Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, June 25, 2018

Immigration became an issue because of voters who feared for their safety, not because of Trump. George Bush admin. mocked and scorned citizens rightly concerned about dangers of a porous border and lax immigration standards. The Bush Republican Party separated itself from Republican voters. Half the country's electorate was cast off as if it were nothing-June 1, 2007, Peggy Noonan, Wall St. Journal opinion, "Too bad"

"Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?"
June 2, 2007, "Too Bad," Wall St. Journal, Peggy Noonan, opinion 

"What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker -- "At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.... 

Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place. 

President Bush has torn asunder the conservative coalition. 

For almost three years [since 2004], arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad. 

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad." The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism." 

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.... 

The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position -- but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate. 

They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true! 

If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done -- actually and believably done -- the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin. 

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.... 

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance. 

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time."


Tom Blumer 6/1/2007 comment on Peggy Noonan article: I can’t help but wonder if this is one of Noonan’s final columns in the Wall Street “There Shall Be Open Borders” Journal.

Speaking of which, I obtained from the ProQuest library database the original July 3, 1984 Wall Street Journal “There Shall Be Open Borders” editorial, and have stored it at my web host for fair use and discussion purposes only. It’s also reproduced below the fold if you’re on the home page.

How inspiring and idealistic it seemed at the time. How naive, simplistic, and dangerous it is and, in retrospect, has always been. Also note how history has proven the Journal oh-so-wrong about Europe’s ultimate failure to control its invading horde.

For 23 years now [as of June 2007], the Journal has refused to recognize the dangers of first a few million, then over 10 million, now 12-20 million, and if they get their way (who knows?) perhaps 40 million more illegal people in our midst — many if not most of whom are, at best, NOT interested in assimilation, and some of whom are, and will continue to be, working day and night on our destruction.

The editorialists at the Journal have, as far as I can recall, never budged an inch from [their July 3, 1984] “There Shall Be Open Borders.” It’s clear that no amount of reality will cause them to get a grip."


Sunday, June 24, 2018

In 2014 US oligarchs winked at corrupt Honduran government and instead sought to punish US taxpayers by forcing them to fund new US "resettlement centers" in Honduras to expedite processing of those who wished to live on the backs of US taxpayers. No more dangerous treks through Mexico, just bus fare to local office. Offices may later open in Guatemala and El Salvador-NY Times, 7/24/2014

"[Obama] Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval." 

7/24/2014, "To Ease Crisis, U.S. May Vet Young Refugees Inside Honduras," NY Times,

Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal. 

If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.... 

Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country. 

By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan aims to slow the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the Southwest border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.

Many of the children, particularly in Honduras, are believed to be fleeing dangerous street gangs, which forcibly recruit members and extort home and business owners. The United Nations estimates that 70,000 gang members operate in the three nations. 

Administration officials confirmed that they are considering the idea, although they stressed that no decision has been made to move forward. They said the idea is one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.

Among the factors surrounding the decision are how many people in Honduras would be eligible to apply for the program, and how many would likely be approved. 

The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted.

If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well.

It is unclear how the administration determined those estimates, given that since Oct. 1 more than 16,500 unaccompanied children traveled to the United States from Honduras alone. 

Children would be interviewed by American immigration employees trained to deal with minors, and a resettlement center would be set up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with assistance from international organizations like the International Organization for Migration. 

The plan would be similar to a recent bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who proposed increasing the number of refugee visas to the three Central American countries by 5,000 each.

According to the draft, the administration is considering opening the program to people under 21. It also suggested offering entry on emergency humanitarian grounds--known as humanitarian parole--to some of the applicants who did not qualify for refugee status.... 

Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on immigration, said that the proposal would increase, not stem, the flood of migrants from Central America trying to get into the United States.

“It’s clearly a bad idea,” Mr. Krikorian said. “Orders of magnitude more people will apply for refugee status if they can just do it from their home countries. 

He added that the proposal would allow people to claim to be refugees from their countries with nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”

The preliminary plan could create a thorny challenge for the administration because the definition of a refugee is legally specific, and children fleeing street gangs could have a hard time qualifying. 

Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

The draft of the plan noted that 64.7 percent of the unaccompanied minors who applied for asylum this year got it, which suggests that immigration officials have found their claims of imminent danger credible.

With that in mind, the draft proposal suggested that 35 to 50 percent of the applicants in Honduras could be considered for relief, a figure the White House said was inflated. The early draft, the White House said, was the most generous and least likely of the options the administration is considering.

How many people are accepted is critical, because refugees qualify for public assistance upon arrival in the United States. 

