From Paul Thornton of the LA Times: (emphasis by Wrongo)
“I know the story of Trump’s march to a third GOP nomination barely registered among those who’ve closely followed political news since 2015 — but still, please let it surprise you. Please let the fact that a man who tried to topple American democracy on Jan. 6, 2021, is now the second-most likely person to lead it after noon on Jan. 20, 2025, shake you to your core. German democracy held out for nine years after Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch in 1923; Trump’s likely nomination puts us on course to halve the time it took Germany to empower (or in our case, re-empower) its fascist leader of a failed coup.”
It was a bad week for Trump and a good week for Biden. Trump’s week was bad enough that he may soon be renting Mar-a-Lago from E. Jean Carroll. Also, it shows us that Trump can lose to an 80-year-old. On to cartoons.
Biden’s “bad” economy continues to set records:
Elephant reacts badly to December’s GDP numbers:
When it comes to Trump, the Elephant is all talk and no tusk:
House Republicans say immigration deal is dead on arrival:
Why isn’t the media covering Abbott’s insurrection?
Sunrise, Willard Beach, South Portland, ME – September 2022 photo by Eric Storm Photo
Last week, Wrongo wrote about how if you know a little about politics, your issues are guns, abortion, and taxes. We need to think about adding immigration to that list. Blog reader Craig G. asked, “when is enough, enough?” in response to Wrongo’s column on DeSantis sending immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard.
It’s a great question. We tend to think of immigration as an American/Mexican border problem, but it is much, much worse than that. The UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees reported in May 2022, that the world, for the first time in history, had 100 million forcibly displaced people either in camps or on the move.
Of those who were on the move, “conflict and violence” accounted for 14.4 million, and “weather-related events” accounted for 23.7 million. The distinction between these numbers is often hard to understand. The civil war in Syria for example, produced large numbers of refugees. In 2021, more than 6.8 million refugees were from Syria, more than any other country in the world. At the same time, another 6.9 million people were displaced within Syria. The Syrian civil war followed the most profound drought ever recorded in what used to be the Fertile Crescent.
About 100 million migrants is huge, more than the population of Germany, Turkey or, Vietnam. But it could get worse as the impacts of climate change broaden throughout the 3rd world. The International Organization for Migration has predicted that we could see 1.5 billion people forced from their homes by 2050.
These numbers are staggering. Now couple them with America’s declining birth rate. Econofact reports that the US birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. They say the decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. So, what if it continues while the number of people knocking on America’s doors continues to grow?
As Craig G. implies, there could come a time when all Americans will agree to limit immigration. Otherwise, a smaller, aging America will be asking what some on the Right are asking today: Who are the “real” Americans? What do we owe recent immigrants?
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
How will we adjust when the majority of our population are from different cultures, different races and speak different languages? The children of first-generation immigrants generally are well-adapted to the broad American culture; for the most part, they sound and act like Americans. If they were born here they ARE Americans. But the first generation migrant has an understandably difficult time.
This has caused the Right and specifically, the Christian nationalists on the right to be stingy about who they say is a true American, despite when many kids of immigrants are born here in America.The 14th Amendment doesn’t require any ideological, racial or language prerequisite.
Our low birth rates mean we can’t replace our population, so our economic growth will slow. If we replace our population with immigrants, we’ll have economic growth, but our culture will inexorably change.
Our history gives us some pointers. Immigration to the US peaked in the 19th century in the decade 1880-89 when it reached 5,248,568. The first decade of the 20th century saw another record with 8,202,388 people entering the country. In 1910, 75% of the population of New York, Chicago, Detroit and Boston consisted of first and second generation immigrants.
Remember that the US population was 62,979,766 in 1890, an increase of 25.5% percent since the prior census in 1880. Contrast that with today. Stastia says that 710,000 legal immigrants arrived here in 2021, and that we had 11.39 million illegal immigrants living in the US at year end 2018. We’re five times larger today.
Time to wake up America! A tsunami of immigrants will try to move from the 3rd world to the developed world. The numbers will be staggering, beyond anything experienced so far by Europe or the US. Our ability to cope with so many people in motion in some even modestly humane fashion will determine the character of our country over the next century.
