An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com/about Donald Trump's appeal. This follows this post about the REAL reason there is a "broken immigration system." 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.

<

Ann Coulter’s IN TRUMP WE TRUST: Immigration, Not Charisma, Explains Trump’s Appeal

---

Martin Witkerk

See also: David Frum On Ann Coulter’s ADIOS AMERICA!—And Peter Brimelow’s ALIEN NATION
Speculation that columnist Ann Coulter might not be disinclined to Donald Trump’s candidacy began when she characterized her attitude toward him as “blind worship…like the North Korean people with their dear, dear leader.” Her description of him as “my hero, our savior” and “the greatest candidate for president ever” did little to dispel the rumors. But her declaration that Trump’s policy paper on immigration was “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta” and that she “totally would” marry him if he were single may have been the broadest hints yet that an outright endorsement might be in the offing.
Today she places him in the company of the Almighty with the release of her book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!
The clarity with which Miss Coulter makes her preferences known is rivaled only by that of Trump’s own message. As she reminds us, he announced his candidacy “in a speech talking about Mexican rapists, pledging to deport illegal aliens and build a wall.” All hell broke loose and within a week, he had lost tens of millions of dollars: Univision dumped Trump’s Miss USA pageant; NBC dumped both the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants; Macy’s dumped his ties; and ESPN dumped his Trump National Golf Club.
Any other Republican would have issued a clarification that “what he meant was that Mexico was sending us its Albert Einsteins and Niels Bohrs to do the jobs Americans won’t do.” Trump instead barred Univision employees from his properties and dismissed the neckties as made in China anyway. He shot to the top of the polls, and it turned out that the Establishment had no back up plan for dealing with resistance. They had never needed one before.
It was just the same as when ABC Hispanic correspondent Tom Llamas [Tweet him] told Trump the term “anchor babies” was offensive and Trump responded that it was a perfectly good expression which he intended to go right on using. Every other Republican was cowering before the beast of Political Correctness—until Donald Trump calmly revealed it as nothing but a paper tiger.
Coulter understands the psychology involved:

It’s extremely rare for people to take positions that will hurt them with their friends. Trump lived among fancy Manhattanites. What he was saying on immigration was going to cost him friends. The standard response to someone who wants to restrict immigration is: You don’t understand—your positions are very gauche, very déclassé. These are the opinions of ethnics in the outer boroughs. Other people would say, “Oh, my gosh—did anyone see?” Trump said, Yeah, I think I still want to build a wall. The sophisticates didn’t have a comeback.

Journalists hastened to attribute Trump’s success to a vague “anger” among voters, without going into why they might be angry or what they might be angry about. But as Coulter points out, “if it was just tough talk the voters were hungering for, why didn’t Governor Chris Christie go anywhere?”
Others claimed voters were merely responding to Trump’s colorful personality. But Coulter notes that “the one thing voters weren’t wild about was his personality.” Admittedly, he can be coarse and vulgar. But “the problem with trying to find an old-school WASPy, understated, dry, less-is-more, antique leather, sturdy wood and brass type to take Trump’s positions” is that such a person couldn’t endure the sort of abuse such positions would evoke, much less fight back.
If Arianna Huffington’s Huffington Post had put coverage of Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign in its entertainment section, can anyone imagine him tweeting: “I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man—he made a good decision”?
And just how much gravitas do we have a right to expect of a presidential candidate in contemporary America? As Coulter points out, “Our current president was a community organizer, the last guy was a president’s son, and the one before that was a rapist.”
Hard as it may be for journalists to understand why American voters would care more about protecting their livelihoods than about stirring up a war with Putin, we are forced to consider the possibility that Trump is popular because of the positions he has taken. And although there are a number of these, “they all come down to taking America’s side—on trade, on war, on outsourcing, on NAFTA, on NATO, on our borders, on terrorism.” Strange to say, this has proven very popular with Americans.

