January 28th, 2017

Extreme vetting, extreme reactions

President Trump has proposed a temporary suspension of immigration from seven countries and some new rules for the admission of immigrants to the US:

Donald Trump has outlined a new screening process for would-be immigrants designed to exclude Islamic extremists that he promoted Monday as “extreme vetting.” The policy would attempt to establish whether applicants’ beliefs match US values on gay rights, gender equality and religious freedoms, among others…

Trump’s proposal starts with a ban that would “temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.” This appears to be the candidate’s latest version of his controversial blanket travel ban on all Muslims entering the US.

But is this really just “the latest version” of the same thing? The difference between a blanket travel ban on all Muslims and a temporary ban on immigrants from seven terror-ridden countries (countries that yes, happen to be Muslim, but surely that fact is not Donald Trump’s fault) is vast.

CNN authors Lauren Said-Moorhouse and Ryan Browne continue:

Secondly, upon taking office, [Trump] would ask that the State Department and Department of Homeland Security provide him with a list of countries where adequate screening “cannot take place.” Trump did not name any countries specifically, and it was not clear what he considers inadequate vetting.

Finally, he called for a more stringent immigration test to limit admission to the United State to only “those who share our values and respect our people.”

He elaborated, “In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is long overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.”

This country-by-country and ideological screening process is exactly what I proposed (and I was hardly the only one; legal expert on terrorism Andrew C. McCarthy was another) back when the subject first came up a little over a year ago.

As expected, the announcement has raised a furor (see the headlines) of negative reaction in the press and from legions of Trump opponents. But that sort of thing shows exactly why Trump was elected. People are not generally dumb; they realize that a potential immigrant who is a terrorist can indeed lie on a questionnaire or fool immigration. That fact, combined with the knowledge that there are a lot of terrorists who would dearly love to come here and wreak havoc, is the reason deep scrutiny is needed, because we know that terrorists (such as the wife of the San Bernadino terrorist) have gotten into this country.

What Trump is proposing is temporary (for the most part either 120 or 90 days), pending study and more recommendations. What is it going to do to the overall immigration system of the US? Slow it down for the moment and try to make as sure as possible that it doesn’t unduly endanger Americans (or even legal immigrants already here from around the world). That really doesn’t seem too much to ask.

The article goes on:

Trump’s proposal to screen the ideology of would-be immigrants is not completely without historical precedent.

Ya think? Let me try rephrasing that: Trump’s proposal to screen the ideology of would-be immigrants has historical precedent.

To the authors’ credit, however, at least they describe that historical precedent that they’ve just minimized:

The State Department’s DS-260 form that all prospective immigrants must currently fill out asks screening questions based on actions, like whether the applicant is a member of a terrorist organization, rather than beliefs. But during the20th Century, the US barred immigrants who believed in communism or anarchism.

After President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in 1901, the US passed a law two years later banning anarchists from entry into the US, Philip E. Wolgin, managing director for immigration at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, told CNN.

Wolgin added that the US broadened the restrictions in 1952 to include those affiliated with the Communist Party and other political groups in favor of overthrowing the US government. In addition to some people being barred from coming to the US, others were deported once their affiliation with these political groups was discovered by US authorities.

These entry bans were eventually lightened or eliminated during the last years of the Cold War, and the current Immigration and Nationality Act states that no one will be barred from the US for “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.”

But to this day, US immigration form DS-260 still asks would-be immigrants whether they are a “member of or affiliated with the Communist or other totalitarian party.”

So for nearly the entire 20th century, such questions have been asked. With 9/11—occurring at the beginning of the 21st century—an entirely new category of dangerous and destructive ideology came to the forefront of our national consciousness. In fact, though, it was hardly a new ideology, but until 9/11 relatively little Islamic terrorism had occurred on our own shores (the first WTC attack comes to mind). We had been its target previously, but the victims had been mostly military people overseas. So the issue of terrorists emigrating to this country to do us harm simply hadn’t seemed all that pressing. Now, it’s long overdue, and people with common sense know this.

51 Responses to “Extreme vetting, extreme reactions”

  1. Yancey Ward Says:

    Based on what I read this morning and overheard on the television, Trump is winning another news cycle with the full-throated support of the hysterically batshit insane news media.

  2. n.n Says:

    Judging people by their principled alignment (i.e. content of their character) is moral, legal, and positive progress. Judging people by the “color of their skin” (i.e. [class] diversity) is not only immoral but illegal, too.

  3. huxley Says:

    I wish I could remember the national debate where it was decided everyone in the world was a de facto American citizen and entitled to all the protections in the Bill of Rights.

  4. DNW Says:

    huxley Says:
    January 28th, 2017 at 3:13 pm

    I wish I could remember the national debate where it was decided everyone in the world was a de facto American citizen and entitled to all the protections in the Bill of Rights.

    There was apparently a discussion held on campus somewhere. You, (and I for that matter) just were not invited to it or informed of your official new status as temporary worker bee grist for the progressive social engineering and world ordering mill.

    Altruism, don’t you know. You can’t prove it. You just gotta feel.

  5. Cornhead Says:

    People who boarded before boarding the plane should get in. No notice. Slight execution error by Trump Administration as it gave Dems a photo opp. But overall, great progress. We have no duty to admit anyone into the US.

  6. Cornhead Says:

    Should be “before order was signed….”

  7. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Opposition boils down to one of the following motivations; traitorous mendacity OR willful denial combined with politically correct naivete OR simple cowardice… i.e. appeasement.

  8. Lizzy Says:

    I’m relieved that Trump is doing this, having watched what is happening in Europe.

    Given how many “refugees” will now have the passports of their adoptive European country, vetting by home country may not be enough to stop Islamic terrorists from entering the US.

  9. Frog Says:

    Mirabile dictu from Neo! Unequivocally positive remarks on Trump.
    As Lizzy points out, the ban will be compromised if Euro migrants are granted Euro passports, though I do not know what getting those passports entails. I do know there are notables with passports from more than one country, but that seems due to dual citizenship (father French, mother Monacan, with passports from France and Monaco), or something like that.
    I believe there are holders of US passports who hold another country’s passport as well, though swearing the oath of American citizenship entails swearing to be only American; viz: “”I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America …”

  10. Frog Says:

    Which raise the question whether “prince, potentate or sovereignty” encompasses caliph and caliphate, which is the desired form of governance by Allah, sayeth the Koran.

  11. Jesse Says:

    This fluff piece and salute to American White Nationalist will surely fill Neo’s donation coffer. (“hehe I hope so”, she snickers) Your mother would be ashamed.

  12. parker Says:


    There is another reason to oppose Trump’s EO: money. NGOs that “resettle” refugees have a cottage industry to protect. Billions of dollars are involved.

  13. Irene Says:

    I haven’t seen you here before. Are you perhaps one of those crazy foreign bots that Neo occasionally regales us with?

  14. huxley Says:

    There was apparently a discussion held on campus somewhere. You, (and I for that matter) just were not invited to [the national debate deciding everyone in the world is a de facto American citizen]…

    DNW: Well, I’m glad I’m not the only one!

    But seriously….

    I recall the bandwagon building for gay marriage and then the national debate about it — though the Supreme Court had the last word.

    However, I don’t recall any debate for granting the protections of the Bill of Rights to everyone in the world.

    It seems like a conviction which spread osmotically, Hundredth-Monkey-style, through the blue half of the country.

  15. huxley Says:

    I do remember how Sanctuary Cities started and they weren’t entirely a bad idea.

    Back in the 80s several countries in Latin America were in the midst of horrific civil wars. There were authentic refugees who fled, say, El Salvador and Guatemala for the US. Those folks were in trouble and if they were sent home, they really might find a death squad waiting for them.

    So the liberal\left coalesced around these refugees as though they were escaped black slaves and they pressured their cities to protect and help these Latin Americans.

    I was a leftist then and that is one of the things I did. I don’t regret it.

  16. Irene Says:


    Have you seen this piece at American Thinker?


    “The Suspect Detection System (SDS) has developed counter-terrorist and insider threat detection technology named COGITO. This technology enables law enforcement agencies to rapidly investigate U.S. visa applicants (and other travelers) entering the country, insider threats among employees, etc.

    “COGITO technology is an automated interrogation system that can determine in 5-7 minutes if an individual is harboring hostile intent. The system interviews the examinee with up to 36 questions while measuring the psychophysical signals of the human body. The system has 95% accuracy and has helped security agencies globally to catch terrorists and solve crimes.”

    BTW, thank you for your response and links in an earlier thread. I did go through a good portion of the list of “lies”. It’s difficult. Some were “Paul Bunyan” tall tales, some were election rhetoric and internet mistakes, but frankly, in that list I am much more concerned about their claim that DJT lied about the unemployment rate being closer to 20% than the official rate of under 5%. Now that is a lie that truly matters to our entire country. And I’ll side with DJT on that 7 days a week.

    Looking back, it’s true. I just automatically dismissed a lot of that as hype, not lies, because I live in NYC and have been hearing DJT for decades and know how he rolls and most of it just doesn’t matter to me because when push came to shove, he delivered. To you, it’s different. Fair enough.

  17. huxley Says:

    Irene: Thanks for your comment!

    Maybe I should think of Trump’s verbal output as a Firesign Theater “Ralph Spoilsport of Ralph Spoilsport Motors” radio commercial parodies.

  18. neo-neocon Says:


    Jesse’s sort of a pet troll who comes around every now and then with what he or she thinks is quite the hard-hitting witticism. He/she first arrived on Martin Luther King Day. He/she has an idée fixe that I get a lot of donations from the Alt Right whenever I post something that doesn’t follow what “Jesse” considers the proper PC stance.

  19. parker Says:


    No one from anywhere has a free pass to be here. Yes, there is nasty turmoil in Central America and elsewhere. From my POV that does not make the turmoil our problem. Our neighbors to the north and south are more circumspect about such matters, as is Australia.

    We are the escape valve for the corruption and turmoil of Mexico and apparently much of the rest of the world. Without the greenbacks illegals (and legals) send back to Mexico there would be another revolution south of the border. When oligarchy fails to provide a stable, properous state of affairs; why should we pay, pay, and pay?

    Mercy is one thing, failure to take care of ourselfs is another thing.

  20. Irene Says:

    @ Huxley
    I was walking outdoors today and stopped to chat with a group of construction guys working on our street. At least 80% of the workers were illegals.

    We have a nearly 60% unemployment rate here in NYC for 18-35 year old Blacks.

    Frankly, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about Trump’s “rhetoric”. But I’ll hold his feet to the fire about what he gets done. I’m sick of seeing young, American unemployed men. Sick of seeing nothing but Chinese, Korean, Latino illegals working everywhere. I hated it when I lived in LA, and I hate it even more in NYC. This insanity must stop.

    And the same goes for open borders, unrestricted immigration and a host of other problems we, the American people, lost sight of.

  21. huxley Says:

    parker, Irene:

    I would agree the time for Sanctuary Cities has passed. Most so-called refugees here and in Europe are economic migrants.

    The current liberal support for Sanctuary Cities is based in various proportions on white guilt, a desire to transform America demographically, virtue signaling and utopian wishful thinking.

    A friend insists it also has much to do with white elites requiring domestics and it would not do at all to hire blacks as maids, nannies, gardeners and chauffeurs. I don’t think he’s wrong.

    I still don’t regret supporting Sanctuary Cities in the 80s.

  22. OM Says:


    “Chrome-plated fender dents, sneeze through wind vents. and doors to match, factory air conditioned air from our air conditioned factory” Ralph Spoilsport Motors.