To help you wake up, listen to John Moreland perform “Ugly Faces” from his 2022 album “Birds in the Ceiling”.
Sample Lyric:
You’re seeing ugly faces in your dreams
Let me know what it means
We told ourselves we’d tell it true
But I learned how to lie, watching you
This dirty place don’t want you here
Looks like you’re stuck another year
You close your eyes, a scene rolls by
A strip mall under sunburst sky
My back was to a corner, lonely in a crowd
I couldn’t hear you calling, the bullshit was so loud
We should talk about the Democrats’ unwillingness to articulate an immigration policy. Wrongo has shied away from talking much about immigration, because it is a very complicated problem without a school-book answer. It’s an emotional issue, but it is also a complex problem that isn’t easily addressed.
Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report says that immigration will be a key issue in 2020, since Trump will surely stoke more immigration fear to hold on to his base while trying to peel away working-class white voters who might otherwise be voting for Democrats.
Despite historical data that show border crossings are relatively low, we’re faced with a genuine border crisis. The number of people attempting to cross the border and seek asylum rose to about 100,000 in March. If sustained, that would be more than a million asylum seekers a year.
There are now 800,000 pending cases in immigration courts, and each case requires about 700 days to process. Most of these families have woefully inadequate resources for housing, food and medical care. And now, Trump plans to ship them from detention to America’s sanctuary cities.
We’re at a critical juncture. Trump’s Immigration policy based on incarceration, deportation, and border militarization has proven to be a disastrous failure. But what should replace it? As the crisis grows, maybe the possibility for political change can improve. The NYT’sDavid Leonhardt said this about Democrats:
“…not so long ago. The party’s leaders knew what they favored and felt comfortable saying so. Their platform generally included: 1) a path to citizenship for immigrants who came to this country illegally but had since obeyed the law; 2) deportation of undocumented immigrants who had since broken the law in significant ways; 3) fairly robust border security and investigation of companies employing undocumented immigrants, to hold down current and future levels of illegal immigration.”
In the past, Democrats were also willing to talk about limiting immigration. David Frum has a must read article in April’s Atlantic. His biggest point is that “If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will”. He feels that we are at an inflection point, and that Democrats in particular, need to promote policies to prevent Trump from riding the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment into a second term.
Democrats, including some 2020 presidential hopefuls, have expressed ever greater unease about removing unauthorized border-crossers. Julián Castro wants to decriminalize the very act of crossing the border illegally, by repealing 1325, the section of the US Code that makes unauthorized entry into the US a federal crime. No other Democrat is willing to go that far.
“Our view of how we go forward is if we can….give [the American] people confidence, end some of their insecurities about their own economic situation, there will be a better atmosphere among some who are opposed to immigration in the country….”
This is why Democrats are more focused on their economic agenda than rewriting immigration laws.
When it comes to immigration, public sentiment is not on the Democrats’ side. A Gallup poll from early March found opinions largely split on how much voters worry about illegal immigration: 36% of those surveyed said they worried a “great deal,” followed by, “only a little” at 24%, “not at all” at 21% and a “fair amount” at 18%.
A different Gallup poll in February found that 47% of respondents felt that large numbers of undocumented immigrants entering the US was a critical threat. Another 30% said it was important, while 22% said it was not important. That 77% who view undocumented immigrants as a threat was up by 8 points from a year earlier.
The pressure on Democrats will be to run as pro-immigrant in 2020 since it contrasts completely with Trump’s position. But with so many people concerned about border security and illegal immigration; that may not be a wise political decision.
Dems can make a case that it would be destabilizing and impractical to remove all who have been living peaceably in this country for many years. But they can’t support a position like Castro’s that says any non-felon who sets foot in the US should be allowed to remain here.
Wrongo favors setting hard overall quotas for all immigration, and a hard sub-quota for asylum requests.
We can’t solve the illegal immigration problem overnight, but we can warn potential migrants that once the yearly quota is reached, all will be denied entrance.