ADVERTISEMENT

As Coulter points out, the Republican Party has been dominated for many years by bankers and corporatists who only really agree with Republican voters on one issue—keeping their taxes low. By facilitating globalization, the GOP has benefited them at the expense of everyone else, guaranteeing them “a much bigger share of a much smaller pie.”
We have imported millions of peasants and destroyed the middle class in order to make the very rich much richer. It was an alliance between the super-rich in search of cheap labor and old-fashioned socialists in search of a proletariat more amenable to their plans. Coulter writes:

It’s not in the Anglo-Saxon character either to take orders or to give them. That’s why the socialist left finally gave up on traditional Americans and pinned their hopes on immigrants, who bring their socialism with them. If you want a conservative country, you need a conservative populace. Immigration is changing the country, and there will be no changing it back. If you don’t understand that, you are the enemy of any conservative undertaking.

Before Trump’s announcement, the Republican Party had always successfully prevented the voters from being given a choice on the issues which affected their own lives by distracting them with secondary issues or events happening on the other side of the world. As Coulter puts it, “If your elected representative is talking to you about ISIS, he’s planning to outsource your job and move Syrian refugees into your neighborhood.”
Donald Trump foiled this diversionary strategy with a single speech.
Main Stream Media coverage of Donald Trump is itself one of the biggest stories of this campaign. In one of her most effective chapters, Coulter cites forty-two nearly identical MSM complaints that Trump has not offered enough “policy specifics”—over a period in which he released no fewer than six policy papers on subjects such as immigration, taxation, trade, veterans’ affairs and health care, all loaded with concrete proposals.
How paranoid do you have to be to see a conspiracy in a pattern of dishonesty this extensive and consistent?
Personal agency is another concept with which journalists covering Trump’s campaign have had difficulty. When Leftist thugs attacked Americans peacefully attending Trump’s rallies, journalists told us that “fists flew,” as though it were normal for fists to fly about unattached to anyone in particular. Such violence only occurred at Trump’s rallies, they solemnly intoned—as though the failure of conservatives to beat up Hillary’s supporters were proof of Trump’s lawlessness.
Millions of Americans still believe that Donald Trump made fun of a handicapped reporter. This is a 100% MSM fabrication intended to distract from the correctness of Trump’s earlier observation that many Muslims in America celebrated the 9/11 attacks (although his claim that “thousands” did so may have been hyperbole). Coulter tracked down “more than two dozen people reporting separate instances of between a dozen and forty Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks in the New York vicinity at a minimum of six different locations.” Yet the entire media establishment rose up as one to deny that any such thing had happened.
One reporter, the Washington Post’s Serge Kovaleski, even disavowed his own story written one week after the attacks [Northern New Jersey Draws Probers’ Eyes By Serge F. Kovaleski and Fredrick Kunkle ,September 18, 2001]. Trump responded with a funny impression of a flustered man trying to deny his own words, and the MSM claimed he was mocking a physical handicap Trump had no way of knowing the journalist had.
Americans who lived near our southern border were being murdered, shot, raped, their livestock slaughtered, their homes broken into, and their property destroyed. John McCain called them “crazies” for objecting. “We have a very extreme element within our Republican Party,” he told The New Yorker, criticizing Trump for having “galvanized” them.[John McCain Has a Few Things to Say About Donald Trump By Ryan Lizza , July 16, 2015 ]
When Trump sided with his own long-suffering Arizona supporters against McCain, Frank Luntz  “interrupt[ed] him with the monumentally irrelevant ‘But he’s a war hero!’” Trump pointed out that getting captured does not make one a hero. This entirely correct and reasonable remark was construed as “an attack on McCain’s war record,” and a week of frenetic denunciations followed.
But at the end of it, polls showed that Trump’s favorability among Republicans had nearly doubled, while he was more popular with vets and those currently serving than McCain himself!
Studies have demonstrated that media attacks can backfire, resulting in increased support for causes such as gun rights.     The outcome of the present election may depend on whether or not the public grasps the full extent of journalistic dishonesty in contemporary America.
They will if they read In Trump We Trust—order it here.
Martin Witkerk [Email him] is an independent philosopher.

