mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
The Anti-American Visa
The Prove Trump Right Act of 2015

As if dying to prove Donald Trump’s allegations that current immigration law is a conspiracy of the elites against the masses right, Congress has put a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would dramatically increase the number of H-2B visas. The Hill reports:

Congressional leaders quietly slipped the provision into the 2,009-page funding bill, with rank-and-file lawmakers only discovering it Wednesday morning. The move immediately sparked protests from across the political spectrum.

The provision could more than triple the number of H-2B visas for foreign workers seeking jobs at hotels, theme parks, ski resorts, golf courses, landscaping businesses, restaurants and bars. The move is intended to boost the supply of non-agricultural seasonal workers.[..]

Sessions estimates the number of H-2B visas will soar from 66,000 to 250,000 because of the language in the omnibus. He took to the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon to protest the maneuver.

The H-2B, and its high-tech cousin the H-1B are, as we have written before, indenturement by another name. The worker who holds them cannot leave his or her job without having to leave the country. This gives management enormous leverage, and depresses wages. In some cases it leads to outright abuses. Meanwhile, Americans lose out on employment opportunities or are fired to make room for the newcomers, and the country as a whole is deprived of the talents and commitment to the national community that new immigrants on green cards or a citizenship track would have brought. It’s a lose-lose—except for the employer.

If you want to know why Trump keeps enjoying success despite every outrageous comment, look to measures like this. The Congressmen who inserted this provision might talk a responsible game, but their actions, in the eyes of a Trump supporter, reveal their true intentions. And the AFL-CIO came out in opposition to the measure as well. This lends credence to the notion that Trump’s natural base of support is the “radical middle,” exactly the sort of blue-collar, non-college-educated workers that feel most threatened by immigration and the state of the economy as a whole right now.

None of this is exactly a secret, which raises the question of just what the Congressmen involved were thinking. Could they just not help themselves?

Features Icon
show comments
  • Ofer Imanuel

    Completely agree that getting H-2Bs do not make much sense from POV of American workers. Why do we need to import unskilled / semi-skilled workers?

    W.r.t to H1Bs I would like to correct the author. H1-B visas can be transferred from one employer to another with relatively limited fuss. It is quite a common practice to take your first H1B job at a workplace paying relatively lower salary and switch employees after a year.
    It is more of an issue when you start the green card process, because it is lengthy (especially for Chinese, Indians and Mexicans) and you can’t switch employees (that’s a simplification) during that time period – then you are indentured.

  • Angel Martin

    It is like they are deliberately trying to provoke a populist revolt.

    • Jim__L

      Nope, it’s just incompetence and deafness on their part.

  • WigWag

    Let’s not forget that the H2B visa program has bipartisan support; Democratic elites love it just as much as Republican elites do. It’s no mystery that GOP stalwarts have contempt for working people; that’s been the reputation of the Republican Party for decades and its a reputation that’s well earned. The H2B visa provision in the Omnibus actually tells us a lot more about the Democrats than it does about the Republicans. After all, its supposed to be the Democrats who are the party representing the interests of working stiffs; this proves just what a lie that is and has been for a long time.

    The Trump phenomenon is both endlessly fascinating and revealing. For Republicans it proves that either a significant minority or a small majority of the Party couldn’t care less about many of the issues that GOP elites have been putting at the top of the Republican agenda. Entitlement reform, charter schools, the common core, hatred of teachers unions, lowering taxes principally for the wealthy, regulatory reform; none of these issues has gained traction in the current sprint to the Republican nomination and the only GOP candidate with between 35 and 45 percent in recent polls has made plain that he couldn’t care less about these issues. Neither do the tens of thousands of voters attending his campaign rallies. The issues that Republican voters care about and the issues that Republican elites care about couldn’t be more divergent. As I said; its quite revealing.