And Wrongo is in favor of letting in fewer low-skills immigrants and more high-skills immigrants. That could help reduce poverty among immigrants while also potentially lifting domestic economic growth.
The Labrouste reading room, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Paris France – photo by Thibaud Poirier. The room was finished in 1868 by Henri Labrouste.
Wrongo and Ms. Right were in Hungary and Poland last week, and it was clear from discussions with locals that both countries are immigration-skeptic. In the past year, we have also been in England, France, Germany and the Netherlands, and immigration from the Middle East and Africa is a hot button issue in each.
The forever war in the Middle East is at the core of the political upheaval underway in Europe. From Carnegie Europe: (brackets by Wrongo)
Suddenly, [in 2015] hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants climbed out of boats, walked across borders, and occupied public spaces in European towns and villages. Their chaotic arrival not only shattered an illusion of tranquility but also pointed to Europe’s loss of control.
At the time, Europe was also emerging from the worst economic crisis of the postwar period. The new arrivals placed a burden on social services and public budgets. Like in the US, Europe’s citizens felt that the refugees were enjoying privileged access to benefits while citizens were losing out.
Immigration and refugee policy now dominate all political agendas within the EU, even though overall refugee flows to Europe are down substantially. The continent saw around 171,000 sea arrivals in 2017, compared to over one million in 2015. The National Interest reports that about 1.2 million refugees that made it to Europe applied for asylum in 2016:
This exposed deep fissures in the EU’s current system. It divided the continent on how to handle the refugees who have already arrived, and what to do with the many thousands that will inevitably land on Europe’s shores in the coming years. Europe now needs a strategy that can simultaneously address the legitimate concerns of some EU members but also place refugee well-being at the forefront of decision making.
Many throughout the EU are concerned about losing social homogeneity and cohesion. We heard that while in Poland and Hungary, where even government officials said that they think that immigrants must be fluent in the language even to be allowed in the country.
Yet, many European countries have low birth rates. According to Eurostat, Europe’s population rose in 2016 only because of migration. Eurostat says that without migration, only Ireland, France, Norway and Britain would see rising populations by 2050; Germany and Italy would both see population declines.
Much of Europe needs immigrants in order to sustain their economies. To capitalize on this, the EU and individual countries need to increase programs that help with language and skills training for refugees. Partnering with private firms could also help ease the transition from immigrant to productive citizen.
Since conflicts in the Middle East show no signs of abating, far-right parties across Europe will have easy selling points on the threat of migration for the foreseeable future. The rise of the populist right has coincided with an electoral catastrophe for the center-left throughout Europe.
Listening to fears and addressing concerns openly has to occur. In that regard, Project28 just conducted its third annual survey of 1000 Europeans about migration, in which 78% of EU citizens said that the external borders of Europe should be better protected. There was a clear majority in all European countries for the view that immigration represents a “very serious” or a “somewhat serious” problem.
A frightening 50% of Europeans believe that their children will have a worse life than their parents. This view is noticeably higher in countries like Austria, Greece and Germany, which have been at the forefront of the migration crises. 70% of the European public believes that the “rapid population growth of Muslims” is either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat to Europe.
The future for immigration is unclear in both Europe and the US. How it works out will depend on the wisdom and skill of our political leaders over the next few years. Will Europe adopt more exclusionary policies on immigration and refugees? Will these new policies be the kind that the majority of people in Europe can live with?
Can Europe’s politicians adopt anti-immigration policies like those proposed by their populist, right-wing adversaries that are doing so well politically? If they can, it increases the odds that Europe’s liberal democracies will resist the corrosion of press freedom, and independent civil society that we have seen in Poland and Hungary.
Everyone knows by now that Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) on Friday barring people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US. But many people traveling to the US from those countries, including some who are legally permanent US residents, were in the air at the time of the ban, and couldn’t turn around.
By early Saturday evening, several federal judges in NY, MA, and including Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, made rulings that would at least stall the implementation of portions of Trump’s anti-refugee executive order. The Daily Beast reported:
As a result, airports across the country turned into Lawfare zones, with cadres of volunteer lawyers squaring off against bureaucrats in the Customs and Border Protection agency. Late-night rulings from federal judges made a legally unprecedented situation even more dramatic, with all three branches of the federal government—congressional, executive, and judicial—warring with each other.
