Did you see the Rasmussen poll out Thursday on the media kerfuffle about illegal immigrant kids at the border? If you haven’t, here’s what it said…
Most voters blame the parents of the separated children at the border for the latest illegal immigration crisis, not the federal government.
When families are arrested and separated after attempting to enter the United States illegally, 54% of Likely U.S. Voters say the parents are more to blame for breaking the law. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 35% believe the federal government is more to blame for enforcing the law. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
You don’t win many elections on a 35-54 vote, and that includes midterms. A bit more from the poll…
Seventy-five percent (75%) of Democrats think the Trump administration is too aggressive in trying to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States, a view shared by only 23% of Republicans and a plurality (46%) of unaffiliated voters.
Among all voters, 49% say the administration is too aggressive trying to stop illegal immigration. Twenty-five percent (25%) say it’s not aggressive enough, while 21% view the administration’s policies as about right.
Fifty-four percent (54%) agree with President Trump when he says, “The United States will not be a migrant camp. And it will not be a refugee-holding facility — it won’t be.” Thirty percent (30%) disagree, while 16% are undecided.
Yes, it’s true that after a few days of media hysteria over the “crisis” on the border, which reflects a situation not all that dissimilar to the way things have been down there for two decades other than the fact the behavior by the illegals is worse than it’s ever been, Trump signed an executive order aimed at getting the issue off the front page. And yes, that executive order was a step down from a policy which, given time, probably would have deterred the wave of illegals coming to the border. But the Rasmussen poll shows that this was at best a Tet Offensive by the Democrats — not a substantive victory.
Anyone with a brain knows, of course, that the issue was only on the front page due to the necessity of finding something — anything — that would displace the earth-shaking Inspector General’s report from its rightful place there. The IG report is the most newsworthy item in American current events in the past five years, if not far longer — not just because of the governmental corruption depicted in its 500 pages but because of the whitewash the conclusions of the report entail. Queried about that disconnect — the mountain of evidence of bias and corruption in the body of the report and its nonetheless weak executive summary — Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz refused to disagree with much of anything his House and Senate interlocutors in hearings this week presented him with.
The inference to be drawn from this is obvious — if we get to see the original draft of Horowitz’s report, we’ll likely find that its conclusions are in line with those of the Jim Jordans, Trey Gowdys, and Lindsey Grahams of the world, but when that report was reviewed by muckety-mucks within DOJ they were watered down to Horowitz’s dismay.
Maybe. Either way, what’s in the report makes Watergate look like a two-bit burglary. And we know there is more coming, because Horowitz is set to deliver another report, this one on the Russia investigation, soon.
Wonder what the Democrats and their stenographers in the legacy media will come up with to displace that news. Asteroids? Tidal waves? The return of Zuul?
By the way, what is screwing up the immigration system is the fact that all these people caught at the border are requesting asylum due to conditions in Central America where so many of them are from. Forget about the fact that there are 10 different U.S. diplomatic facilities — embassies and consulates — in Mexico, not to mention there are such facilities in each and every Central American country.
One of the purposes of those facilities is to serve as a place where people seeking asylum in the United States may do so. And yet the illegals creating the furor in question are doing so at the border, after they’ve been caught sneaking across.
If there is to be outrage over the situation there, it ought to be directed at the illegals — and frankly, it’s hard to justify any asylum given to those who show such disrespect for our laws.
That Rasmussen poll shows the American people get it. Pushing too hard on this issue as the Democrats are doing is not going to produce the results they desire — but of course we’ve seen the Democrats aren’t capable of capturing the voters’ allegiance much anymore. We’ll see it more this fall when that Blue Wave fails to materialize.
I’ve had an idea for a long time that what the good ol’ USA needs to do about the illegal immigrant problem is to start a colony somewhere in Central America or the Caribbean which wouldn’t quite be a US territory but rather a protectorate the way the British handled Singapore or Hong Kong — and run in a similar manner. Not a democracy, but an economic free trade zone devoid of a welfare or much of a regulatory state, and with the benefit of an avenue toward legal immigration into the United States after a period of time and the showing of certain requirements, such as English fluency, marketable skills, a clean criminal record, and so on.
The failed states in Central America, like Honduras and El Salvador, practically cry out for such a status. But it’s unlikely the people there would embrace American hegemony to the extent necessary to suit the purpose described above.
It could be, though, that no such colony is required. There might be a perfect candidate to the south and east of Central America — if the natives would be so inclined.
I’m talking about Guyana.
Most of our readers probably only know Guyana as the site of the disastrous Jonestown massacre, in which communist cult leader Jim Jones trucked his California flock down to that South American wilderness only to force them to commit suicide in 1979 by drinking cyanide-spiked kool-aid after Congressional scrutiny began falling on Jones’ activities. But there’s a little more to that country these days — namely, they’ve found oil, and lots of it, off Guyana’s coast.
Oil exploration is really just getting started in Guyana, and already there are some 3.7 billion barrels of reserves thought to be recoverable — with about a million barrels a day in expected production when the currently-explored prospects come fully on line. That’s an awful lot of wealth set to flood a country with a population of only 773,000 people — Guyana is about to become one of the most prosperous countries on earth, and they are going to need hundreds of thousands of construction workers, hotel and restaurant staff, cops, firemen, secretaries, you name it.
And in Guyana they speak English.
That’s an awfully good prospect as a place where people looking for a better life might go, earn up a stake, and then make their way to America with demonstrated value in hand. Wonder if anybody in the White House is paying attention.
Is there any bigger joke in America than the ACLU? Fellas, in case you didn’t know, you can’t say you’re a defender of civil liberties unless you’re a consistent defender of free speech.
The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”
In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case. Fundraising and communications officials helped formulate the new guidelines.
The last sentence is the operative one. They’re doing what the people who finance them have demanded.
Singin’ for their supper, in other words.
The extent of the corruption at places like the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, where once-defensible leftist activity to fight real injustice has clearly fallen by the wayside, is total. What would be terrific is to see the market kill both of them.
Then again, the market might well be killing the Southern Poverty Law Center based on the multitude of lawsuits potentially being filed against that putrescent den of snakes.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.