    Or so I remember it.

  23. huxley Says:

    OM: And so you do!

    As I recall the Firesign boys worked hard with the intention of creating albums which could be listened to eighty times.

  24. parker Says:


    What you describe is a widespread problem in the construction trades all across the fruited plains. Illegals take jobs and depress wages. Cesar Chavez opposed illegals from the south being allowed to enter the USA. He saw them for exactly what they are; people who depress wages for those who reside here legally.

    I have a good friend (Mexican born) who is here legally, all of his family are here legally. They are industrious, good neighbors. They have built a lanscape business and a fabulous restaurant by hard, honest work. They became citizens and bless their lucky stars they are now proud Americans.

    They hold onto the best of their native customs (as did many who come here from Europe) but they assimilated; they were eager to assimilate. Now, to their pride, a daughter is a veterinarian, two sons are decorated veterans, and a third son has a PhD in bioengineering. That is what makes America a shining light.

  25. huxley Says:

    An LA friend once told me how he saw a white construction guy sitting in the truck during lunch while the rest of the crew, Hispanic, ate and socialized.

    My friend asked the guy why he was in the truck. The construction guy said, “If I go out there, one of them will pick a fight with me. I will lose my job and be replaced by another Hispanic.”

  26. Brian E Says:

    Interesting blog post about where the countries in Trump’s EO came from. Other than Syria, which is named in the EO, the countries were identified during the Obama administration and there have been restrictions in place since as early as 2011, if I read it correctly.


  27. huxley Says:

    IANAL — I Am Not A Lawyer

    However, it appears the Trump EO on immigration from countries with Islamic extremists was badly drafted and applies to Muslim green card holders as well.

    I agree with the intent of the Trump EO, but this is Not Good.


  28. blert Says:

    Brian E

    Thanks for the link.

    Frantzman is crazy, though. The West can’t possibly absorb or resolve the nightmare that is revived Islam.

    The only practical way forward is to fund refugee camps — over there — like in Jordan and Turkey.

    The FSA is a Fake Army. It’s been Barry’s cut-out for direct aid to ISIS and al Nusrah — twin fronts for al Qaeda.


    Cutting of this conduit should wrap up the futile campaign against Assad in very short order.

  29. huxley Says:

    However, it may be the DHS is choosing to interpret Trump’s EO as broadly as possible as part of the Deep State resistance to Trump.

  30. Big Maq Says:

    No problem with POTUS exercising restrictions to foreigners from given countries (refugees, travel ban, etc). It is within his Constitutionally granted powers, afaiknow.

    He may well have gone wrong by not adding other countries also known for terrorist activity.

    Looks inconsistent, and perhaps is.

    Also, announcing it suddenly, with no heads up and roll out, can potentially cause chaos, until everyone affected understands the ins and outs on what it means in their particular scenarios, for its unintended consequences.

    Yes, move fast, but rather foolish to be done this way vs setting a timeline, and maybe putting some more thought (specificity?) to it.

    No doubt, there are some other potential downsides that could / should be recognized. Make the case.

    Don’t want to see another SS St. Louis either.

    The call for broad bans and the fear behind it reminds me of the calls for travel bans from Africa over ebola.

    It didn’t happen and we now see that that fear was overblown, stoked for political advantage.

    To serve the issue of concern, could a policy be more focused vs being as broad based as it is?

    Self radicalization of people already here seems to be the major and more immediate source of our insecurity.

    Might this raise the prospect of even more self radicalization?

    While on this topic, three points:

    1) Sanctuary Cities are a big mistake in as far as they harbor criminals (which seems most where they apply umbrella coverage for, afaiknow).

    2) Handing out IDs is okay, but then using those same IDs as proof for other services / benefits is problematic, though it is up to the states what benefits and to who they provide those.

    Federal benefits are another story.

    3) Overall immigration policy needs changing to begin with, as, imho, it doesn’t serve the US as well as it could.

    1965 put more emphasis on family and “diversity” (read, non-European, non-Americas).

    That accounts for ~70% of legal immigrants. (BTW, really “only” ~15% are refugees).

    Should be the other way around and focus on those employable in needed skills and who are most amenable to assimilate.

    Still, there is a lot of ignorance on this issue. For instance, all too often, in conversations folks conflate illegal vs legal immigration.

    Throw in fear and it is a politically exploitable topic.

    Don’t disagree with the idea that we have a problem to address here.

    But, trump is trump and this is how things will look for the next four years.

    Just hope he is equally dramatic on reducing leviathan, but I fear he is not so inclined.

    We’ll see.

  31. Liz Says:

    Legal Insurrection has a good analysis of the EO and the media’s reaction to it.


    This is what he wrote on the green card issue:

    “There are reports that holders of Green Cards from those 7 countries may not enter the U.S. This is partially true, but it will be handled on a case-by-case basis, according to CBS News: Senior administration officials told CBS News Saturday that for permanent American residents — those holding green cards — from the listed countries, their readmittance to the U.S. will be done on a “case by case exemption process.”

    To me, I think it means that instead of waving the person through, the green card holder from one of those 7 nations may have to answer a few extra questions.

  32. parker Says:

    Big Maq,

    Although there might be a tiny minority that oppose legal immigration, or even legal immigration from certain areas; that is not the heart of the matter.

    Sanctuary cities are a problem because they harbor illegals. If one is here illegally they are criminals without regard to whether or not they have committed other crimes after entering the country illegally That seems rather obvious to me.

    Next, handing out IDs. That also seems obvious to me. If someone is here illegally why do they have a right to obtain any form of ID? Answer: they have no such right. No proof of birthright (a birth certificate) or a valid green card, no right to an ID. They should be in a cell or promptly deported.

    Finally, who exactly, conflates the discussion over legal vs. illegal immigration? Legal immigrates filled out the paper work, waited in line, and crossed the Ts and dotted the Is are a horse of a different color from the criminals who come here without going through the legal process.

    Take up residence in any nation in the world, yes, every nation, and you are automatically a criminal. PERIOD.

  33. parker Says:

    Opps, first sentence… or even illgegal

  34. parker Says:

    Oops again. (My excuse is the imaginary/digital keyword is tiny.)

  35. Molly Brown Says:

    Huxley @ 6:37,
    Bingo. This is the elite’s dirty secret. Black domestics – the horror!
    Also, there are many construction trade guys in Hawaii who left California after being shut out by Hispanic crews.

  36. CapnRusty Says:

    We are a shining city on a hill. We have shown the rest of the world how they can do it, too. But we did not do it for them.

  37. huxley Says:

    The call for broad bans and the fear behind it reminds me of the calls for travel bans from Africa over ebola.

    It didn’t happen and we now see that that fear was overblown, stoked for political advantage.

    Big Maq: That’s like saying I didn’t use my seatbelt the last few times I drove and nothing happened. Therefore my fears about driving w/o seatbelts were overblown.

    As far as I’m concerned the ebola politicization was entirely on the liberal side to force an unknown risk on American citizens as part of the pro-immigration campaign.

  38. AesopFan Says:

    Molly Brown Says:
    January 28th, 2017 at 9:22 pm
    Huxley @ 6:37,
    Bingo. This is the elite’s dirty secret. Black domestics – the horror!

    * * *
    Much better they should kill themselves in gang wars and abortion abattoirs.
    Doncha feel the liberal’s luv?

  39. huxley Says:

    It’s not pleasant to consider all the blacks who lost their domestic jobs after the civil rights movement made it impolitic for whites to hire blacks in such positions.

    I haven’t researched it, but I’m guessing not many were retrained as computer programmers or event organizers.

  40. parker Says:


    We (our ancestors) did for ourselves laid the foundations of the shining light.. Despite the errors along the way, some of those errors inascusible, we through much blood and anguish, have sought to achieve a more perfect nation. Is it perfect January, 2017? No. Will it be perfect 2018? No. But we strive, despite the lackeys of Soros, we strive.