MEXICO and other Hispanic Nations CONTINUE to Meddle in U.S. elections!

An interesting article from www.vdare.com about Mexico and other Hispanic nations meddling in the U.S. election. This follows this post about immigration in Rome. 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.

Said In Spanish: More Trump Trashing, More Hispanic Hypocrisy On Birthright Citizenship; etc.

>

---

Allan Wall
                                                      

What’s been going in the Spanish-language media the past month? As you’ve probably guessed, plenty of Trump-trashing—and more Hispanic hypocrisy, especially about Birthright Citizenship.
TRUMP PROFILE A HIT PIECE
Donald Trump’s open defense of American sovereignty has the Mexican chattering class on edge. As well it should. They recognize what Trump might be able to accomplish, and they don’t like it.
Thus, El Universal ran a web feature entitled Donald Trump El Magnate Antiinmigrantes [Donald Trump the Anti-Immigrant Magnate]. Besides the standard biographical information, there’s a section entitled “Trump vs. Mexico” featuring context-free quotes from Trump about Mexico, a section entitled “Contratos Abajo” [Contracts Cancelled] showing the companies that have broken business deals with Trump, and a photo gallery entitled “Lluvia de Criticas,” [Rain of Criticisms], chronicling Trump-trashing by a wide spectrum of famous people, including celebrities (Cher, Shakira, the former Mexican national soccer team coach, and Jorge Ramos) and assorted politicians.
One noteworthy trasher: Eugenio Derbez, a well-connected comedian and nephew of a former Mexican foreign minister. He said:

“They [Trump’s] are totally racist commentaries and I am sure that the day that Mexicans aren’t in this country [the U.S.], Latinos in general, the day that they are deported, the country will stop. The Latinos are the force that moves the United States.”

My emphasis. “The force that moves the United States”? Can we ask where?
Naturally, several of these celebrities boasted about the much-touted Latino Vote.
Politicians reported to be trashing Trump included Mexican government officials, Jeb Bush (or do I repeat myself?), two former Mexican presidents, Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham, Barack Obama and Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro.
Maduro, protégé of the late Hugo Chavez, said of Trump: “That type of person generates madness against our beloved Latin American People.”
Hmmm. Maduro has previously sworn “a little bird” told him the late Hugo Chavez is “happy.” [Is Nicolas Maduro Losing It? By Oscar Lopez, Latin Times, July 29, 2014]. I think Latin Americans can generate madness without Trump’s help
Josefina Vasquez Mota, a failed PAN party presidential candidate in 2012, said:

In the face of the declarations of terrible ignorance and disdain of a gentleman like Donald Trump and others who think like him, it’s important to know what’s happening with our community: 83 of every 100 Mexicans who currently reside in the United States, were born in the United States or have legal residence.

Two points to note:

1. Josefina considers all those born in the U.S. of Mexican ancestry as “Mexicans” and part of “our community.”
2. Even she admits that 17% are illegals.

Mexican Party Boss Trashes Trump
The much-hyped attack on a homeless Hispanic man provided fodder for the new presidente of the PRI, Mexico’s governing party:

After the attack that an indocumentado of Mexican origin suffered in Boston, the national leader of the PRI, Manlio Fabio Beltrones, called for a confrontation of ideas with populist demagogues.
[Beltrones referenda apoyo a migrantes y alerta contra discursos de odio [Beltrones reaffirms support to migrants and alerts against discourse of hate] by Alberto Morales, Universal, August 23, 2015]

And Mexican political leaders know a lot about populist demagogues.

Manlio Fabio Beltrones condemned the aggressions of the brothers Scott and Steve Leader, sympathizers [Allegedly—AW] of the Republican primary candidate Donald Trump, who beat and afflicted an indocumentado of Mexican origin in Boston, Massachusetts and [Beltrones] affirmed that the discourses of hate only generate violence.

