms grant us the ability and the opportunity to contribute to a healthy, functional society through personal choice, personal responsibility and personal accountability. This is obviously a better choice.

How can you be prepared to deal with it?

As your college schedule gets more demanding, be sure to set aside time to continue learning about God's gifts. These precious gifts include having a sound mind, peace, gentleness, kindness, self-control, joy, goodness, love, faithfulness and personal responsibility.
Never close your mind's door to discernment. Be aware of current events. Pick up a couple of books for summer reading that deal with the PC topic (such as Bias by Bernard Goldberg or Shut Up and Sing by Laura Ingraham). Talk with your friends and encourage one another to stand up for the integrity of a giving way of life.
As you enter and progress through your higher education, remember the sounds, sights and feelings of the politically correct movement. Be prepared and ready to understand the difference between the counterfeit and truth. VT

politically correct Youth Fruit of the Spirit

You might also be interested in...

Heading off to College

Before you being college, you will need a few tools in your belt that will aid...

What Do I Need Right Now?

As young people mature, many wonder about their relationship with God and...

• 

  Janel Johnson

  No Bio Info Available
  

Add to my study list

Print this Page

Appeared In...

Vertical Thought: July - September 2004

Join the conversation!

Log in or register to post comments

An interesting article from www.numbersusa.com about the presidential candidate's stance on immigration issues. This follows this post about Donald Trump's appeal. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

Clarifying Prez Candidates' Immigration Stances: OUR NEW VOTER GUIDE

 

 https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax

Which presidential nominees would increase flow of foreign workers and which would reduce the flow?
That's the question we are answering with our new Voter Guide. We've posted it on our website today just as the news is filled with confusion about what presidential nominees would do about immigration.

In fact, not everything is clarified.
But the positions of the candidates are a lot easier to compare if we focus on how immigration affects Americans workers rather than on what to do with the estimated 11 million illegal foreign workers and their dependents currently in the country.
We've just posted a brand new voter guide to help you focus on the 10 most important immigration policy issues and where the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green Parties stand on them.
At the moment, the mass media are trying to make it seem that the most important issue is about what should be done with the 11 million foreign citizens in this country who illegally crossed the border or overstayed their visas.

The key question is not what to do with illegal aliens . . .

. . . but how many foreign citizens should businesses be allowed to hire ahead of Americans.

That's what you'll find in our new Voter Guide, showing each nominee's stance on 10 policies that most affect the number of work permits granted to foreign citizens.
They include:

• E-Verify
• Chain Migration
• Visa Lottery
• Border
• High-Skill Visas
• Work Permits to Illegal Foreign Workers
• Sanctuary Policies

Take a look. To read more about one of the nominees, click on their photo. That is also a way for you to contact their campaign office to encourage them to become more pro-American-worker.
Then join the conversation below.
Let us know if we are missing some recent statement from one of the nominees that should be included.
We will be continually updating the Voter Guide through the fall. (As always, NumbersUSA does not endorse candidates. Rather, we help voters learn which candidates are most in line with our positions on only one issue -- immigration numbers.)
ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.