    The Trump phenomenon exposes the Democratic Party as a party of hypocrites and clowns. Think about it; of all the Republican candidates, who should be the candidate that Democratic Party stalwarts find least objectionable? One might have guessed that it would be the GOP candidate who didn’t want to cut social security or medicare, that it might be the candidate who didn’t hate unions and had a successful history of working with them, that it could be the candidate who while opposed to abortion now, wasn’t always opposed to it; that it would probably be the candidate who would be perfectly happy to see taxes on the rich increased; and that it would certainly be the candidate who spent far less on his campaign than anyone else and who has little need for a large campaign staff or fundraising operation. Donald Trump fulfills all of those criteria yet the Democratic leadership is as apoplectic about his candidacy as the GOP leadership is?

    The question is why. I think its relatively easy to explain. The Democrats really don’t care about working people as much as they’ve pretended to for generations. They are willing to toss aside virtually everything else they believe in and throw working people under the bus as long as it is required for them to be able to continue to worship at the alter of multiculturalism. Whether its Muslims, Hispanics, gays or any minority group, protecting the rights of those groups trumps everything else the Democrats supposedly believe in. That’s why Democrats literally hate the one Republican candidate that they should find least offensive.

    The other thing Trump has done is expose the vast areas of agreement between Republican elites and Democratic elites. Republican and Democratic elites have forged a durable bipartisan consensus. It’s a bipartisan consensus that supports gentry liberal, cosmopolitan values that many voters find deplorable; its a bipartisan consensus that suggests that Washington elites not the parents of students, should dictate the curriculum in public schools, determine how often school children are tested, and mandate how teachers are evaluated; it’s a bipartisan consensus that insists that the parameters of our economic debate should be limited to a discussion of whether marginal tax rates should be a few points higher or a few points lower; it’s a bipartisan consensus that insists that free trade is self-evidently good no matter how many working people lose their jobs as a result; it’s a bipartisan consensus that any objection to a liberal immigration policy is the moral equivalent of bigotry and its a bipartisan consensus that gets us in a war every few years but assures that we never do what it takes to win those wars.

    Donald Trump has done two things; he’s made plain the rank hypocrisy of both political parties and he’s proven that neither political party could care less about middle and working class Americans.

    For that alone, he should be congratulated.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Are you forgetting we have GOP leadership in the House who could have thwarted those bad ole Dems you blame for this?

      • WigWag

        I’m not blaming “those bad ole Dems” for this; I’m blaming both parties for this. My point is that a bipartisan consensus has been forged by elites in both parties which screws average Americans. Agreement on the H2B visa program is part of that venal consensus. Here’s why I think that the Democrats are more complicit; it’s been clear for a long time that the GOP could care less about the average working man. For the most part, they don’t even pretend to. Since at least the time of Franklin Roosevelt, its supposedly been the Democratic Party looking out for the interests of the average stiff. The fact that Democrats are as enthusiastic about giving out so many more of these visas as the Republicans are provides remarkably clear evidence that Democratic support for working people is little more than a mirage.

        The Democrats have four constituencies who comprise the party; business elites primarily in the high tech industry and the financial industry, the professional classes who care disproportionately about social issues, minority groups, especially blacks, and working people some of whom are still unionized. The Democrats prove over and over again that protecting the interests of working people is subordinated to protecting the interests of the moneyed classes and blacks and it is especially subordinated to appeasing the multicultural values of the professional classes.

        What do Democratic elites and Republican elites have in common? The interests of working people are always ignored.

        • FriendlyGoat

          You have some points, but the idea that Donald Trump somehow cares more than the entire Democratic Party about reducing the negative effect of guest workers on otherwise-American jobs just seems like a stretch to me. Donald, after all, is running with the party you say “doesn’t even pretend to care”, right?

          • Anthony
          • vepxistqaosani

            ?? So where would you rather be a woman? The US — or Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Chad, Nigeria, or any of the other fine, upstanding states which garner higher scores on “women’s rights” from that bastion of everything that is righteous and just, the United Nations?

          • Anthony

            That’s not point; and perhaps you ought to allow a women to respond to query.

          • Jim__L

            Do you honestly think your judgement is so poor you wouldn’t be able to give an accurate answer?

          • Anthony

            My Judgment is ask a women period.

          • Jim__L

            Really? On the Wendy Davis vote you didn’t seem too keen on going along with their answer.

          • Anthony

            Write to FG. I’m done here.

          • FriendlyGoat

            In the Texas gubernatorial election of 2014 between Republican Greg Abbott and Democrat Wendy Davis, it’s my understanding that Abbott won the male vote 65 to 34 and won the female vote 52 to 47.

            We can blame men for being far worse than the women in a red state like this, but we cannot hold the women blameless for over half of them voting against the expansion of their own rights.

            Factually, in many parts of the USA, insufficient numbers of women are actually interested in women’s rights. Usually I don’t believe in what sounds like “blaming the victim”, but women DO need other women on board in order to win anything.

          • Anthony

            I concur totally. However, I posted link to add to your adequately expressed opinions regarding our legislators in D.C. as I thought article squared with your point of view.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, thanks, it does in a sense. We need women to not only be voting for women’s issues but voting against gun expansion and against the GOP tax-cut agenda that generally works against families. I wish, as liberal men, that we could march in telling women what their interests should be—-but we know that is guaranteed backfire. Women have to convince women, I think. When it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen.

          • Anthony

            Yes, and more importantly cultural factors still obtain, But, I think women (American here) as half if not more of human population have much to offer our country from perhaps differing view (shadings) of societal arrangements (issues). At bottom FG, we’re referencing changing power dynamics and that scares.

          • Jim__L

            Then why in the world do you march in telling other working men, gun owners, churchgoers, etc, what their interests should be?

            The honest answer is, you’re a human being capable of judgement and thought with as much right as anyone to dive into the scrum of public debate. Your results may vary, depending on what resonates and what doesn’t.

          • FriendlyGoat

            When working men are being lied to year in and year out by the Political Right that high-end tax cuts will get them more jobs and higher wages you blame me (ME?) for purporting to tell working men what their interests should be?

            As for gun owners and churchgoers who ACTUALLY VOTE on their guns and their churches, nobody can tell any of them anything. This much I have learned in the comment sections.

          • Jim__L

            You talk about “false consciousness” on the part of values voters… what is that other than dictating to people what their interests “really” are?

            You could console yourself with the fact that Trump is saying that higher taxes on the rich sound reasonable to him.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I don’t believe I have ever used the phrase “false consciousness”, and I don’t believe “values voters” is one of my terms either.

          • Jim__L

            – You’ve talked about people who don’t know and/or don’t act on what you see as their “best interests”. That’s what the term False Consciousness means.

            – You’ve talked about people who don’t vote for what you see as their material interests. One very common alternative is voting based on values.

            Come on, this is pedantic.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I knew what you meant. But your sentence: “You talk about “false consciousness” on the part of values voters”, is actually not my sentence and I DON’T talk about it in those terms. That’s the point.

            Getting back to what this is about, Anthony linked an article about women’s rights lagging in the USA and I am pointing out that we will need a majority of women on board to fix that. In many red states, large numbers of the women are apparently more interested in other things. It’s up to the liberal half of women to convince the conservative half of women. Although there are plenty of conservative male husbands, pastors, bosses and political operatives telling women what to think from your side, I’m in favor of women doing the telling to other women from the liberal side.

          • Jim__L

            It’s still members of one group dictating to members of another group. And it’s not a “liberal half” either… only about 20% of people (and that includes some men!) who consider themselves “feminists”.

            So why shouldn’t it be Conservative women telling Liberal women what to do?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Because conservative women are basically the church set and the country club set combined who neither know nor care about the challenges confronting other people. I have never met a conservative woman who was not either an apologist for the Chamber of Commerce by virtue of already having above-average wealth or an anti-abortion crusader from some church.

            Not that the fact that both groups are unqualified to moralize to women with greater challenges keeps them from telling liberal women what to do—-heck, they try all the time and you know it.

            If you don’t believe me, check out the so-called “Independent Women’s Forum”.

          • Jim__L

            Where in the world do you get the idea that liberal women are any less “unqualified” to tell conservative women what to do or how to think, or that the moralizing ever ceases from liberal women? (You don’t have to go to any obscure corner of the Internet for that — it’s in the MSM all the time.)

            Challenges confront everybody. Organizing your life around the principles of the law outlined in the Bible (the law that Jesus said he did not come to alter a single bit of) ameliorates the particular challenges you seem to be referring to, that’s why the law is how it is. And it’s a much cleaner and healthier way to prevent — or even to embrace — those challenges.