But who in the U.S. is defending the Leader brothers? And when has Beltrones lamented the many violent crimes committed by illegals against Americans?
Beltrones actually met with Mexican congressmen about the issue and later declared in a communique:

“That type of populist demagogue that unfortunately is emerging in various places and with distinct masks, they have in common that they generate violence, rancor and they are a risk to democracy…”
Speaking to members of his political party, Beltrones asked the PRIstas to be attentive to the debate of current topics and to meet with citizens with ideas and proposals that unmask the populists of one or another political persuasion.

My emphasis. Note that Beltrones is making no distinction between the Mexican and U.S. political realms.
Beltrones went on:

“The PRI makes the cause of the Mexican migrants its own, as they form an indissoluble nucleus of our society, in that they provide remittances and cultural richness.”

My emphasis. This is a startling admission by the leader of a Mexican political party—especially because for the first time a major U.S. presidential candidate has called the Mexican government to account for its exploitation of emigration to advance its own interests at American expense.
My suggestion: Trump should also condemn this Mexican meddling in U.S. affairs, through its consulates and its openly claiming the loyalty of Mexican-Americans via its citizenship law.
Prediction: If Trump continues to advance, watch for more meddling by the Mexican government to stop him. They may already be working on it.
Hispanic Hypocrisy On Birthright Citizenship
On August 15^th, La Opinión, the biggest Spanish-language paper in the U.S., published De nuevo sugieren cambiar la ciudadanía por nacimiento [Again the proposal to change citizenship by birth emerges] By Pilar Marrero]
This was the day before Donald Trump’s position paper officially challenged automatic birthright citizenship and was principally written in response to comments by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie [Christie no longer sure about birthright citizenship, by Steve Benen, MSNBC, August 12, 2015]
According to La Opinión’s Benen:

Throughout all the history of the United States, those born here automatically acquired U.S. citizenship regardless of who their parents were, a practice consecrated by the 14^th amendment to the Constitution.

Not exactly, but moving on…

But every so often, and generally every four years during the presidential contention, somebody considers that it’s a good idea to suggest that this privilege should be removed from the children of inmigrantes sin papeles [immigrants without papers] as a type of punishment to the parents for coming illegally.

Benen then listed the Republican candidates and their positions—the implication being for Latinos to vote against anyone who opposes birthright citizenship.
What about Mexico? Trump is being criticized for saying that it doesn’t have birthright citizenship when, technically, it does. But my own experience suggests this is pretty darn technical.
In Mexico, it’s always important to check what the law says against what actually occurs. The Mexican Constitution (Capitulo II, Articulo 30 pdf., on p.26 of 170) does stipulate that any baby born in Mexican territory, regardless of parentage, is Mexican—automatic birthright citizenship. But my two sons were born in Mexico. Each baby’s Mexican birth certificate was issued to my wife and myself by a Mexican registrar. However, since I was a foreigner, the registrar required me to show my Mexican work permit in order to process the paperwork!
In other words, I had to prove I was in Mexico legally for each son to have a Mexican birth certificate!
When our second son was born, this process was temporarily derailed. My Mexican work permit was being renewed for the year, so it was temporarily out of my possession. The registrar would not issue the birth certificate until I had showed her my work permit. It took us several more weeks to obtain it.
So Mexico, although technically offering automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens and other foreigners, has in practice a way of getting around it. It can just refuse to issue birth certificates if one or both parents are not in the country legally! How very clever!
And note that, in our case, one of the parents, my wife, was a Mexican citizen, yet the child still didn’t automatically receive the documentation!
Ironically, what happened to us resembles what’s going on now in some jurisdictions of Texas, where birth certificates are being withheld from anchor babies on an ID technicality.
Needless to say, the Mexican government opposes this and has filed an amicus brief in the inevitable lawsuit.
What Latinos Miss After Moving To The U.S.
Ever find something on the Internet and you don’t even remember how? I ran across this interesting article on iMUJER a women’s Spanish-language website aimed at Latin American women living in the U.S.: 5 cosas que los latinos extrañan al mudarse a Estados Unidos [Five Things that Latinos Miss After Moving to the United States, by Sofia Gabarrat. Accessed August 28, 2015].
Gabarrat explains: “Leaving one’s country is not easy, even less so if you emigrate to a country where the culture is so very different, as occurs with the Latinos who move to the United States.”
The five things Latinos miss:

1. La música en todas partes. [Music everywhere]. Gabarrat writes that there is music everywhere in Latin America, and in the U.S. people are too serious.
2. Hablar español. [Speaking Spanish]. Gabarrat says that even if you learn English, you miss speaking Spanish, saying good morning in the grocery store. Maybe she lives somewhere that is still America.
3. La gente. [The people].
4. Los vendedores de la calle. [Street vendors].
5. La libertad. [Liberty]. This is interesting. Americans fancy that foreigners come here seeking freedom. But most Latin Americans don’t see it that way. I never heard anybody in Mexico say he wanted to emigrate to the U.S. for “libertad”. Gabarrat writes:

In Latin America we don’t have so many rules, don’t you think? From riding a motorcycle without a helmet, to selling homemade food that you prepared in your own home in the street…… ¡Libertad! We all know that liberty presupposes that we should take care of ourselves more, but that is a price that we love to pay to do what we want to do.

Having lived in Latin America, I understand. I even sympathize. But it does show that most Latin Americans come to the U.S. for the money—not for freedom.
There’s a simple, human, and mutually respectful solution to this problem of a culture clash. Latinos who live in the U.S. and don’t feel they fit in should not try to take over our culture. They should consider moving back to Latin America, where they can be immersed in their own culture every day.
They can hear the music, they can buy from the street vendors, they can revel in the Latin American style of liberty.
That’s what different cultures and countries are for.
Isn’t that true multiculturalism?
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A. in 2008 after many years residing in Mexico. Allan`s wife is Mexican, and their two sons are bilingual. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here ; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.

A pair of timely posts about from www.vdare.com about Jorge Ramos, #BlackLivesMatter, and Donald Trump. This follows this post about refugees being placed in America. This follows this post about Pope Francis.
You can follow me here.

<

Jorge Ramos Ejected: Trump Fires Warning Shot Across Bow of BlackLivesMatter Motormouths

>

---

Steve Sailer
                                                      

Half a month ago, poor old Bernie Sanders was feebly left speechless in Seattle by two fat angry black women who screamed him off his own stage:

Tuesday, in contrast, Donald Trump decisively responded to an ethnic grievance monger trying to take control of the Donald’s news conference by having a tall security guard escort the puny interloper out of the room until the man calmed down:

Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, blogs:

Trump, that magnificent bastard, made his enemy do the perp walk on International TV while appearing 100% in charge of the situation.

In contrast, most of the English language news media in America — finding Mexicans tedious except in the abstract — is shocked that Trump would be insensitive to some poor nonwhite immigrant.
But you know and I know the race man who wouldn’t stop talking wasn’t just some BLM nobody like in Seattle, he was Haim Saban’s blue-eyed boy, Jorge Ramos, anchorman of the Spanish-language Univision network.
Here’s my 2004 VDARE book review of Ramos’ The Latino Wave: How Hispanics Will Elect the Next American President. I wrote 11 years ago:

Ramos is a stealth superstar. If you don`t speak Spanish—or read VDARE.com —you`ve probably never heard of him. …
Ramos is a man with a mission: keeping Latinos from fully assimilating into the American mainstream. He writes:
“I’m not one of those people who thinks that the common bond that unites those of us who live in the United States is the English language. No, I believe that this country’s two main characteristics are its acceptance of immigrants and its tolerance for diversity. These things are what bind us together; we’re here thanks to these unifying principles. That’s what it means to be an American. Not your ability to speak English. Talk to me in Spanish … or at least try. I sometimes go entire days without having to speak a single word of English…”
Of course, if Americans be persuaded that English is no longer the nation’s common bond, Hispanics can continue watching Univision’s Spanish-language broadcasts.
Mr. Perenchio [the Italian-American previous owner of Univision and Ron Unz’s arch-enemy during the Prop. 227 battle over bilingual education in California] must be pleased to have such a loyal lackey. Reading this book, I lost track of how many times Ramos argues that various politicians doomed their campaigns by not buying enough spots on Univision. …
Whether or not it’s bad for America, it’s good for his bank account.
Besides, what does he care? He remains a Mexican citizen even after 21 years in the U.S.
Since Ramos wrote The Latino Wave in Spanish for his Spanish-speaking fans (it was translated by Ezra E. Fitz), he can be franker than mass immigration apologists usually are when addressing an English-speaking audience. He gloats:
“But while no fighting is taking place on the military or legal fronts, there is fighting going on culturally. It’s the Reconquest. Latinos are culturally reconquering lands that once were part of the Spanish empire…”
Accordingly, much of Ramos` argument will be more familiar to readers of VDARE.com than to the gullible readers of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. Thus while Ramos pays lip service to “proposition nation” ideology to con non-Hispanics into allowing unlimited immigration into their country, he clearly believes that ethnicity and demographics matter. And he wants his ethnic group to win.

In 2007 Jerry Perenchio sold Univision to a consortium led by Haim Saban, who has been perhaps the biggest single contributor to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns over the years.
Of course, Trump is well aware of all these convoluted personal interests at play. Chuck Ross wrote for the Daily Caller in June:

Donald Trump’s Camp Questions If Univision Owner’s Ties To Hillary Clinton Are Behind Pageant Decision
With Univision’s decision to sever ties with the Miss Universe pageant — which is controlled in part by Donald Trump — the Republican presidential candidate and his camp are questioning the Hispanic media outlet’s move, saying that the company was reacting to pressure from Mexico and its owner, Haim Saban, who is a big Hillary Clinton supporter.
“[Univision is] put under a lot of pressure, in my opinion, by the Mexican government to get [me] to not talk about trade and the southern border,” Trump told The Daily Caller on Thursday.
“The biggest people in Univision, they’re all supporting Hillary,” he added. “I think that had a lot to do with it. They see how I’m doing in the polls,” the real estate billionaire continued, citing a recent poll from Suffolk University which shows him in second place in New Hampshire behind Jeb Bush.
“They know that I’ll beat [Clinton] if I run against her,” Trump said.

The Trump campaign is like 14 years of iSteve blogging about the behind-the-scenes interests playing out in real time.
Thirty years ago, I would have felt that emphasizing the Hillary-Haim-Jorge connection was unseemly. What matters is not the grubby little conspiracies, but the principles at stake!
A commenter submitted a very interesting quote from Trump about what changed when the Cold War was won. I haven’t been able to dig it up, so I’ll just riff off my vague memory. Trump argued that during the Cold War, long-term strategizing was highly important. But in the post-Cold War era, Trump’s skill set of tactical negotiating strengths has risen in relative value.
Like everything Trump says, this was self-interested. But it’s also interesting. Trump is sort of the anti-Reagan in the sense that Reagan was, for an ex-actor, surprisingly impersonal, more interested in enduring principles than in current personalities. (It drove Reagan’s kids crazy that he seemed less interested in their troubles than in the country’s.) Movie audiences tended to responded to him most when he could play to his natural strong suit as a high-minded idealist, such as in Reagan’s big 1951 hit Bedtime for Bonzo.
Trump, in contrast, is quick to point out his opponents’ mercenary biases. When Trump bothers to enunciate principles, as in the brilliant opening to his immigration position paper, they’re generally sensible. But he seems more aware than anybody else that we’re living in Fukuyama’s End of History when history hasn’t ended, just ideological sincerity. Political actors now are motivated less by economic theories than by whatever are the personal or identity group scams they happen to be working.