Under Senator McCain’s proposal, refugee applicants would be processed at home, and child migrants arriving in the United States illegally could be deported quickly.

Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Services at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the plan would be welcome, as long as it does not substitute for protections Central American children currently receive under American law.

This program would certainly be a formal acknowledgment by the administration that these children are refugees,” Mr. Appleby said. “That’s huge, because they have yet to utter that word.” 

When a similar plan was adopted in Haiti, as a way to keep people from taking to the high seas, he said, it was ultimately criticized because Haitians already in the United States did not receive help. “It ended up being counterproductive to the goal,” Mr. Appleby said.

Stacie Blake, the director of government relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, an advocacy group, said the processing of potential refugees in Central America could be handled by the United States government or by the United Nations, which makes refugee determinations in many other countries. She said some of the people designated as refugees in Honduras could end up in countries other than the United States. 

It’s a way to help folks avoid life-threatening escapes and journeys,” Ms. Blake said. “It’s a good idea. It’s a tested idea.” 

On Friday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador at the White House in an effort to urge the Central American leaders to do more to help stem the flow of children fleeing their countries for the United States." 


Comment: The entire US political class has desperately wanted open borders for decades, "open borders" being a euphemism for genocide of the United States and formalization of the status of US taxpayers as global slaves.

7/3/1984, "In Praise of Huddled Masses," Wall St. Journal Editorial Board

"If Washington still wants to "do something" about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders."...


To reduce criminal human smuggling ICE must be able to interview those who are paying the smugglers. In the case of minors, it would be their parents or other family members-7/16/2014, Jon Feere, CIS

7/16/2014, 2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis Center for Immigration Studies, by Jon Feere 

"It was never the intent of Congress that legislation aimed at helping trafficking victims be used to benefit illegal immigrants who are willingly being smuggled into the United States....

It is important that the administration go after the smuggling operations in order to stop some of the illegal immigration. It is difficult to determine who the smugglers are, however, unless ICE is able to interview the people who are paying them: the families of illegal alien minors. It might make sense to offer benefits or incentives to those illegal immigrants who give good information about the smuggling rings. But under current policies, illegal immigrant parents are being allowed to walk away and the smuggling operations continue.  

Those involved in smuggling should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. This would include the “coyotes” as well as families paying for their services. As ICE explains, human smuggling involves a “deliberate evasion of immigration laws”.15 Tolerating such violations encourages more smuggling. Actual enforcement against those involved could quickly stop some of the operations. 

When an illegal immigrant child is turned over to family members in the United States, ICE should interview them to learn about the smuggling activity, make a determination of their immigration status, and apply the appropriate law. Those who are here illegally should be put into deportation proceedings. Until it is clear that the United States does not tolerate illegal immigrants participating in smuggling, there is every reason to believe the dangerous phenomenon will continue."...


US law provides for removal of illegal aliens without judicial involvement via 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

7/16/2014, 2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis Center for Immigration Studies, by Jon Feere 
(subhead, "Solutions"): "Expedited Removal, an authority created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996...allows immigration officers to quickly remove any inadmissible alien who is without a valid claim of asylum. It results in a final order of removal and prohibits the alien from reentering the United States for a period of five years. Most significantly, it circumvents any judicial involvement. As written into law, the policy applies to any illegal alien apprehended anywhere in the United States, provided the alien has not been continuously physically present in the country for longer than two years.16 ...


El Salvador has slave wages for a reason. Minimum wage $1.47 per hour, $11.80 per day for agriculture workers. Slave wages encourage endless flow of workers to US which forces constant downward pressure on US wages. #1 goal of entire US political class and its globalist donors is that US wages not be allowed to rise

El Salvador Minimum Wage Rate 2018,”
“El Salvador’s minimum wage rate is US$242.40 a month [$60 per week) for retail employees; US$237.00 ($59 per week) for industrial laborers; US$202.80 for apparel assembly workers; and US$113.70 ($28 per week, $5.60 per day) for agriculture industry workers. El Salvador’s minimum wage was last changed in 1-Jan-2014.”…

El Salvador has a population of 6,276,000.
Added: El Salvador Chamber of Commerce objects to local wage increases. El Salvador can't be allowed to have humane wages because people might not leave. A steady flow of El Salvador population to the US applies constant downward pressure on US wages. The #1 goal of the entire US political class and its globalist donors is that US wages not be allowed to rise:
12/8/2016, El Salvador: Government Maneuver to Increase Wages,”
“The private chamber of companies advise to be “alert to any arbitrary and autocratic decision regarding salary increases by the National Minimum Wage Council.”
From a statement issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of El Salvador:
After the obvious manipulation on the part of the government in the process of forming the new National Minimum Wage Council (CSNM), the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of El Salvador is calling on the private sector in general, but most particularly on micro, small and medium sized businesses, to be alert to any arbitrary and autocratic decision on wage increases that may arise from the panel in the coming days.

Permission has been given for participation in the new National Minimum Wage Council of representatives of public sector unions sympathetic to the FMLN government, which not only distorts the nature of the Council but violates the Labour Code, violates conventions of the International Organization Labour of which El Salvador is a signatory and rides roughshod over the rules of procedure of the CNSM itself.”


Added: As Globalist Republican Sen. Ron Johnson tells WSJ, US has no choice but to deliver low wages "dicatated" by unelected global bosses. It's not about immigration per se, it's that US wages cannot be allowed to rise:

5/4/2017, On Immigration, Washington Doesn’t Know Best,Wall St. Journal, Jason L. Riley, opinion 
“Two GOP congressmen have a plan to give states authority over visas and work rules.” 
When I asked Mr. Johnson why employers couldn’t simply raise wages to attract more U.S. workers, he replied that there are multiple causes for labor shortages. “We pay people not to work. We tell our kids that you have to get a four-year degree, which kind of implies that working in factories or the crafts or the trades—that there’s something wrong with that.” The senator also cited the international marketplace with which so many employers now must grapple. “Remember, you’re also operating in a global economy where you have competitive prices on products,” he said. “So you have globalization of product prices, which dictates what you can actually afford in terms of paying workers. I understand the anecdotal stories of American workers being displaced by immigrants and illegal immigrants. But there’s also the truth that a lot of business can’t hire enough people at any wage.””…
Added: “America Last” globalist US Senator Ron Johnson tells Trump to forget about bringing back high paying manufacturing jobs to the US:
2/14/18, Republican Senator Ron Johnson Tells President Trump “it makes no sense to try and bring back high labor manufacturing jobs,” tcth, sundance 


Finally, a Kennedy worth voting for! Mike Kennedy for Republican US Senate candidate from Utah in Tues., June 26, 2018 primary

6/24/18, "Mitt Romney -vs- Mike Kennedy Primary Runoff This Week – Tuesday June 26th," tcth, sundance

"There’s a strategy behind national corporate media not discussing the Utah Senate Primary runoff this coming Tuesday. The avoidance strategy is designed to support the scheming, self-interested, manipulative lying-liar-who-lies, Mitt Romney, over Utah state lawmaker Mike Kennedy. (Website Here)  Romney is destined to replace Bob Corker as a staunch anti-Trump Senator. Romney supports all Decepticon causes.

Despite beating Romney in the Utah republican primary convention vote, Mike Kennedy is considered the underdog.  Mail-in and in-person early voting started earlier this month. Only registered Republicans may vote in the GOP primary."

Among comments 


"SteveC says: June 24, 2018 at 8:58 pm  

Finally a Kennedy worth voting for!"...

Media shock troops go full Pravda. Time Editor in Chief freely reveals news media has “stakes,” are participating in rather than “covering” current events. They’re on the battlefield, shareholders in what may be lost should they be unable to reverse the will of voters in 2016 to have a country with impervious borders-Diana West

6/24/18, Media Shock Troops Go Full Pravda,”


“On the left, we have the Time Magazine Pathos Shriek-Out, the photoshopped-in-our-collective-mind’s-eye image of Evil Trump “separating” toddlers from their families — except, of course, that the crying two-year-old (above) was never separated from her mother; and, of course, never met Donald Trump.

Note how Time stands by its propaganda: “Our cover and our reporting capture the stakes of this moment,” Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal said. The stakes? Perhaps Felsenthal conveyed more than he intended. Think of it: All “the stakes” that are fit to print. Political warfare in this country is at a risky flash point as the Left intensifies its attacks (including outrageous harassment of Trump officials) on the remnant rule of law undergirding the shredded sovereignty of this nation. What Felsenthal confirms is what we already know: The news media are not covering this political warfare; they are themselves shareholders in what is at risk — “the stakes” and have made themselves special operators in the psychological battlefield.

Because Donald Trump is president, everything is at stake for the Left; “everything” being the stealth-revolution rooted in Marxism, which has been subverting our constitutional republic for over a century.  So long as Donald “America first” Trump remains president, he remains empowered to carry out his 2016 mandate to restore the US border, regain control of US immigration policy and rebuild American sovereignty. Such accomplishments would not only make his presidency historic, they would become the basis of an American counter-revolution. The Left is doing everything it can to stop him to stop this counter-revolution. When it comes to its shock troops in the media, their role is to keep going full-Pravda, no matter where it takes them. 

Like Time magazine, today’s Washingon Post shows the way: “U.S. officials separated him from his child. Then he was deported to El Salvador.”

Not to be outdone by Time, the Post features on its frontpage a photo of a father crying during a phone call with his child (who is not crying, as far as we are told). This would be the child from whom “US officials separated him.”

However, that was after the father, having taken his daughter out of kindergarten in May, went on to separate the child from her family circle, including from her mother, from whom the father is also separated, and subject her to the dangerous trek north to break into the United States. Twice before, he had tried and failed, solo.

Why did he take his daughter with him on this third attempt? Did someone suggest he would fare better with a child in tow? The Post doesn’t ask. Did he ever worry about the harm that might befall his little girl on such a dangerous trip? Did he ever consider what might have happened to her if something happened to him? The Post doesn’t ask. In fact, the Post glosses over the entire 1,200-mile father-daughter trek itself until they are quite close to the United States and board a raft and “float” the Rio Grande. They enter the US illegally at Hildago, Texas, turn themselves in to Border Patrol, and, claiming fear of Barrio 18 gang-members back on El Salvador, demand asylum. (The father may or may not have cause to fear Barrio 18; what is a fact, however, is that after decades of an open US border, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 members of the violent transnational gang to fear in 20 US states.)

After that, nothing went as feloniously planned — at least as far as the father is concerned. Thanks to Donald Trump’s MAGA Zero Tolerance policy to enforce immigration law, the father was charged and pled guilty to crossing the border illegally and was sentenced to time served — three days, which is extremely lenient given this was not his first offense. Also, under US law, the immigration officials under whose control this father had purposefully placed himself and his daughter followed federal guidelines to feed and house the poor kid, who, for all we know, may have been suffering from exposure or other maladies arising from the terrible trip her father had chosen to expose her to.

Assuming the best, however, assuming that the six-year-old is fine and dandy after the trek, she is nonetheless now “separated” from her whole world in that coastal Salvadoran village where her father works on a corn farm and helps a local organization hatch sea turtles (no kidding) and is somewhere being “processed” inside the maw of US government bureacracy.

Tell me who is responsible for that? According to Marxist utopia, the father bears not the tiniest share of responsibility for the grave risk and distressing dislocation he himself subjected his daughter to. Isn’t that interesting? In the eyes of the Left, it’s all Donald Trump’s fault. It’s those “U.S. officials'” fault. It’s ICE officers’ fault. It’s Kirstjen Nielson’s fault. It’s Sarah Saunders’ fault. It’s Trump voters’ fault. It’s as if this Salvadoran man, whom the Post has blown up in tears across its pages, has no volition, and no conscience. To the Left, he is just one of many counters, a game-piece, a button to push to activate: Get up to that border with your kids, get them to the cameras — can we get some more tears now? Can we just open the border to stop the kids from crying? For the children? Can we burn the election for the children? Can we destroy the citadel for the children?

Can we also stop all thinking about the treasonous corruption of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, Obama White House…for the children? This degrading lust for power at the expense of humanity and the pursuit of truth is the Marxism in poisonous full flower.

The Post made two mistakes worth noting. It proved Trump’s Zero Tolernace works when it quoted the father, now back in El Salvador without his daughter, saying:  I would advise anyone who wants to travel to the United States with their children not to do it.If that isn’t a made-to-order Immigration PSA  I don’t know what is.

Second, the paper revealed, according to ICE, that this father literally signed away his opportunity for a “coordinated removal” with his child.

That would be in Paragraph 12:

A spokeswoman for ICE, Sarah Rodriguez, said that Guidos, on June 19, “submitted a written request that he be removed to El Salvador without his child.

Parents in ICE custody “have the opportunity to wait in detention for a coordinated removal with a child or may waive their right to such coordination,” she said.

The whole story crumbles. Later, the father tries to explain his decision, something about how “he was told nothing would change,” “better to go back to your country” to get information about his daughter, but it sounds like he made another one of his terrible decisionswhich, of course, is Donald Trump’s fault, too.

But not such a bad thing for the Washington Post. Its reporter is right there on site with the dejected father as he walks out of the deportee processing center in San Salvador (in tears again), and climbs into the bed of a pickup truck with his other relatives for the three-hour drive to his village to wait for his daughter’s phone calls. And cry for the camera.

I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t hope this little girl will be reunited with her relatives soon — in El Salvador. Just don’t expect to see any pictures.”



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.