There are three things to consider in this fast-developing story. First, how unprepared the Trump administration was to actually carry out their own EO. From CNN: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership saw the final details shortly before the order was finalized, government officials said. Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.
CNN further reports that the White House overruled that guidance, with the order coming from Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. They decided that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US. It was decided by DHS that green card holders could fly to the US and would be considered for re-entry on a case-by-case basis after passing a secondary screening. But CNN reports that the guidance sent to airlines on Friday night said:
Lawful permanent residents are not included and may continue to travel to the USA.
It gets worse for Trump: Before he issued the EO, the White House did not seek the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that interprets the law for the executive branch.
CNN indicates that the EO did not follow the standard agency review process overseen by the National Security Council. That inter-agency process would have asked the Justice Department and homeland security agencies to provide operational guidance, but it didn’t happen.
Brinkema…ruled that the travelers detained by Customs and Border Protection had a right to see lawyers.
After the judge’s ruling, lawyers standing by at Dulles expected they would be able to see the detainees and try to help them get into the US. But, the CBP would not let them see their would-be clients. The Daily Beast reports that it’s unheard of for government agencies like CBP to prevent people who have the legal right to live in the US from seeing their lawyers.
But, that’s what happened. In fact as the evening wore on, it became clear that CBP was defying, or at best slow-rolling Brinkema’s ruling. The lawyers at the airport believe that meant someone must be in contempt of court. The judge could theoretically have sent in federal officers to force CBP to let the lawyers meet with the detainees, but, that would have been unprecedented, and it didn’t happen.
The third issue is that Saudi Arabia was not on the banned country list. That’s right, the country most responsible for supporting and sustaining both ISIS and Al Qaeda skated. Our past few presidents found it convenient to cozy up to the Saudis, but should Trump be continuing that coziness?
If Trump’s intention was to punish sponsors of terrorism, the ban should have hit Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which is where the money and most of the actual 9/11 terrorists came from.
This is what the next 4 years are going to be like. But the question is, are the Trumpets going to become more competent as they go along, or is this what we should expect going forward?
Today’s wake up is for Donald Trump and his administration.They need to govern, not play pretend president.
To help them wake up, here is Xenia Rubinos performing “Mexican Chef“, from her album “Black Terry Cat”. It’s her ruthless critique of the undervalued labor that immigrants perform every day in America:
Pope Francis, Russia’s President Putin and China’s President Xi walk into a bar…Well, it won’t be that type of week exactly, but all will be in the US over the next few days. There will be summits and mini-summits, and a few hallway meetings between them and individually, with Mr. Obama. But the game-changer is likely to be Pope Francis, who is bringing his message about Mr. Market, and how Mr. Market isn’t working for the average Joe. In fact, many Republicans are suspicious of the Pope:
If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so on his personal time.
Rep. Gosar, who has received campaign contributions of $12,500 from oil and gas companies and $28,850 from electric utilities, doesn’t believe in climate change. Apparently, he would rather the Pope devotes his speech to abortion, Planned Parenthood, and to the threatened religious liberties of County Clerks.
This Pope’s message causes discomfort for people on both sides of the aisle. Conservative Catholics used to welcome Francis’ predecessors ecstatically, and with open arms, but that was in the old days, when Popes were Popes:
Even when in the Reagan Library, today’s GOP candidates can’t duplicate St. Ronnie’s message:
What to be thankful for this week? No Benghazi. Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-CA) and Chair of the House Intelligence Committee concluded the Benghazi affair by finding that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. So, there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
A few things that will come up this week: First, the Grand Jury in Ferguson will finally give us the slow “He didn’t kill Michael Brown” decision. Who knows what will happen then. Tory Russell, co-founder of resistance group Hands Up United, Ferguson, MO said:
How can I prepare kids for the world if I’m not preparing the world for the kids?