    I agree we can not do it for them. But that is why we continue to become more perfect, while realizing there can never be a perefect union of people. There can only be a slow, ore perfect union. The desire for perfection is a noble mission, but it can never be achieved. We mortals are not infalible angels. We are more or less a mixtue between good and evil.

  41. Llwddythlw Says:

    David French in NRO looks at the matter and, like Charles Cooke, questions the inclusion of green card holders.


    I’ve been a permanent resident for many years, and I do remember the lengthy process through which I had to go to get my green card. Inter alia, I had to obtain police records from all the countries in which I had lived (UK and Israel) and then, when I turned up at the US Embassy in London to get the card, I was turned away over a misunderstanding which fortunately for me was resolved in a day by a friendly attorney. Echoing Cooke, one of the most heartening features of my status as a permanent resident is when the immigration officer says “welcome home”, because it reminds me that the US really is my home.

  42. SAD Says:

    Judging people by their principled alignment………

    Let see if this matter never been happen in US before, while in war with enemy

    0,000 American Refugees Made in U.S.A.


    In the winter and spring of 1942, seventy thousand American citizens, charged with no crime, were torn from their homes, forced to leave their properties, businesses and professions, and were sent to concentration centers in semi desert regions where they are now living under armed guards and in barracks unsuited to the family life which they so deeply cherish.

    This did not occur in a foreign country, under tyrannical dictatorship. It happened in America, under the flag which stands for “liberty and justice for all.”

  43. Frog Says:

    parker, though a “more perfect union” is part of the preamble to the Constitution, it must be distinguished from the “perfectability of man”, a desideratum of atheists and collectivists.
    “More perfect” in the Constitution refers of course to the Union of the Several States. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had proved unsatisfactory 1783-87. Thus the Constitution was crafted to achieve that “more perfect union”, more perfect than the flawed Articles.

  44. Irene Says:


    What’s that have to do with anything happening today? No one in the administration is proposing internment camps – and never have.

    Enough with the fear mongering.

    The worst that can be said about this EO is that there are a few small glitches and it was not announced in advance. But so what if a small number of green card holders have to suffer some inconvenience for a short time while this EO gets implemented? Maybe if we had a Secretary of State confirmed it could have rolled out a bit more smoothly, but we don’t, so it wasn’t.

  45. huxley Says:

    SAD: It’s not that hard to argue for the Japanese internment.

    There were 50,000 Japanese living in America then whose allegiance was to the militaristic Japanese government which had sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor, killing 2403 Americans and sinking half of the American fleet.

    Imagine you were an American leader making decisions to protect the country and win the war. Would you really want to bet that none of those 50,000 Japanese citizens living in the US wouldn’t commit acts of sabotage and terrorism?

    I think it’s a tough call. I understand being opposed to the internment, but I reject the modern notion that it was a morally hideous act which all decent people must necessarily reject.

  46. huxley Says:

    Lately I’ve been watching Amazon’s “The Man in the High Castle” series about an alternate future in which the Axis won WWII. Quite good.

    It could have happened. If a few things had gone horribly wrong — if Hitler had gotten the bomb first, if the Japanese had won the Battle of Midway, if the Germans had overrun Great Britain, if Hitler hadn’t invaded the USSR or had won as quickly as he hoped etc., we might have ended up occupied by the Japanese on the west coast with the Germans taking the rest.

    Winning WWII wasn’t a lock. We saw how fanatical, cruel and effective the Japanese had been. Did we really want to leave in place a potential fifth column of 50,000 Japanese nationals in our country as spies, saboteurs and terrorists, as we fought for our lives?