[Comment at Unz.com.]

An interesting article from www.vdare.com about Jeb Bush and Donald Trump. This follows this post about the Alabama Trump rally. 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.

<

¡Jeb! Slams Back at Trump … in Spanish

---

Steve Sailer
                                                      

From Politico:

Jeb Bush, with Donald Trump on his mind, takes the border
But while seeking to clean up one gaffe, he makes another.
By Eli Stokols
8/24/15 6:58 PM EDT
Read more:
MCALLEN, Texas — In this predominantly Hispanic border town, Jeb Bush dismissed Donald Trump’s proposal of building a wall to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants through Mexico and called for “a comprehensive” border security strategy — and he did it mostly in Spanish.

http://noticias.univision.com/article/2441358/2015-08-24/estados-unidos/destino-2016/noticias-elecciones/jeb-bush-aclara-que-dijo-bebes-ancla-para-referirse-al-crimen-organizado

Comparing the two videos from the same event, Jeb is a more appealing speaker in Spanish. He seems more like a plausible leader when speaking his confident, personable Spanish than he does when speaking English, a language in which he seems weak, uncomfortable and furtive:

If American citizens were given the right to vote for President of Mexico, I’d vote for ¡Jeb!

“Mr. Trump’s plans are not grounded in conservative principles,” Bush said during an appearance at a Mexican restaurant Monday afternoon.
“His proposal is unrealistic. It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It will violate peoples civil liberties. It will create friction with our third-largest trading partner that’s not necessary, and I think he’s wrong about this. If he’s serious about this, he might want to read my book, “Immigration Wars,” which I published four years ago.”
The visit to this south Texas border town, an arid patch of used car lots and agricultural warehouses just north of the Rio Grande where 90 percent of the population speaks Spanish, comes as Bush continues to feud publicly over immigration issues with Trump, who currently leads all comers in the GOP nomination fight. …
“What’s happening here on the border is really bad; it’s becoming a Third World country, almost,” said Aurora Blanco, a beautician from McAllen who is a Republican and open to supporting Bush. “The border — they haven’t fixed it and we need somebody to start again with new fresh policies.”
Bush, who has seen his poll numbers dip in the past month, has drawn criticism from two different directions on the issue of illegal immigration — from Trump, who has blasted him for not taking the problem seriously enough, and from those on the left, offended by his use of Trumpian language last week.
Last Wednesday, just as Bush started to intensify his criticism of the New York City businessman for not being a true conservative, the former Florida governor was put on the defensive over his use of the term “anchor babies” in a radio interview.
Bush declined to comment on Trump’s statement and chided the media for allowing Democrats to take his statement “out of context,” noting that he has been “immersed in the immigrant experience” in his upbringing in Texas, his 41-year marriage to a Mexican woman and their bilingual children.
“This is ludicrous for the Clinton campaign and others to suggest that somehow I was using a derogatory term,” he said, before offering a new explanation of what he was trying to say last week in talking about “anchor babies.”
“What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there’s organized efforts — frankly, it’s more related to Asian people coming into our country, having children in that organized efforts, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship.
“I support the 14th Amendment,” he continued. “Nothing about what I’ve said should be viewed as derogatory toward immigrants at all.
“I think we need to take a step back and chill out a little bit as it relates to the political correctness that somehow you have to be scolded every time you say something. It’s not fair to be taken out of context.”
Democrats, however, blasted Bush again for “tripling down” on the anchor babies line, Jeb’s apparent effort to talk about birth tourism, a recent trend that has seen families, many of them Chinese, willing to pay large sums to have their children born in the United States.
“This latest comment from Bush shows just how out of touch he is,” said the DNC’s director of Asian American and Pacific Islander Engagement, K.J. Bagchi. “The only thing worse than Jeb Bush’s words about immigrant families may be his policies towards them.”

[Comment at Unz.com.]