Next, we could have a decision on Iran’s nuclear program. If the P5+1 make a deal with Iran, it will transform the Middle East. Don’t hold your Thanksgiving dinner waiting for it to happen. Finally, the mud wrestling in Washington will continue.
Immigration has always involved executive orders:
Why are Republicans so upset about Immigration?
Here’s why: They now have a very safe majority in the House, and an unsafe, but possibly sustainable majority in the Senate. If they actually pass an immigration bill, they will be primaried from the right in many of their less-than-safe House districts. So, the posturing about Obama being a “king” and “shredding the Constitution”.
Calls for meeting in the middle are meaningless:
Keystone and Immigration may be intimately connected:
A corporatist meme took a face plant this week. Bloomberg Business Week charted CEO pay vs. stock market return, based on data supplied by the executive compensation consultants, Equilar. It shows that there is very little correlation between CEO pay and company performance.
Equilar ranked the salaries of 200 highly paid CEOs against their company’s stock market return, and the scattering of data looks mostly random, implying that CEO performance appears to have little to do with CEO compensation. The graph plots the relative ranking of 2013 stock market return against the relative ranking of 2013 CEO total compensation. If you go to Bloomberg, the chart below is interactive. You can hover over a dot and see information on the CEO and company.
Bottom line: there’s essentially no link between how well CEOs perform and how well they are paid:
Based on this, it seems that corporate boards are unable to predict how well their chosen CEO candidate will do once on the job, since the trend line, which didn’t plot in this screen capture, shows that the correlation is ~1%. That explodes the myth that a primary metric used by company board compensation committees to justify CEO pay is stock market return.
CEO pay isn’t the government’s business, but corporate governance is. When governance is based on something other than what shareholders are told, it is worth a look.
In other news, the immigration issue continued, with Texas Governor Perry’s grandstanding. He was joined by many in Congress and in the media, some of whom wanted to be sure that the Texas National Guard was armed against the threat implied by children illegally crossing our border.
Lady Liberty’s meditation on immigration is lost in the noise:
An alternative strategy might build sympathy for the kids’ plight:
In Obamacare news, courts made two opposite decisions using the same facts:
It was another week of some Advising but very little Consenting:
The loss of MH17 brought no new facts, just grandstanding here as well:
Gaza, along with Ukraine, show how missile use has changed in 45 years:
“As things now stand, we could easily become the first people in history to lose democracy and its constitutional freedoms simply because we have forgotten what they are about”– Sam Smith
Young children illegals could reach nearly 100,000 this year:
On the other hand, perhaps Texas can be convinced to keep a few:
Not that Texas wants them. All across Texas the fear of the diseased immigrant is reaching near epidemic proportions. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said recently:
…we don’t even know what all diseases they have…Our health care systems can’t withstand this influx
Err, wrong again, Louie. According to the Texas Observer, UNICEF reports that Guatemalan kids are more likely than Texans to be immunized for most infectious diseases. Guatemala has universal health care. Vaccines are 100% percent funded by the government. Overall, 93% of kids in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are vaccinated against measles. That’s slightly better than American kids (92%), and certainly it shows that there is no tsunami of sick crossing our border. BTW, according to the World Health Organization, neither Guatemala nor Honduras has had a reported case of measles since 1990.
Not so, here in America, where we have 500 measles cases this year. Why? Because, freedom.
In other news, Mr. Boehner has a lawsuit:
The 38th time that the House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they passed the Authority for [Employer] Mandate Delay Act. That demonstrated the House’s willingness to delay the employer mandate. Then the Health and Human Services Department did exactly that, delayed the employer mandate. Strangely, that is EXACTLY what the Speaker’s lawsuit will say is the reason to sue Mr. Obama. Some of the GOP want to impeach Mr. Obama. They basically view a mechanism that was built in to deal with abuses of power as a way to nullify election results that they don’t like.
Sarah Palin was up front with her view:
If the House votes to impeach Mr. Obama, the Senate would then rule on the validity of the charges. It takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove a president from office. Even if the Senate goes to the Republicans, that isn’t happening. So maybe they should move on:
