Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
Charlie Kirk: Republican Outreach to Black Community Must Be New Year’s Resolution
6:21
Recently I heard from a friend of mine, successful businessman and founder of The New American Populist (TNAP), Jeff Webb, about a meeting he had attended a in Virginia with a group of black entrepreneurs.
Not surprisingly, one of main themes that emerged from the gathering was how the attendees felt Republicans have a better message for the black community, but Democrats do a much better job of delivering messages. In most cases, they said, Republicans don’t even bother to try.
What a damning indictment on the conservative movement, at least historically.
While that may have been the case for the “typical” Republican politician, it is certainly not the case for the atypical President Trump. With the enthusiastic encouragement of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, he has been reaching out to the black community with both words and actions since before his presidency even started—and the impact is just now starting to be felt.
To put this achievement in proper perspective: Politico even published a recent story headlined “Trump shocks Black voters-by trying to get their votes.” The piece opened by citing how the Trump campaign ran a full-page ad in the Westside Gazette, a paper that proclaims itself to be “Broward County’s oldest and largest African American owned-and-operated newspaper.” Many wondered, “Why would he bother?”
The president bothers because he knows what that group of black entrepreneurs in Virginia was saying is true. Republicans have not made any inroads with the black community because they haven’t taken the time or made the efforts to do so. They have left a 13% segment of our population, one dependent upon the broken promises and welfare-state Democrats, completely untapped ever since Lyndon Johnson’s not-so-Great Society programs launched in the 1960s.
Republicans have rationalized leaving this important voting bloc completely unreached because of long-assumed campaign axioms that should be tossed aside and burned in the trash heap of establishment Republican history.
Using valuable campaign resources to reach the black community, it was thought, was considered pandering to “leftist identity politics” or simply a bad return on campaign resources.
These perspectives fail to understand that the black community is as unique as any other community in America. Would a candidate use the same pitch to the rural farmer in Iowa as he or she would to the cosmopolitan in New York City? Of course not! This isn’t pandering, it’s politics, and the return of investment could be greater than any other dollars spent in 2020.
To win national elections, and many statewide races, progressives require a supermajority of Black voters. As someone who works on college campuses all year long, I know only too well that what is true with younger voters is also true with the black community: We don’t need to win a majority; we simply need to lose by less.
And in his less than three years in office, here’s what the president can include in his pitch to Black America:
- Passed the First Step Act, a bill which disproportionately impacts Black and minority populations
- Enacted economic policies which have reduced the unemployment rate for Blacks to 5.4%, the lowest level since the measure has been followed
- Signed an Executive Order moving Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) under the direct supervision of the White House so that funding and support becomes a national priority
- Created Economic Opportunity Zones, which incentivize long-term capital investment in low-income, often urban, communities
These are signature accomplishments, but even more could be done under this president if the Democrat Party, which pretends to care about the black community, would focus on working with the president instead of trying to remove him.
An example would be the new USMCA trade deal that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reluctantly was forced to approve in the House. This type of trade deal will only further improve life for laborers, agricultural workers, and hourly employees. And when employment tightens within this sector of the workforce, wages go up, which they have been faster than any other income bracket under President Trump. USMCA will accelerate this trend even more. (Next up should be school choice for black kids, but I’ll leave that for another article).
Two recent polls, one from perhaps an expected source, Rasmussen, and another from a very unexpected one, Emerson College, both put black support for Trump at or above 34 percent.
In 2016, President Trump received only 8% of the Black vote. While it is unrealistic to imagine he will win the 34% these recent polls indicated, it is just as unrealistic to imagine he will not significantly increase his vote share in 2020.
Even if this number is closer to 20 percent come election time, it would represent a tectonic shift in American politics, and it would come despite the best efforts of the mainstream media and the entertainment world trying to tell black Americans that the president is a racist.
The truth, however, is that President Trump is for all Americans, and people of all backgrounds are starting to notice.
The real question is not about the president, but about other Republican politicians. Will they be willing to follow the president’s lead? If they do, they can take what is an “event” surrounding Donald Trump’s at-the-moment surge and turn it into a durable trend.
One of Jeff’s key takeaways from that meeting with black entrepreneurs was that the challenges facing the black men and women in that room were not substantially different from the ones facing business people of any skin color. The problems that were more “race-centered” were fixable with a little bit of communication and effort.
President Trump is communicating, and he is making the effort. Perhaps that’s all that was needed from conservatives in the first place.
Charlie Kirk is the founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, the nation’s largest and fastest growing conservative youth organization with a presence on over 1,400 college and high school campuses; he is also host of The Charlie Kirk Show.
Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's
Immigration Disaster
Description
Description
Brokaw: ‘Hispanics Should Work Harder at Assimilation’
MULTI-CULTURALISM and the
creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open
borders.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/em-cadwaladr-impending-death-of.html
“Open border advocates, such as
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to
California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has
documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few
skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them
access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals
were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6
million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR
Description
Atlantic Magazine: Immigration is Fracturing America into Rival
Tribes
Immigration is splitting the United
States into warring tribes, says an unusual article in the strongly
pro-migration Atlanticmagazine.
Almost Half Speak a Foreign Language in America's Largest
Cities | @CIS_org
Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's
Immigration Disaster
Author Peter Brimelow
Description
The controversial, bestselling book that helps define the debate
about one of the most important and hotly contested issues facing America:
immigration.
From Publishers Weekly: Forbes senior editor Brimelow's
alarmist, slashing anti-immigration manifesto is likely to stir debate. He
maintains that the 1965 Immigration Act and its recent amplifications choked
off immigration from northern and western Europe while selectively reopening
U.S. borders to a huge influx of minorities from Third World countries. Many of
these latter entrants are unskilled and require welfare support, and those who
do work may adversely affect opportunities for poorer Americans, especially
blacks, according to Brimelow. Because of multicultural
programs, he charges, the new immigrants are not expected to assimilate, and
thus they retain their separateness. Illegal
immigration?two to three million entries a year?plus one million legal
immigrants annually are causing, by his reckoning, an "ethnic
revolution," because Asians, Hispanics, Middle Easterners and others shift
America's balance away from the white majority, creating a strife-torn,
multiracial society. Brimelow calls for an end to all illegal immigration, a
drastic cutback in legal immigration, policies favoring skilled immigrants and
elimination of all payments and free public education for illegals and their
children. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. From Library Journal
"Immigration has consequences," Brimelow (a Forbes senior editor and
a contributor to the National Review) interjects repeatedly through this
scattershot, argumentative tract against current immigration policy and
practice. Claiming that the 1965 Immigration Act and later legislation in 1986
and 1990 have worsened a host of economic, political, and social problems in
the United States, Brimelow cites supporters and critics alike of American
immigration policy and his own interpretation of immigration statistics to
disprove commonly held beliefs about immigrants' contributions to America,
which he believes have been overemphasized. Brimelow
argues that our environment is endangered, our public health threatened, our
economy strained, our national unity diluted, and our politics fragmented all
by an immigration policy that is out of control and captive to a ruling
"elite," which he associates with the liberal establishment and
political correctness. Though Brimelow scores some points in his shrill attack, his
highly politicized and provocative language which often relies on ethnic
stereotypes makes this book a polemic guaranteed to rally the faithful and
offend most others.
Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity
Author Samuel Huntington
Description
In his seminal work The
Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel
Huntington argued provocatively and presciently that with the end of the cold
war, “civilizations” were replacing ideologies as the new fault lines in
international politics.
Now in his controversial new work, Who Are We?, Huntington focuses on an identity crisis closer to home as he examines the impact other civilizations and their values are having on our own country.
America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture, says Huntington, including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigrants that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture. More recently, however, our national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants and challenged by issues such as bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the “denationalization” of American elites.
September 11 brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American identity, but already there are signs that this revival is fading. Huntington argues the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans. Timely and thought-provoking, Who Are We? is an important book that is certain to shape our national conversation about who we are.
Now in his controversial new work, Who Are We?, Huntington focuses on an identity crisis closer to home as he examines the impact other civilizations and their values are having on our own country.
America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture, says Huntington, including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigrants that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture. More recently, however, our national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants and challenged by issues such as bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the “denationalization” of American elites.
September 11 brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American identity, but already there are signs that this revival is fading. Huntington argues the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans. Timely and thought-provoking, Who Are We? is an important book that is certain to shape our national conversation about who we are.
Brokaw: ‘Hispanics Should Work Harder at Assimilation’
27 Jan 20192,712
1:22
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,”
former “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw offered theories on as to why
Republicans tend to be against immigration from Latin America.
Brokaw identified politics and
racial aspects, but went on to add assimilation by Hispanics was a hurdle as
well.
“A lot of this, we don’t want to
talk about,” Brokaw explained. “But the fact is, on the Republican side, a lot
of people see the rise of an extraordinary, important, new constituent in
American politics, Hispanics, who will come here and all be Democrats. Also, I
hear, when I push people a little harder, ‘Well, I don’t know whether I want
brown grandbabies.’ I mean, that’s also a part of it.”
“It’s the intermarriage that is
going on and the cultures that are conflicting with each other,” he continued.
“I also happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at
assimilation. That’s one of the things I’ve been saying for a long time. You
know, they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure
that all their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel
comfortable in the communities. And that’s going to take outreach on both
sides, frankly.”
MULTI-CULTURALISM and the
creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open
borders.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/em-cadwaladr-impending-death-of.html
“Open border advocates, such as
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to
California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has
documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few
skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them
access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals
were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6
million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
What will America stand for in 2050?
The US should think long and hard about the high number of
Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison
It's not just a
short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment
approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of
healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as
a nation.
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S.
POPULATION
By Tom Barrett
At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also
through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal
aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US
law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion,
ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the
United States.
Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity
Author Samuel Huntington
Description
In his seminal
work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel
Huntington argued provocatively and presciently that with the end of the cold
war, “civilizations” were replacing ideologies as the new fault lines in
international politics.
Now in his controversial new work, Who Are We?, Huntington focuses on an identity crisis closer to home as he examines the impact other civilizations and their values are having on our own country.
America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture, says Huntington, including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigrants that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture. More recently, however, our national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants and challenged by issues such as bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the “denationalization” of American elites.
September 11 brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American identity, but already there are signs that this revival is fading. Huntington argues the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans. Timely and thought-provoking, Who Are We? is an important book that is certain to shape our national conversation about who we are.
Now in his controversial new work, Who Are We?, Huntington focuses on an identity crisis closer to home as he examines the impact other civilizations and their values are having on our own country.
America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture, says Huntington, including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigrants that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture. More recently, however, our national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants and challenged by issues such as bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the “denationalization” of American elites.
September 11 brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American identity, but already there are signs that this revival is fading. Huntington argues the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans. Timely and thought-provoking, Who Are We? is an important book that is certain to shape our national conversation about who we are.
Atlantic Magazine: Immigration is Fracturing America into Rival
Tribes
John Moore/Getty Images
Immigration is splitting the United
States into warring tribes, says an unusual article in the strongly
pro-migration Atlanticmagazine.
The
causes of America’s resurgent tribalism are many. They include seismic
demographic change, which has led to predictions that whites will lose their
majority status within a few decades; declining social mobility and a growing
class divide; and media that reward expressions of outrage.
But
the mass immigration of 44.5 million people is the
primary cause of the three other factors — “declining social mobility and a
growing class divide; and media that reward expressions of outrage.”
Yet
the authors do not even suggest any changes whatsoever to the replacement-level
immigration which brings in one foreigner every year for every four Americans
who turn 18, which lowers wages, and
ensures an expanding array of rival languages and civic rules in the United
States:
In
2017, there were 85 cities in which a majority of residents spoke a foreign
language at home. These include:
- Hialeah, Fla. (95%);
- Laredo, Texas (92%);
- East Los Angeles, Calif. (90%)
- Elizabeth, N.J. (76%);
- Skokie, Ill. (56%);https://cis.org/Report/Almost-Half-Speak-Foreign-Language-Americas-Largest-Cities …
- Hialeah, Fla. (95%);
- Laredo, Texas (92%);
- East Los Angeles, Calif. (90%)
- Elizabeth, N.J. (76%);
- Skokie, Ill. (56%);https://cis.org/Report/Almost-Half-Speak-Foreign-Language-Americas-Largest-Cities …
Almost Half Speak a Foreign Language in America's Largest
Cities | @CIS_org
The
two Yale authors, professors Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld, describe the diversity
created by immigration:
All
of this has contributed to a climate in which every group in
America—minorities and whites; conservatives and liberals;
the working class and elites—feels under attack, pitted
against the others not just for jobs and spoils, but for the right to define
the nation’s identity. In these conditions, democracy devolves into a zero-sum
competition, one in which parties succeed by stoking voters’ fears and
appealing to their ugliest us-versus-them instincts.
Again,
the authors do not suggest any immigration changes that could lower public
fears over the elite’s determination to change the nation’s identity to suit
their elite interests.
Elite
groups openly acknowledge that immigration is the force which now drives
American politics — including the shocking election of real-estate developer
Donald Trump in 2016. As New
York Magazine says in a
review of Chua’s earlier book:
Perhaps
the most bitter of all contemporary political battles — and a Trump favorite —
is immigration, which behind the ideological posturing is a referendum on whose
tribe will control the country’s demographic future …
Similarly,
a new study by
authors from the University of Michigan argues that the nation’s
tribal polarization is driven by rising racial and ethnic conflict:
Race/ethnicity
now cleaves the parties more neatly than ever, and not simply because Democrats
and Republicans disagree in their attitudes about race itself. In fact, whites
are sorting out of the Democratic party at a significant rate while minorities
are standing pat. Figure 1 presents evidence in this regard using the American National Election
Studies time-series data starting from 1952. The
growing racial gap between the two parties is evident. As the share of Whites
among self-identified Democrats is rapidly decreasing (outpacing demographic
changes in the country as a whole), the Republican Party remains overwhelmingly
White. Our conjecture is that it is these changes in race and ethnicity that
drive most of the affective polarization we have witnessed over the last 30
years.
By
failing to identify immigration’s role in the problem, the two Yale authors are
left with a few recommendations so vague as to be useless.
They
urge that conservative Americans step up their efforts to persuade minorities
that they are equal — as if Americans have not been trying to do that
at enormous expense since the civil war, and as if immigration does not fuel
the ethnic politics which denies equality between Americans and immigrants.
The Atlantic authors do offer some cautious
criticism of the progressive left which has worked with business to impose and
preserve mass migration, even after the 2016 election:
For
its part, the left needs to rethink its scorched-earth approach to American
history and ideals. Exposing injustice, past and present, is important, but
there’s a world of difference between saying that America has repeatedly failed
to live up to its constitutional principles and saying that those principles
are lies or smoke screens for oppression.
But
neither of those two recommendations address what the Yale authors
admit is the primary cause of rising tribalism — the elite’s policy of
importing foreign workers and their tribes into
the United States.
Nor
did they provide readers even a cursory description of President Donald
Trump’s promised fix, his Four Pillars reforms.
