The Amnesty Radicals’ Big Mistake

Frontpage ^ | 8/12/2014 | Daniel Greenfield

[markomalley]

A new Reuters poll shows that not only do 70% of Americans think that illegal aliens threaten the traditional American way of life, but 45% believe that even the number of legal immigrants should be reduced.

Only 17% think that legal immigration should increase. That’s a problem because increasing legal immigration is one of the major planks of the “immigration reform” plan of both parties.

Everyone used to agree that immigration was a good thing. But that was before they saw photos of gang members slumped in their gyms and buses full of illegal aliens in Homeland Security convoys coming to hike up their taxes while lowering their property values.

And then immigration suddenly stopped being a Neil Diamond song and became a national crisis.

America is developing an anti-immigration consensus. That wasn’t supposed to happen in the nation of immigrants. Media outlets are shaking their heads over the poll numbers and correctly tying them to the border crisis. What they aren’t saying though is that the border crisis was calculatedly set off by Obama’s illegal alien DREAM amnesty. And as with ObamaCare, the radical agenda backfired.

The border crisis was supposed to start the amnesty machine. It was the sort of confrontational activism popular with Chicago community organizers who know that if you can’t get what you want, you dump a bunch of people on the doorstep of whatever agency you want to blackmail which creates an instant social services mess so that the politicians will have no choice but to “solve the problem” on your terms.

The harassment of politicians by illegal alien activists took Chicago community organizing to the national level. The border crisis was the next phase of the assault aimed at hitting Americans right where they lived by turning every state into a border state. But the rest of the United States isn’t Chicago. Or at least not the parts of Chicago that community organizers like.

Crowds waving American flags blocked buses. Stories leaked out about diseases being spread around. Even Democrats did their best to keep the illegal alien drops out of their states.

The border crisis was meant to move Americans toward an even more liberal position on illegal immigration. Instead it had the opposite effect and tainted the idea of immigration as a whole.

The backlash was completely predictable to anyone who had been paying attention to Europe.

The United States didn’t have an anti-immigration consensus until Obama duplicated the European situation by manufacturing a refugee crisis. Europe developed an anti-immigration consensus when a poor economy collided with large numbers of refugees and a central authority that remained blindly intent on pushing more immigrants and migrants through the system regardless of popular discontent.

Democrats and Republicans plotted amnesty while dismissing the idea of an anti-immigration consensus. They acted as if the rise of anti-immigration parties like UKIP was a purely European phenomenon and that the American political brass ring would go to the biggest amnesty shill.

Now the polls are telling them that they were wrong.

Republicans and Democrats had always been selectively reading the polls in favor of amnesty while ignoring the negative polls involving immigrants and the economy. Americans appeared to support legalization because they didn’t care much about illegal aliens. Even Latino voters ranked immigration low on their set of priorities. The passion had always been on the side of immigration opponents.

Just like ObamaCare, an issue that no one had particularly cared about before and for which passionate support was virtually non-existent, Obamnesty became the banner policy of the establishment and that made it possible for the opposition to define the issue through the politics of confrontation.

The border crisis made immigration seem urgent for the first time by visualizing a massive human tide swarming inside. Now immigration is polling as a priority and not the kind of priority that Obama had in mind. Instead the border crisis has caused immigration to be seen as an economic threat.

Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012 had played off isolationism among ordinary Americans while promising multilateral soft power to the elites. Pledges of opposition to the Iraq War in 2008 and the dishonest promises of “Nation Building at Home” in 2012 allowed Obama to outmaneuver a moribund Republican political machine that was desperately short of ideas.

But Obama forgot that isolationism tends to go together with immigration skepticism. Once people decide that the outside world isn’t worth bothering with, their suspicion of international interventions easily transfers over to immigration.

America today has more than a little in common with the period of the great immigration backlash of the 1920s. Economic uncertainty and a period of isolationism after an exhausting foreign war combined with the arrival of huge numbers of immigrants led to an immigration backlash back then. It would not be unprecedented for it to lead to an immigration backlash all over again.

Economic malaise and political isolationism are just as present in the United States as in Europe. The amnesty push polarized the issue and created a major crisis. Obama took on the role of America’s EU, an internationalist force dedicated to unlimited immigration with no concern for the citizenry.

The anti-immigration consensus stunned Tories and Labour alike in the UK. Both parties are still reeling from how easily UKIP exploited popular anger over immigration. And both parties have been forced to learn how to talk to working class voters again. If the same political tsunami hits America, Republicans and Democrats will be even more unprepared to deal with a phenomenon that will make the Tea Party disruptions over ObamaCare seem like a fond memory for the political establishment.

The two big parties are unready to deal with real isolationism. Barack Obama and Rand Paul may flirt with anti-war sloganeering, but they are also committed to amnesty, free trade and open borders.

Both Democrats and Republicans have made the mistake of trying to trade the white working class voters that they have for the future demographics of a transformed nation. But like their European counterparts they may find that they have prematurely buried the white working class voter.

Isolationism is less of a rejection of the outside world than it is a rejection of the terms on which a domestic political leadership has dealt with the rest of the world. Skepticism toward foreign intervention and immigration are really votes of no confidence in our own government. And that’s what the poll numbers for Obama and Congress have been communicating even before the border crisis.

In a miserable economy with living standards on the decline and little hope for the future, there is a great deal of free-floating anger in the political atmosphere. The sleeping giant of the coal mines and bars, the rust belt and the drought-plagued farmland may wake to his anger much more slowly than the mobs of migrants who have been community organized into parading back and forth all day in front of government offices waving their fists in the air, but when he wakes up, the political establishment that has gotten used to ignoring him will collapse and fall apart.

The amnesty radicals pushed too hard and too fast. They could have gotten everything they wanted through a consensus of both parties, but now they may end up with nothing at all.

[Piranha]

What Greenfield writes makes sense. Nevertheless, I am stunned: This is the first optimistic piece that he has written that I can recall.

[O6ret]

Two more “realizations” about to be driven home:
1. The impact of a wave of non-English speaking students on classes when schools reconvene in a few short weeks.
2. The spike in amnesty requests as lawyers for this current wave of illegal juveniles formally request their parents, siblings and extended families to join them.

[WashingtonSource]

Bump

[liberalh8ter]

Criminal charges should be brought against all politicians involved in the importation of illegals. Any politician who acted in such a way that promoted, aided and abetted this lawlessness needs to be held accountable; no matter the office they hold.

[Liz]

AS FREEPER GOPJ POSTED: Democrats are not only taking the Obama admin to task, they are also making it very clear they have no intention of letting the federal govt put the children in their home states.

The 'costs' of illegals will be higher taxes, higher crime, contagion and possible epidemics of disease, and 'strained' social services.

In short the 'oh so compassionate' Democrats are worried they won't get re-elected.

Rather than work to secure the borders and STOP the flood of illegals, they'll dump these kids in Republican states...

[ripley]

Democrat voter registration drives are always complicated.

IMHO

[Liz]

Boston had an anti-illegal immigration protest on July 26th..... over 10,000 strong showed-up.... politicians were pretty much shell-shocked. Now the Democrat prog/lib governor announced that MA will not be taking in illegals.

Massachusetts parents were understandably upset: Adult illegals, fresh from the border, posed as unaccompanied alien children, attempted to enroll in MA public high schools. “Some of them had gray hair, saying they’re 17 years old, and have no documentation,” said Lynn mayor’s office. School policy is to check w/ family----who confirmed one enrollee was a 35-year old adult.

Gray-haired men enrolling in MA schools? More like drug lords infiltrating schools---planning to set up lifelong lucrative businesses getting kids addicted......giving out free samples. Could also be sex traffickers ---lining up kiddies for johns (and for pedophiles) who pay big bucks to get ahold of the little darlings.

====================================================

BACKSTORY Bostonians--still reeling from the Boston Marathon bombing---heard 144 counties were crossing the border into the US.

After the bombing, this same governor---Deval Patrick---- ordered Massachusetts govt agencies to conceal welfare documents from taxpayers in the wake of the Boston bombings.

But sources who saw 500 pages of welfare documents (requested by a state legislator) told News Center 5 that the entire Tsarnaev family, including (1) the two bombing suspects' parents, (2) the two suspects themselves, (3) their sisters, (4) the widow of the suspect killed, and, (5) their child -- received "every conceivable public benefit available out there." (Excerpt) Read more at wcvb.com ...

==============================================

The hot NY political buzz is prez wannabe Gov Andy Cuomo is considering
Massachsetts Gov Deval Patrick as his running mate. Lame duck Deval is
trying to up his name recognition, hoping to score brownie points with Cuomo.

Here, VP hopeful Deval sap-happily applauds his state's
new police chief---wearing her spiffy Commandant
Herman Goerring uniform (not photoshopped).

Anybody know how to say versimilitude in German?

>

[Liz]

Who will be enrolling in your schools?

UNACCOMPANIED "MINORS" HERE FOR A BETTER LIFE?
OR CENTRAL AMERICA CHILD CRIMINALS HERE TO WREAK HAVOC?

Adolescents, teens and pre-teens are prevalent in Third
Worlds as armed members of violent gangs and drug cartels.

DISPERSAL MAP

[C. Edmund Wright]

I think the direct link to isolationism is a stretch, and weakened the piece. But I agree with over all thesis.

[BobL]

“I think the direct link to isolationism is a stretch, and weakened the piece. But I agree with over all thesis.”

Good point - it really has NOTHING TO DO with Amnesty and the word is thrown around WAY TOO MUCH these days. For example, if you want to stay out of Syria (so that Bashir can defeat ISIS), you are now considered an “isolationist” by those that want ISIS to win.

[upchuck]

The 350 possibly disease ridden criminal aliens that got dumped in South Carolina, after HHS wrote a letter to Nikki Halley saying they wouldn’t, got left off that map.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3185055/posts

[BobL]

This is HALF OF THE GAME.

The Dems BLEW IT on Amnesty, for now. They should have rammed it through in 2009. With Cantor heading to K-Street on a one-way ticket, Obama will likely get NOTHING through the House for the rest of his presidency.

But now can the Republicans CAPITALIZE? That is the big question. The first thing they have to do is GET RID OF THEIR ADVISERS (most of them gay, by the way), and listen to the VOTERS and the phone calls. They need to look DIFFERENTLY at these advisers, as they are a 5th Column and DO NOT have this country’s interests in mind. The Republicans, most of them anyway, actually do love this country, but they are confused and they listen to these advisers (who can work a lot of hours, as they don’t have kids) - so that’s pretty much where they think the country is.

Hopefully Cantor’s (political) head is wake-up call. So instead of listening to the advisers (who should have never been trusted in the first place), the REPUBLICANS have to come out SOLID for SECURE BORDERS and not even discuss anything beyond that - that can wait a decade. Hispanics, believe it or not, also want SECURE BORDERS, based on polling by Univision, they know what’s down there and they prefer it stay DOWN THERE.

It’s not hard, but the first step is to STOP TRUSTING THE ADVISERS (and send them back to the Democrats, before they do even more damage).

[C. Edmund Wright]

Zackly - I’m sure there is some overlap with anti-amnesty thinking and isolation thinking, and some over lap with trade too - but those overlaps are just incidental and Greenfield’s use of those weakened his main point, which was spot on.

[Guenevere]

Bttt

[BobL]

Maybe you can help me a bit:

What is the definition of an “isolationist” now? I knew during the Cold War it was someone that wanted the Soviets to win. During WW2 it was someone that wanted Hitler to take Great Britain. But what now? Someone that doesn’t to bomb Christian schools in Kosovo, or someone that doesn’t want to goad Russia into starting WW3? Difficult to define now, at least for me.

[Guenevere]

our governor just gave illegals in state tuition......does that count?!!!!!,

[BobL]

Dude, you HIT A NERVE WITH ME...you’re making me think, for once.

Isolationism is a FOREIGN POLICY, it is what you do (or not do) in other parts of the world.

Secure Borders is a DOMESTIC POLICY...by definition.

While maybe most isolationists want secure borders, I also suspect that most people supporting secure borders are also anti-abortion. Should that be discussed in this piece on illegal immigration too?

[Liz]

Yeah---thanks. Map's probably outdated by now.

=============================================

The SEC and IRS would be interested in public school districts using tax-free education bond proceeds to finance illegals.

Investors may have legal grounds if they were deceived about deceptive education bond offerings characterizing the uses of tax-free bond proceeds.

In many cases, voters bond issues are approved by referenda, at the ballot box---voters may have also been misled WRT uses of fraudulent bond offerings.

Also culpable are:

<><> bonding companies underwriting possible fraudulent bond issues;

<><> banks holding possibly fraudulent bond proceeds;

<><> school finance administrators allocating the bond proceeds,

<><> school personnel accepting the bond proceeds.

<><> school vendors accepting possible fraudulent bond proceeds.

<><> publicly funded-groups advocating the uses of possible fraudulent bond proceeds.

===========================================

EMAIL---FBI TIPS PAGE https://tips.fbi.gov

EMAIL--enforcement@SEC.gov

Contact the IRS Fraud Unit

EMAIL Banking oversight agencies

============================================

WHAT YOU CAN DO Find out which banks are facilitating this.
Which banks are designated the repositories of tax dollars.
Which banks are dispensing tax-exempt bond proceeds?

REFERENCE SOURCE: web site / occ.gov

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency processes questions and complaints concerning consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the OCC through our Consumer Assistance Group (CAG) (and sends misdirected complaints to the appropriate federal or state regulator).

OCC processes complaints involving national banks and federal savings associations with more than $10 billion in assets on behalf of the CFPB, while the CFPB builds its capacity to handle complaints. Under this approach, the CFPB will begin by handling credit card related complaints involving national banks and federal savings associations with assets of $10 billion or more and will expand its complaint process to other products and services offered as the new bureau builds that capacity through March 2012.

Consumers can contact the bureau through its Web site, consumerfinance.gov, or by phone at 855-411-2372. Consumers may use the FFIEC site to identify a financial institution's primary regulator, or may use the FDIC institution directory to identify which institutions have more than $10 billon in assets.

For specific problems with a financial institution other than a national bank, contact the customer assistance:
(1) State Banking Department WRT a state bank
(2) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or,
(3) the Federal Reserve for federally chartered banks.

====================================================

NOTE WELL Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks are required to establish, implement and maintain programs designed to detect and report suspicious activity indicative of money laundering and other financial crimes. “The Bank Secrecy Act was enacted to protect the public from harm by identifying and detecting money laundering from criminal enterprises, terrorism, tax evasion or other unlawful activities,” the special agent in charge for Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, explained.

Shady banking transactions could be prosecuted under the (1) Bank Secrecy ACT, (2) RICO, and, (3) the Hobbs Act.

[C. Edmund Wright]

What is the definition of an “isolationist” now?

I think the defining characterization would be someone who is not concerned - and does not think our government, our military, our tax dollars, should be concerned with anything outside our borders. The world is a complex place, so this may manifest in any number of ways and come in any number of flavors. As for your example, I would not say it's those who wanted the USSR or Nazi Germany to win - they were those who simply didn't want the USA to be involved, period.