  47. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Winning WWII wasn’t a lock. We saw how fanatical, cruel and effective the Japanese had been. Did we really want to leave in place a potential fifth column of 50,000 Japanese nationals in our country as spies, saboteurs and terrorists, as we fought for our lives?” huxley

    The Left’s revisionist history leaves out much. Such as the The Niʻihau incident (or Battle of Niʻihau) “occurred on December 7–13, 1941, when Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service pilot Shigenori Nishikaichi (西開地 重徳 Nishikaichi Shigenori) crash-landed his Zero on the Hawaiian island of Niʻihau after participating in the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was killed in a struggle with people on the island.
    The island’s Native Hawaiian residents were initially unaware of the attack, but apprehended Nishikaichi when the gravity of the situation became apparent. Nishikaichi then sought and received the assistance of the three locals of Japanese descent on the island in overcoming his captors, finding weapons, and taking several hostages.”

    It is a near certainty that, some of those 50,000 would have acted as did those 3 Japanese Americans on Nihau.

  48. Big Maq Says:


    I get the whole idea that not coming here legally means it is illegal.

    One point about sanctuary cities is how it gets applied – harboring those people who are criminals – state and local officials are choosing to specifically not honor federal law / requests to notify or turn them over. This is definitely a significant problem.

    Another is that state and local officials are not actively taking every opportunity to pursue illegal immigrants (one could argue that this is even truer for the federal government, itself). This is hardly in the same category as harboring those apprehended for criminal activity, particularly in light of the 2012 Supreme Court decision wrt Arizona laws…

    My point on IDs is only that it is a matter of state / local law.

    I understand the point of people being here illegally shouldn’t be eligible. While I agree with that (insofar as the IDs are used for other things – see below), that is not my point – it is that the states (essentially, their voters) get to decide that.

    They have chosen to do so, and it is within the laws of the country, afaiknow (not being an expert in the law surrounding this area – I suspect it is very grey, at best).

    I don’t like it, as with all kinds of things in various states, but that is part and parcel of federalism.

    What I do think is wrong is any extent they use those same IDs for validating voters for national offices (or other federal services / benefits), without some means of checking their citizenship status either when registering to vote, or having done so when issuing that ID.

    Who exactly conflates legal vs illegal immigration?

    A good many folks I’ve come across. Maybe you have not and they’ve all been very clear to make the distinction.

    For many who have very strong feelings wrt illegals, I find that carries over to all immigrants. It happens. Far too often. And, it becomes a suddenly hot conversation when you point it out to them.

    It is easy to shake ones head affirmatively when people talk about illegals and agree with them, and just as easy to let them go further without challenging them when they veer off of just talking of the illegals. Human nature.

    Don’t know why I went off topic, but I guess it is keyed off of the earlier talk of sanctuary cities.

  49. huxley Says:

    Who exactly conflates legal vs illegal immigration?

    Big Maq: I see it happening on both sides. You seem to focus on some Americans who have reached the point they are against all immigrants.

    However, pro-immigration advocates often pose their objections to those who oppose open borders and expect immigration laws to be enforced, as though they were xenophobes who oppose all immigration.

  50. AesopFan Says:

    huxley Says:
    January 28th, 2017 at 10:59 pm
    It’s not pleasant to consider all the blacks who lost their domestic jobs after the civil rights movement made it impolitic for whites to hire blacks in such positions.

    I haven’t researched it, but I’m guessing not many were retrained as computer programmers or event organizers.
    * * *
    Go see the movie “Hidden Figures” — https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/11/black-women-mathematicians-nasa-john-glenn-space-race
    And read “The Ditchdiggers daughters” and “Having My Say”.

    There were certainly limited opportunities and stereotypes to overcome, but many people did; and today, you can find black men and women in every professional field imaginable.
    The Left refuses to believe that they won the Civil Rights War because then some of the hate-mongering activists will be out of a job.

  51. huxley Says:

    AesopFan: I’m aware of “Hidden Figures” and successful black professionals who can be found in all fields. Good news!

    However, I suspect that they weren’t long-standing black domestics who were phased out of their positions when their white employers found it embarrassing to keep them on.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge