Featured Post

On Russia, Again

On this, the last week-end of the Obama misadministration, I charge onward, onward like Lord Cardigan  . . . Ok, Ok, I am getting carried aw...

Sunday, January 29, 2017

May in January and Other Events in the New Era of Trump

UK PM Theresa May visited Philadelphia and DC. She met the Republican Congressional contingent, laid a wreath at Arlington, and then dealt with the Man himself, President Trump. In the interest of full disclosure, I was never a big May fan. She, of course, seems much better for the West than the milquetoast Cameron, but that's a pretty low bar to clear. I was never convinced she fully converted to Brexit, for example, and she made clear that she did not care much for Trump before November 8. I never thought she particularly cared much for the USA, in general, either. Just an impression; might be wrong; let me know.

The visit went fine. I am always a bit discomfited by US-UK summits. There is a lot of syrupy sappiness (is that a thing?) in these events with both sides falling all over each other praising the Special Relationship and reminding us all about our common history. OK, must accept that, I guess, in the interest of fortifying the Anglosphere. There is also generally a bit of the schoolmarm in the British approach to the US, with Britain playing the role of the wise ol' veteran of the world who must restrain the boisterous Yanks for their own good. The May visit had quite a bit of that in the build up with journalists and celebrities telling May her job was to get Trump under control, tell him torture is bad, and that NATO is really, really a good thing. The PM did do some of that both at the GOP retreat and with Trump. Box checked. I thought Trump was gracious, not at all in awe or awkward, and demonstrated that he has, as befits his own British background, an appreciation for Britain and the importance to the USA of the relation. Trump, in other words, was Presidential. Box checked. Not bad, at all.

Let's not forget that Thatcher and Reagan did not start off too, too well (remember Grenada?) but eventually turned into the Dynamic Duo and Killers of Commie world.

Aside from playing host to his first foreign visitor, President Trump, of course, was in the center of a bewildering array of events. He continued his Executive Order assault on Obama's sad legacy, and demonstrated that by doing what he said he was going to to do, he is the master of the news cycle. He told the Mexican President to take a hike if he wasn't going to discuss paying for the wall--and the Mexican President dutifully fell into Trump's trap. So much so that Mexico's ultra billionaire Carlos Slim gave a very rare news conference in which he proffered advice to Mexico on dealing with Trump. Slim is an extremely intelligent man, and if I were Mexican I would listen to him. At his press conference he showed an impressive grasp of complex issues and an excellent public speaking ability. He is not too dissimilar from Trump, a man whom he clearly likes and admires. His basic message to Mexico was to shape up and act like a grown up. He offered to help negotiate with Trump and the Mexican government should take him up on it. Now Slim, of course, is a major shareholder of the New York Times and at times his address sounded much like a NYT editorial--hmmm, wonder why? He praised immigration and diversity as good for the USA and urged Mexicans in the US to become US citizens. I noticed, however, that he did not praise immigration and diversity for Mexico; it seems that only the US must agree to alter its culture while everybody else gets to keep theirs. Interesting, no?

The media have gone crazy, yet again, over Trump's "Muslim ban," which, of course, is no such thing. It's actually a rather limited step, and I hope there is something more to come. He temporarily banned visas to a handful of countries, including Iran, and suspended the insane Syrian "refugee" program. Good. The list of trouble countries, however, is considerably longer than the few miscreants on the list, e.g., no Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, but it's a start.

I love the reaction from the Iranians who immediately said they would reciprocate. Wow! There go my vacation plans . . .

The reaction from the loons on the left was also priceless. It seems there is some sort of Constitutional right that the world has to get a visa to the USA. I did not know that. It also seems that if we don't give visas to any Muslim who wants one and if we stop taking "Syrian refugees"(discussed here, here, and here) then ISIS is going to get very nasty. I guess we have to let ISIS hold our immigration policies as a hostage to prove that we believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Hard to keep up.

Trump is on the right track. Hope he stays there.

53 comments:

  1. Just read that the EO does not specifically name those 7 countries. It says:
    I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.

    if you chase the references down, you will get the 7 countries. These countries were named under Obama's misadministration!

    Strange the news hasn't mentioned this.

    BC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More on 7 countries singled out by Obama's DHS
      https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

      BC

      Delete
    2. Which was caused by a dozen or so terrorists found among refugees during Obama's Admin from Iraq due to enhanced vetting. This as well as the 6 month pause in 2011 was not very public until ABC exposed it in 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 A two year delay in the pause being noticed by the media. Even then, this news junkie didn't heard about it. I was yelling at the FNC news programs all day because they would not give out the background on this EO. Additionally, the people who are being detained is supposedly because there is confusion at immigration, however no one has questioned if the Obama Admin's officials still there and that may be the problem. The NYT said that officials told them that they didn't know the rules including two officials at the State Department. The NYT neglected to ID the officials or indicate if they were Trump appointees.

      Delete
  2. There is a clause regarding basically, that refugees who are members of the dominant region from which they are fleeing, will not be accepted.
    When members of the dominant sect of a foreign country come streaming into your country, that's called an invasion. When the people they're murdering and oppressing come in, *that* may just be a refugee situation.

    I suspect that illegal immigration will ultimately only be reduced if the US makes it unprofitable for such countries to continue the practices which leave their countries in such despair that their own people risk life and limb just to get away. They can launch their human cannons at us, but we've got to learn how to return fire.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  3. My view from the UK is that Theresa May is a politician, and does what a politician does. Some time ago, as UK Home Secretary, she was seen and heard to be very much in favour of muslims in the UK and how much they benefit British society (despite, many would say, considerable evidence to the contrary) and wasn't all that keen on Brexit until she got the top job. Since then she has, outwardly, made lot of noises supporting our leaving the EU. Given that the majority of those who voted wanted 'out' it could be said she is merely trying to shore up the Tory side of things -- which is good politics as the Conservatives' traditional rival Labour under Corbyn seem hell bent in swirling the drain before departing.

    So, not everyone is utterly convinced about May and she is almost certainly no Thatcher, but she might emerge as a force for good.

    As for her visit to the US, yes it was as predicted. It had syrup, mutual praise and hopefully a strengthening of intelligence co-operation. Many of us here do understand that both the States and the UK have common enemies, though whether we see eye-to-eye on everything is doubtful. But, that's just politics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "syrupy sappiness" is certainly a thing. As my dear old Dad would have enquired "Doesn't it make you want to spit?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you look up "syrupy sappiness" in the dictionary, you will see a picture of a "treacle tart", an oxymoron that serves both as a British national dish and a description of upper-class British condescension for their "rough-hewn" Yankee cousins.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trump certainly is on "the right track" - but would you agree with me that not including permanent residents on the exemption list in the E.O. was an unforced error?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe President Trump needed to write the Executive Order to find out what was in the Executive Order.

      Delete
    2. So if a terrorist got in from one of these seven countries a month or a year ago that makes it OK? What Trump should do is stop all refugees and then reevaluate all refugees we have already taken in. The best possible answer is to send Muslim refugees to Muslim countries. Coerce one of the couple dozen rich and almost empty Muslim countries to take in these refugees who will be much happier in a Muslim country. Then send them all back.

      Delete
    3. My understanding is that "green card" holders were NOT included and there seems to be have some sort of over reaction. (Trump enemies?)

      Delete
    4. I could be wrong, but I looked up the INA definition of "immigrant" and, for purposes of admission to the USA, it only includes LPRs if they overstayed outside the US, committed a crime, or fit a few other narrow categories. In other words, I suspect that the order was written to exclude LPRs unless inspection turned up something that jeoparidized LPR status. Which, honestly, makes sense. Immigrant used colloquially can include LPRs, but technically it's someone migrating to the US and not someone who is already a legal permanent resident.

      Anyone disagree? If I'm right, can you get the message up the line in DHS or DOS that the order was better drafted than people knew?

      Delete
    5. Oh, bother, I just realized someone might not understand this sentence above, so I'll clarify it in brackets: "In other words, I suspect that the order was written to exclude [i.e., not have the order apply to them] LPRs unless inspection turned up something that jeoparidized LPR status. Which, honestly, makes sense. "

      Delete
  7. I thought Administration stumbled badly in its Muslim ban - in not exempting people already in flight. Whether any were potential terrorists or not, there are already 10's of thousands of potential terrrorists and millions of sympathizers here, what difference would a couple of hundred more make? Having those people in detention creates poster children victims and does seem like a human rights abuse. Some were green card holders who already have obtained the legal right to be here. Why didn't the Administration think to exempt those already in flight?

    Horrendous public relations. And I know the rest of the world wonders whether everyone with a visa now has to worry about detention because of an Executive Order issued while they were in flight. This came after Obama stopped our acceptance of Cuban immigrants, also leaving many in limbo. Of course, I note the press didn't dwell on that, and I don't know what has happened to those who had made it here.

    Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - the sources of most of the terrorism against the U.S. were not included. So we are unwilling to anger the populous countries whose support and/or oil we need? Answer obviously yes as to Saudi Arabia. Does Pakistan support us? Or is it that they have nukes and we don't want to make them mad? Iran was included, although so far I am unaware of any Iranians carrying out terrorist acts here.(Am I wrong?) I assume this was more a signal to the Iranian gov't. Or retaliation for their other activities and provocations.If Diplomad reads this, I hope he will comment on this paragraph.

    The NY judge who issued a stay talked about violation of constitutional rights. Whose rights was she referring to? Do non-citizens acquire them by virtue of merely having a visa? Or do green card holders having them by virtue of their legal right to live in U.S.? I would think the latter do not acquire constitutional rights, while the former - I don't know.

    I am actually appalled that the Trump Administration thought it was Ok to have people who legally arrived here, including green card holders, be put into detention because of an Executive order that went into effect while they were already in flight. And I have that reaction even as someone with a deep fear of and loathing for Islam. I don't question the Administration's right to ban anyone (except those already holding green cards), but imho you don't let people come here in good faith only to put them in detention because of a decision made by while they were in midflight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So were the officials who detained arrivals Obama appointees? The WH said the information was sent out.

      Delete
    2. To amr

      Could you elaborate please. Which info was sent out and to whom? I think a clear sentence should have been in the Order that it didn't apply to anyone already in flight at time of publication of Order except if immigration officials found specific reason with respect to particular individuals. (His name was on a list, he was carrying ISIS flags, etc) Hoops should have been jumped through to avoid creating poster children. (Including thought of gov't employees deliberately sabotaging whatever protections Trump had put in place.) Trump likes to be a winner - he and America lost a huge global PR battle by creating civilian detainees.

      I write all this as a big Trump supporter and someone who is wildly enthusiastic about eevrything else Trump has done.

      Delete
  8. " she might emerge as a force for good"

    Since she has declared that she thinks the state is a force for good, proving herself to be another bluelabour "tory" politician, it is unlikely that she proves herself to be less worse than the previous pms we've had in the last 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Right in England is very far from what we would consider conservative here. Actually, an english conservative would more likely be thought of as a left leaning Democrat.
      The Left in england might as well be called what it is.
      Socialist

      Delete
  9. Since many Muslim terrorists have traveled back and forth to places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and their home countries for lethal training ... while still claiming asylum status here (and collecting welfare) ... it seems a good idea for Trump to apply extreme extreme vetting to this population in his next executive order on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. But those other countries have a governments and data bases to search. This EO was an add on to existing designations from Obama's Admin. Additional congressional action may be necessary. Info here: http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/most-claims-about-trumps-visa-executive-order-are-false-or-misleading/

      Delete
  10. " I did not know that. "
    Reminded me of Johnny Carson mocking an obscure factoid on National TV.
    Thank you, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Question for anyone

    Media keeps talking about Trump offending our "ally" Mexico. Does anyone know of any way in which Mexico could be considered an "ally?" Seriously. I am not being facetious. What exactly do they do to help us? There used to be some sort of Americas defense treaty, the "Rio Treaty." Mexico dropped out in 2004. We are neighbors and trading partners, but how "allies?" I'm not even referring to all the ways Mexico helps its citizens get money from U.S. taxpayers, or gives safe passage to illegals from Central America or Mexican gov't officials take drug cartel money or their border cops shoot at ours or how they kept imprisoned the American marine who accidentally crossed the border with rifles in his truck. Actually, I think Mexico should be classified as an enemy. But forgot all that. On what is publically and officially true, why is Mexico referred to as an "ally?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see Mexico as an ally either. They are a neighbor and Christian.
      Trump is trying to move our relationship with Mexico from parasitic to symbiotic.

      Delete
    2. I think maybe we should talk about how Mexico has always used expropriation of foreign development to appease it's masses.
      Price fixing, in other words. Food and oil.
      Unfortunately it's not working for them anymore.
      Gasoline is not cheap in mexico anymore and the food is now being grown commercially for export to the US by conglomerates, with the banana republic families taking their turns and their cuts.
      Mexico has NEVER had an honest and non corrupt goverment. The closest it came was Maximilian and the best was Bolivar....but as you know, they eat their own.
      The best and brightest cannot survive in the environment where the toxins kill off the honest.
      leaperman

      Delete
  12. One excellent reason for approving the XL pipeline is to reduce our "dependence on middle east oil" and allow us to cut the Saudis loose.

    ReplyDelete
  13. On further thought, I wonder whether Trump is using Alinsky against his disciples. By limiting the EO to those countries already specified in Obiteme's EO, he is forcing the progs to live up to their own standards. If it was alright for zero to do this, how can it be wrong for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  14. We have no idea who these "refugees" are. They rip up their passports before they arrive in friendly countries so we cannot verify their identities; they lie about their ages to take advantage of more lenient terms for minors (I read about refugees settled in UK, Netherlands, and Scandinavia and elsewhere who entered as minors who were found to be in their 20s, some in their 30s and even one guy they think is 46!). They are not poor women and children. Over 85% are single, young males. There is NO extreme vetting taking place -- I know from being the refugee officer overseeing resettlement of Iraqi refugees that the NGOs/contractors that are in charge of screening the people are prone to being co-opted. I found out that they were re-opening cases that had been determined to have "no credible fear of persecution" and changing the stories so they could qualify. It gets around real quick which stories work. I also personally heard UN High Commission for Refugees staff admit that they helped refugees obtain fake passports. The Somali who recently shot up someplace in the US. UN refugee rules say that once a refugee has reached a "safe haven country" that they must stay there unless and until they are offered permanent resettlement in a 3rd country. The Somali guy and his family were resettled in Pakistan and had been living there for 5 or 7 years. He should NEVER have been eligible to be resettled in the US.

    My bottom line is -- no more refugees until the Arab nations resettle as many as westerns countries and until every idiot protesting the "injustice!!!" hosts at least 1 refugee in their own home, and the Hollywood folks have to take 10 each (their houses are plenty big).

    Delilah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  15. You might think me racist in saying this, but to me it's a truth.
    There is a Bell Curve in allowing our country to be flooded by scabs of lower means, ability and iq.
    It's detrimental to the nation and should be policy not to shoot ourselves in the head by allowing our charity overcome our good sense and self-preservation as a nation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't think there is much of a chance for your administration to meander as there is a large and loud chunk of road signs in the form of protesting/procrastinating MSM and so on. Anytime they are unsure, all they need to do is to leak some indicators and so the reverse of what MSM starts advocating.

    Nomad out

    ReplyDelete
  17. My uncle by marriage tried to get legal residency in Mexico, back in the 80s. He's an engineer by trade. His sister already had residency. And he had the $100,000 they wanted in the bank. They jacked him around for a year and booted him out of the country. I have very little sympathy for Mexicans wanting to come here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And our very Lefty state attorney general has decided to sue over Trump's ban. Just goes to show you that he's not competent to be an AG.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think the next step should be to ban any form of federal assistance to non-citizens. No welfare, housing, school tuition, nothing. IMHO it is a travesty that our veterans are treated so badly and so little help from our government while immigrants (legal and illegal) and refugees get thousands and tens of thousands in cash and benefits. It cost the U.S. taxpayers about $5000 a month for a refugee family. Many refugees who have been here for decades are still getting welfare. Immigrants and refugees who are over the age of 62 can also apply for SS. Remember that when SS goes bankrupt and your SS is denied you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd make an exception for immunizations. I'd even be willing to spend tax dollars to make sure they happen for every resident, citizen or non-citizen, resident or not. We seriously want every person immunized if possible. We do NOT want reservoirs for disease.

      Delete
    2. I don't disagree. However if they are not citizens of the U.S. and they are citizens of another country we should bill the other country for any and all medical costs. Obviously the home countries may choose to refuse to pay it in which case we could withhold aid or even attach assets. Either way our own citizens should not have to pay for the maintenance of other countries citizens.

      I will note here that I travel to Canada often and I am very aware that if I get sick and need care in Canada I must pay out of pocket. Canada does not give away free health care to non-citizens. True also for Mexico but I no longer go to Mexico and deem it to be unsafe. Ditto for when I travel to Europe. So why should America tax their own citizens to pay for non-citizen health care.

      Delete
    3. Oh, definitely. If we people to pay for themselves, or insurance, or home country, it is preferable. But I don't want to see outbreaks of communicable disease here if they can be avoided. Immunization is a wise investment.

      Delete
  20. The Obama holdover Attorney General made a huge show of refusing to defend in Courts Trumps Executive Order on the current Travel Ban (claiming it was not Lawful...even though the Justice Dept Legal Eagles had already vetted the EO and declared it Legal).
    Trump just FIRED her.
    ROTFLMAO. Cant wait for the Libs to explode over this.
    Nice to finally have someone in power who will not put up with these shenanigans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only misplay is that she was there in the first place.
      ... at the leisure of the President... should've been released with the rest.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. They need somebody to hold the office in an acting capacity until the Senate confirms the AG and senior deputies. But clearly they don't need her.

      Delete
    3. He needs to fire all the upper management at the Injustice Dept. Clean that cesspool out.

      Delete
  21. More swamp-dwellers who need to be removed:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/900-state-department-officials-sign-dissent-memo-source-204236825.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw their memo. They ignored Section 3 of the order, which tells the agencies to get the President a list of other countries which should be subject to the stay. Instead they went on about how those seven countries are ones that never have had a terrorist hurt the US (um, knifer in St Cloud was Somali, born in Kenya & raised in US) and the countries who did have nationals attack us aren't affected at all, etc.. Per paragraph 3 of the EO, those other countries will be affected soon if they don't cooperate with us to keep out terrorists, and it's DOS's job to present that message to the other countries. Instead of understanding the order, they got caught up in being anti-Trump and feeling like they were defying Hitler or something and came out looking like very foolish partisans who won't/can't do their jobs. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I call it like I see it. They're lucky the dissent channel is anonymous.

      The rollout was messy, though. I agree with protests about that.

      Delete
  22. "It also seems that if we don't give visas to any Muslim who wants one and if we stop taking "Syrian refugees" ... then ISIS is going to get very nasty."

    What has ISIS been up to this point, sweetness and light?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're depraved on a'coun'a they're deprived.

      Delete
  23. Looking at today's news, it was important to put the Immigration Ban in effect before dealing with Iran. All too many times since 1979, the Embassy Topplers, have threatened to attack more diplomatic missions, misused their own for terrorism, and threatened to attack American (West too) in every continent on the planet. Now the ban is into effect, we know Iran is operating in almost everyone of those nations too; we know that a Joint US-Russian move to halt Iranian military (proxies too) . Trump has put Iran on notice, put the Chicom's on notice, and Mexico on notice to all grow up and be responsible partners in our relationships - and to not test our will or trample our national interests.

    ReplyDelete
  24. RE: The lefts paroxysm of anger over all policy things Trump: As they say in the Air Force "If you're taking Flak it means you're over the target."

    ReplyDelete
  25. By the way, a U.S. visa does not allow a person to enter the country. From the State website:

    A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a U.S. port-of-entry (generally an airport) and request permission to enter the United States. A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at the port-of-entry have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States.

    See here:https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visitor.html


    VESENG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I saw the actual injunction from the judge in NYC, I laughed because people were saying that it struck down the travel order or something. Um, no. All it did was stay removal. The court can't force DHS to admit anyone just because they have a visa in their hand.

      Delete
    2. They can just go to Mehh HEE KO and walk over the border.

      Delete