Moreover,
neither author acknowledges the basic reality that their peers in the
elite do want tribalism to overthrow Americans’ shared, non-racial, civic
culture, which the elites prefer to dismiss as merely a “white” culture. Chua
indirectly admits this goal in her 2018 book, Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations,
as the New York Magazinereviewer
describes:
Better-educated
whites, who dominate the country’s political and cultural institutions and are
the main beneficiaries of the globalized economy, have adopted as their
“tribal” identity a sort of post-national cosmopolitanism, defined against what
they regard as the provincial culture of poor whites …
it
seems inevitable that American whites will lose their majority status sometime
around the middle of the current century. More cosmopolitan whites tend to view
this prospect with indifference or even excitement.
it
is clear to many thoughtful liberal scholars and journalists that
immigration-driven cultural change has greatly contributed to right-wing
populism. On the other, they view slowing the pace of immigration as a complete
non-starter. As they see it, the only option is to double down on the status
quo and hope that the storm passes—even if this approach risks triggering a
crisis for open societies, such as the one we are arguably living through
today. It is as though these thinkers are convinced that … that conservatives
who worry about the pace of cultural change must be crushed rather than
accommodated.
For
example, Bloomberg writer Noah Smith welcomes the government-imposed foreign
populations because it means that Americans cannot expect the millions of
foreigners in their midst to follow Americans’ collective civic rules about how
people are supposed to behave. Smith claims:
Diversity
provides a backstop defense against the natural tendencies of homogenization
and conformity … A country with institutions strong enough not to have to rely
on homogeneity will be the strongest country imaginable.
But
the civic culture destroyed by diversity includes shared expectations of civic
equality within freedom, of Internet-enabled free speech and organization, and
of debates over facts not feelings. The civic rules help Americans prevent
their elite from segregating themselves into “oligarchical socialism,” globalist
virtue-signaling, elite colleges and gated communities, stock-market wealth,
and technological power over political debate.
Smith
does admit his experiment with imposed civic variety may prove disastrous
to American people:
I
believe that there is a chance our experiment might fail. That building a free
society from people of all races, religions, and national origins might in fact
prove too hard a task …
But
no matter the risk to 300 million non-elite Americans, Smith insists “the
America experiment [with diversity] must continue.”
Smith
counters polite criticism of his diversity-first argument by describing his
critics as racists, so exemplifying the tribalism which Smith uses and which
the two Atlantic authors
claim to oppose:
1/Tucker
Carlson's question - "How is diversity our strength?" was not asked
in good faith, but for purposes of racist demagoguery.
But I will try to answer it in good faith, because it's an important question in its own right.https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1038222675322318850 …
But I will try to answer it in good faith, because it's an important question in its own right.https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1038222675322318850 …
Tom
Jawetz is the vice-president for immigration policy at the Democrats’ primary
think-tank, the Center for American Progress. He argues that immigration
is about the treatment of all people worldwide, not about Americans’ concerns.
That radically universal view demotes his moral duty to his fellow Americans
down to the same level as his moral duty to distant peoples of Singapore,
Lichtenstein, Nepal or Indonesia.
Conversations
about #migration are about something so
much more fundamental. They are about how we value other human beings. They are
about whether we stand by our universal principles. @MJRodriguesEU #GlobalCompactMigration
So
of course, ordinary Americans — of all colors and classes and
variations — are collectively pushing back against their hostile or
uncaring elite. New York Magazine insists
on defining them see as “whites,” but the members of Trump’s multi-colored coalition have:
defined
their tribal identity in opposition to the [elite] Establishment, which they
perceive as a distant, occupying foreign power, indifferent to their interests
and intent on elevating minorities and foreigners to pride of place within
“their” country.
Four
million young Americans will join the workforce this year, but the federal
government will also import 1.1 million legal immigrants, and allow an
army of at least 2 million visa-workers to work U.S. jobs, alongside
asylum-claiming migrants and illegal aliens.
Overall,
the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration
shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the
market with cheap white-collar and
blue-collar foreign labor.
That
flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street
values by cutting salaries for
manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.
The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps,
reduces high-tech investment,
increases state and local tax burdens,
hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes
Americans away from high-tech careers, and
sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and
their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because
investment flows towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal
states.
No comments:
Post a Comment