            I’m just hearing standard Leftist talking points here. I expected better from someone who’s actually informed by the teachings of Christ.

          • Jim__L

            If “other women” aren’t on board, maybe that’s because they’ve decided that their interests aren’t what you think they ought to be.

            Come on FG, you have used the “it’s none of my business, women should decide” dodge about abortion in the past. But when women have decided in a way you don’t agree with, you declare their decision invalid!

            Seriously? You’ve gone beyond principled (read: helpless) bystander here, to deriding people for making a decision you disagree with. There is no principle in your stance here, except perhaps loyalty (to an ideology.)

            Honestly FG, you’ve got an ideology more worthy of loyalty, we’ve talked about that in the past. It’s not too late to follow it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            As for women deciding the abortion issue, I have little doubt that Roe would not be repealed by women in a national election. In Texas, of course, anything can happen.

            Years ago I had a small business which allowed (required) me to do a lot of travel by car. I drove into many states which had no billboards for strip clubs—-and then there was Texas where such giant ads appeared all over the place. Women could vote that out in Texas, but somehow they don’t. Regional attitudes matter and I learned from all those signs that Texas is not as “Bible Belt” as claimed by some.

          • Jim__L

            You know that the freedom to work as a stripper and not be shamed for it is a really big thing for the new “sex-positive” feminists, right?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Must be the Abbott voters who think so, right? Apparently in the last election they didn’t like Wendy Davis, but just saw no urgency to get rid of the strip clubs and signs.

        • Jim__L

          “The interests of working people always come last”

          I would say that the non-material interests (freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, security, the right to bear arms, patriotism) of a large segment of working people are a priority for the GOP. If you want to say that’s a cynical ploy on the part of very, very material people, I would say that is one explanation that fits most of the facts. (That’s one reason the Republican base doesn’t trust the GOP Establishment and frequently looks for Movement Conservatives to lead the party.)

          However, if you don’t feel the need to be ultra-rich, if you’re not particularly envious of the ultra-rich, if you think the best way to become as rich as you figure you need to be involves a value system like we have, or if you have values that you put above money, then the GOP platform (when actually pursued) looks after your interests just fine.

          Look, I know that the Left wishes downscale Right voters to be as envious, covetous, and eager to become government clients as Leftist voters are. I understand that makes Leftists gnash their teeth and hurl insults at voters on the Right. I just wish they would understand that not everyone thinks envy, covetousness, and dependence are virtues, and some people put non-material interests over material ones.

          Also consider a few facts: There will always be a certain amount of scarcity in the world. Having very rich people to demand new things with the willingness and means to cover the non-recurring engineering and research costs of those things, is something that drives innovation forward. Covering those costs actually reduces scarcity. Today’s Mercedes S-Class toys are tomorrow’s mass-produced standard features on economy cars. Today’s miracle drugs are tomorrow’s generics.

          If someone else is much richer than I am, what is that to me? Especially if the only way to change that is to create a monstrous tyranny of a state. No thank you.

          • jansand

            If it’s a choice between a monstrous tyranny of the state or a monstrous tyranny of the rich I’d choose the state on the vague hope that the current monstrous tyranny of the rich over the state might someday be altered to permit the voting public to regain their control of the state.

          • Jim__L

            You’re too young to remember the Cold War, aren’t you.

          • jansand

            I do have a few memory problems at the age of 90 but they are not severe. I grew up in Brooklyn in NY in the 1930’s when Laguardia was the most delightful mayor of the city and read the comics on the radio for the kids during a newspaper strike. My two years in the US Army Air Corps during WWII remains quite clear. And the great depression years caused by the same rich assholes on Wall Street that did their best to pulverize the world economy with the same thuggish behavior demonstrated in 2008 which remains as a caution as to the motives of those leading the US government today by the nose into the long rapid decline in life style of the country today.

            Of course the dipsomaniac McCarthy also stands as strongly as the proto fascist Trump to caution me as to the intellect of a pseudo democratic government but government was regularly seeded with enough decent people to stand in high contrast to the steady totalitarian motives of the people in the rich elite whose only motives were and remain today to wallow in their wealth and ferociously destroy anyone who might propose that the nation has better uses for it as of today.

          • Jim__L

            Do you remember at all the totalitarian Statists we were fighting in WWII? Or the totalitarian Statists we were opposing during the Cold War?

            Or are you as a Bourbon, who has “forgot nothing, and learnt nothing”?

          • jansand

            As a soldier in WWII it’s nor likely. Do you remember the welcome Pinochet got after the regime of Allende was managed through the aid of the CIA? Or the installation of the totalitarian Shah was installed in like manner after the CIA saw to it Mosaddeq was kicked out to keep Iranian oil under British control? ( ). And the many totalitarian dictators nicely accepted in South America so that the USA could profit from the suppression of their people? The naivete you exhibit about US concern for democratic regimes is pitiful. There is a long, long list of governments and oppressive groups the USA supported for economic advantage. The religious fanatics now raging through the ME were supported to case out the Russians and Saddam Hussein was a most favored bastard until he attempted to sell oil for other than US petrodollars. Are you illiterate? The information was everywhere.

          • Jim__L

            What I’m reading right now involves people on both the Right and Left saying, “Hm, maybe ousting strongmen like Ghaddafi and Saddam doesn’t have the wonderful results we thought.”

            I’m a little confused by your position here though — are you against totalitarian regimes abroad, but in favor of a totalitarian regime here at home? That’s were your arguments seem to be pointing.

          • jansand

            That’s an extremely puzzling question. Where do you derive that the current strong drift into totalitarianism now openly evident in the USA ( ) gets my admiration? Any examination of the history of Germany and Italy clearly indicates that the powerful forces of corporate business have been strongly supporting in these horrifying regimes and the almost total control of the major US and world corporations have totally corrupted the US and other capitalist governments of the world as the blatantly vicious and silly circus in the race for the next US president demonstrates. And it seems the majority of the US population accepts this weird nonsense as legitimate. If it weren’t so frightening it would be a comedy.

          • Jim__L

            “If it’s a choice between a monstrous tyranny of the state or a monstrous tyranny of the rich I’d choose the state”

            … But, fair enough if you would prefer neither tyranny. I can certainly agree with that.

            But please consider — if the rich really were in charge, Jeb would be winning the R nomination right now, and Giuliani would have won it in 2008. (If the Democrats were any less in their thrall, we would have had Anti-Trust suits against Citibank instead of Too Big To Fail.)

            That strange, multi-headed beast called The Electorate is still in charge here. It’s chaos, that’s why it’s so interesting to watch.

            And I hope that in the end, you decide it really is a comedy.

          • jansand

            As I indicated, I am old and will not live long enough to witness the pretty near total demise of the planet. Here in Helsinki the temperature is in the same area as my old town New York City and Christmas will certainly not be white. We are the mythical frogs in the water on the stove oblivious of the temperature rise. It seems evolution has decided humans have reached their limit of reasonable survival and a death dealing asteroid is not necessary. Since the rich have bought everybody running it does not matter who wins. Hillary has been bought and paid for long, long ago, as was Obama. If you know anything about US history you will understand that the rich always were in control and even FDR could only see to it that they didn’t totally destroy the nation in 1929. He gave them another chance and they damned near made it in 2008. Nothing has changed since then and if the USA decides to duke it out with Russia it will be a spectacular finale.

            But protoplasm is tough stuff. A mere half dozen million years should give interesting results presuming no cosmic extra-terrestrials decide the planet might be worthwhile fuel for their propulsive star ship drives.

  • Jim__L

    “This leads credence to the notion that Trump’s natural base of support is the “radical middle,””

    I’ve been asking for quite some time now, what a true Centrist candidate would look like.

    Turns out he looks like Donald Trump!

    • FriendlyGoat

      There is no such thing as a centrist Republican. There were once rumors of “compassionate conservatives”, but they turned out to be as mythical as Bigfoot.

      • Jim__L

        That’s an odd point of view, because Republicans are pretty much half the electorate. Statistically speaking, at least some of them are center-right. If your political spectrum is calibrated any other way, it needs to be recalibrated to account for a bit of red shift.

        • FriendlyGoat

          “Center-right” is not “Centrist”. “Center-right” is just a rhetorical dodge for people on the “Right” who have trouble admitting to being in support of everything they know they shouldn’t admit to supporting—–so they reserve one or two (usually unmentioned) issues in their minds to tack on a phony air of respectability. It usually refers to people who would support the entirety of right-wing economics but perhaps say they would not repeal Roe altogether (because they never cared about Roe in the first place.)

          • Jim__L

            You know FG, if you replaced “right” with “left” in that statement (and inverted the issue position) you’d have something just as true, if not moreso. There are a lot of positions you simply should not be supporting. They’re evil. Saying “it’s none of my business” is either cowardly or willfully foolish.

            The simple fact is that American politics are centered much farther to the right than the politics of dying Europe, which is where the Leftist media calibrate themselves to feel less out of touch. Trying to push Conservatives out of the mainstream (out of the Overton Window entirely) is about a forty year old tactic; but we’re still a majority in this country, even if we’re not a majority of the top 10% that imposes its point of view on us by any means they can.

            The blunt fact is that Eurosocialism, especially secular Eurosocialism, is a sterile and dying point of view. Based on abysmal birthrates (which are inextricably intertwined with the secular social mores that underpin them), secularism will be overrun by Islam, possibly within your own lifetime.

            Europe’s only hope is a Conservative Renaissance, and yes, this includes (perhaps especially) disavowing a great deal of what the Left terms “progress” in the last forty or fifty years. Conservative mores are (practically by definition!) entirely consistent with traditional Western freedoms, even if they can’t be twisted to include the extremist kinds of libertinism the Left pushes nowadays.

            The alternative is Sharia. If things do not change, you will live to see it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            First of all, I was replying to your suggestion that Donald Trump is what a “true centrist” looks like. If that were true, he would not be 1) running as a Republican, or 2) attracting the particular fan base he is attracting.

            Secondly, the idea expressed in this post from you that disavowing 40-50 years of social progress is the only way to avoid Islam and Sharia has got to rank up there with some of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen in print.

          • Jim__L

            Hi FG, look at the demographics of Europe, specifically the cratering birthrate and the spike in Muslim populations. Then look at the social mores that led to that point — the sexual revolution, European women completely deprioritizing motherhood, etc.

            You seriously don’t think there’s any connection?

            You seriously think there’s a way to fix the demographic problems without rolling back those new mores?

            The elites have seen this as an “insoluble” problem, only because the solution that’s staring them in the face is completely unthinkable… “ridiculous” as you put it.

            By the way, the local magistrate system the British have, where two disputants agree to abide by the decision of a local authority figure, has led to the implementation of Sharia law in portions of Britain already. You already have lived to see it. It’s only going to get more widespread from here.

          • FriendlyGoat

            If you can legislate an end to European women “deprioritizing motherhood” to increase the birth rate, go for it. For a typical conservative, “disavowing a great deal of what the Left deems progress” means dismantling social programs in health care, education, workers’ rights, financial protection, pensions and loosening regulation with respect to the environment while lowering taxes on the already-wealthiest people.
            But, hey, what do I know? I just hang around these conservative places and listen to what’s actually being said.

          • Jim__L

            Actually here I was referring almost entirely to social issues. To the extent that Eurosocialism breaks up families by increasing dependency on the State and imposing onerous burdens on people of childbearing age (in their 20s, really), that needs to be fixed too.

            There are a lot of things considered “progress” that simply don’t have societal survival value. As a result, there societies aren’t surviving.

            We need to make sure America doesn’t fall into the same trap.

          • FriendlyGoat

            “Social issues” being less of a sex culture with more babies, right?
            You know, to my understanding, that’s exactly what happens in Islamic places. So to make sure that Europe is not overrun by Islam, it should become more like Islam in its social mores, right? And, if it can get rid of social programs, all the better?

          • Jim__L

            Traditional religions have a better sense of how humanity works through the generations than secularism has demonstrated.

            I am continually amazed that people who consider Darwin sacred writ have so few children. Might as well brand an “L” on your own forehead.

          • Jim__L

            FG, how many of those social programs were actually put together in the last 40 years? Seriously, how many? You talk about Republicans never doing anything other than cut taxes (except for presidents like GHWB who lost his job for it, Ronald Reagan who raised taxes after he cut them, Gerald Ford who raised the minimum tax, and Richard Nixon, who raised the capital gains tax, but I guess that was 46 years ago). Democrats int the last generation haven’t really do much to pursue your goals at all. EPA was Nixon, Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid were 50 years ago, do I need to go on?

            And yes, there are a number of Europeans that are acutely aware that the major reason their elites want floods of “guest workers” in Europe is that there are too few European kids to staff the jobs. They do understand what’s going on. They’re just unwilling to take the steps necessary — and really, all it would take is a concerted effort to value motherhood as much as professional work, peer pressure can work extremely well here — to make it happen.

            Just simply pooh-poohing the idea that the West is in decline because the birth rate has fallen like a stone doesn’t make it any less true. Sarcasm is in no way an argument.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Are we to believe that Paul Ryan was powerless to prevent this from being inserted into the omnibus bill?

    AND, are we to believe that a President Trump in the place of President Obama at this moment would have refused to sign the whole bill in order to object to this point?

    Both Ryan and Trump are in the party which mainly supports guest worker schemes. That should be the main point of this story, but, of course, we’re getting some other spin instead.

    • vepxistqaosani

      The only Democrat I know of who doesn’t support guest worker schemes (and open borders, though they [for now] dare not name it plainly) is Mickey Kaus, who is hardly mainstream.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Last time I looked, the GOP was running the House and wrote most of this bill, no?

        • bannedforselfcensorship

          Are you sure that they “wrote” the bill?

          • FriendlyGoat

            The bill was a compromise with several things in if for both right and left. But, a GOP-controlled House gives the GOP more control over the contents of an omnibus. So I believe blame is more realistically ascribed to Republicans than Democrats on this particular provision.

        • vepxistqaosani

          Absolutely; I simply object to your implication that only Republicans support guest worker schemes. Nearly everyone in both parties does — or, at least, all Republicans and Democrats who have amassed sufficient power and/or wealth.

          It’s only everyone else who opposes open borders.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Democrats who rely on contributions from unions are not going to be for imported labor. The idea that Donald Trump is somehow MORE the protector of the working person on this issue of legalized guest workers is just stunning naivety really. This has nothing to do with borders

          • Jim__L

            “Democrats who rely on contributions from unions are not going to be for imported labor.”

            … That statement is demonstrably untrue.

    • Boritz

      Is it ridiculous spin or have correct thinking journalists not singled Trump out 5 or is it 6 times now by pronouncing his candidacy over.

  • jansand

    I have had a rather long life and as the years add up the persistent idiocies of the most intelligent species on the planet have led me into speculations of how fundamentally unreal much of life seems. There is current talk amongst scientists that what we experience as reality is merely a two dimensional hologram on the surface of a black hole. I do not deny the extraordinary brilliance of the rather occasional human that re-aligns civilization into more useful mental frames but civilization in general can only barely reach the intellectual level of the infamous Three Stooges which is, no doubt, hilarious to the super creatures who are watching the projected hologram on the screen of the black hole but rife with terror and misery for the participants in this cosmic comedy.

    Here and there in odd places there is subtle confirmation that this life is merely a bit of theatrical fakery. In an Alice in Wonderland technique the names of people can sometimes offer a hint. There once was a Russian official concerned with the narcotics problem named Drugoff and that past Russian rather rough and tempestuous character named Khrushchev matched the English words crush shove to my ear. In like manner Trump echoes a possible similarity to that fierce dinosaur T Rex where Trump’s “T” remains equivalent and rump is a common English term for ass.

    • Jim__L

      I couldn’t get over the fact that Bernie Madoff’s name is actually pronounced “made-off”, as in “Bernie made off with ten billion dollars.”

      Comedy, comedy, all is comedy.

      • jansand

        I suspect reality is playing nasty games with us – and we seem to be cooperating.

        • Jim__L

          The rules of the game are what they are, and they’re capable of producing breathtaking beauty, ghastly ugliness, and astonishing irony. People, too.

          We all do what we can.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service