The evidence shows that immigrant groups tend to retain the social status that they arrive with. The same goes with more recent immigrants to the United States. Due to visa restrictions, certain immigrant groups were permitted entry to the United States only if they could prove they had skills that were needed in the U.S. labor market. For example, the Africans, Chinese, Christian Arabs, Filipinos, Indians, Iranians, and Koreans who did gain entry into the United States were from the upper echelons of their home societies. And, in the United States, they enjoy significantly higher than average social status (as measured, again, by the number of doctors per 1,000 members of the group). Groups who, for various reasons, did not face the same restrictions — including the Hmong, Latinos, and Maya — entered the United States with low social status and have struggled to achieve upward mobility since. Immigration to the United States, in other words, rarely changes one’s social status. …
Given current patterns of immigration to the United States, Washington faces an enormous policy challenge. Two in five of all immigrants to the United States are from Mexico and Central America. Latinos now constitute 22 percent of all children in the United States; by 2050, they are expected to be 39 percent. But the social status of Latinos, even those born in the United States, is persistently low.
This perhaps shouldn’t be a surprise, given that migrants from Mexico and Central America tend to be negatively selected from their home populations: they are often the people who found themselves in such desperate economic circumstances at home that they preferred to live as illegal immigrants in the United States. (Latinos constitute nearly half of the foreign born in the United States, but four in five of illegal migrants.) The effects have been dire: there can be no doubt that immigration is widening social inequality in the United States.
Posted inImmigration|Comments Off on Immigration & Inequality
Essay: If we are to say that Donald Trump implicitly represents White people in electoral politics, then we can equate him to leaders of other racial groups in terms of his significance and symbolic status. Historical leaders and figureheads of other racial groups are given public holidays, and must be discussed in hushed tones of reverence. And yet no public slander is too low from certain quarters when it comes to Trump. We have all heard minorities sneer, “Make America White Again,” as though they have cleverly exposed a sinister plot that Trump will actually do something to represent Whites.
Doesn’t President Obama rather blatantly represent anyone who is non-White? As far as I can tell, his Justice Department literally refuses to prosecute any minorities. The IRS, under the leadership of the detestable Lois Lerner, has targeted tea party groups who represent tax paying citizens, with provocative names like “Patriot.” We’re obviously under siege from our own government.
Really, how did we get to this place where it takes a certain daring to leave the house with a Trump t-shirt on? If you want to know who has power, they say, look at who you’re not allowed to criticize. That is true, and if we are to ask who cannot be criticized, we would have to say everyone (except us). Incidentally, the extent to which these groups are worthy of criticism may perhaps go some ways as to explain why it is verboten. But if you ask who is not allowed to have representation, you would get the inverse response.
Representation. That is what are system is supposed to be about; so we were taught in high school civics class. The media, however, has a way of making things topsy-turvy. Washington Post journalist Michael Gerson continues in the tradition of “the Big Lie,” and opines on Face the Nation:
“The question is here whether the Republican candidate for president is fit to be president. Whether he has pursued a division, a nativism, that is at the center of American politics that can really change our public life in destructive ways, fundamentally destructive ways. And under those circumstances, you’re not talking about this issue or that issue, you’re talking about fitness, you’re talking about can this man represent America in the world, can he represent all our citizens in this process. And those are open questions right now given the way he has gotten to this point.”
It’s interesting the way the media — and the Washington Post is a very good example of what Trump refers to as “the dishonest media” — considers any representation of White interests to be an affront to our democracy; whereas the current administration’s apparent hostility to Whites does not raise any “open questions” as to whether Obama can “represent all our citizens.” This is the “Big Lie” in its essence: an audacious assertion which is diametrically opposed to the reality on the ground.
Alas, we’re at a crossroads. Mexicans sense that they are basically about to take over the country demographically, aided by their seemingly endless progeny. They also sense that they are beyond reproach, untouchable as far as public discourse goes. They are so used to being handled with kid gloves that the ascendance of Trump has hit them like a ton of bricks.
They are accustomed to nothing other than slavish praise from the American public, and all the sudden they were called out, to an appropriate degree, for the transgressions of some from their group back in Trump’s announcement speech. Infowars made a clever video in which every one of Trump’s “offensive” claims about illegal immigrants is juxtaposed with video footage of immigrants corroborating each claim in living color.
Posted inAmerica, Articles|Comments Off on Does Donald Trump Represent White Interests?
* I look forward to Steve’s appointment to a position in the Trump administration. I’d say a policy-making position, but I think there’s a big opening for “noticing” positions.
* [Stephen] Miller is part of the Sailer generation. Having followed him fairly closely, including speeches he’s given, I’d be shocked if he isn’t a long-time reader of yours. He’s one of Sessions’ top guys and now he’s one of Trump’s top advisors.
* What Trump is going to force on liberals and the media and the punditry is the exposure of the naked body of identity politics in the left and in the Democratic Party. By virtually all usual measures — with one notable exception — Trump will, on balance, match Hillary along the standard left/right continuum, giving her no traction against him.
The exception, of course, is immigration. But the objections to him on that score, as always with immigration, are based entirely on the premise that if you oppose immigration in any fashion, it can only be because you are a racist. Remarkably, Trump isn’t even opposed to Affirmative Action, and has, it seems, never said anything about blacks that might be considered racist (imagine how much we would be hearing about it if he had).
So the utterly deranged opposition he has received from the left and the media is poised on the absurdly narrow point of his problems with immigration in its current form. That really is the sum total of their “argument” against him.
By exposing the true core of the left/media ideology, Trump is presenting a very clear choice to the American people (and indirectly the larger world): is nothing genuinely important to you other than identity politics? Are all other issues just window dressing to put in front of the one thing you really want to buy and sell: an obsession with who and whom?
Steve Guest writes on The Daily Caller:
Appearing on “CNN Newsroom,” on Thursday, Baldwin asked [Trump strategist Stephen] Miller to respond to Clinton’s allegation that Trump is not qualified to be president.
Miller replied, “We obviously agree with Bernie Sanders that Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be president.”
Pivoting, Miller said, “But I have to say honestly I feel bad for Bernie Sanders supporters, and I’ll tell you why. Thanks to superdelegates, the Democratic Party is on the verge of nominating the most pro-war, pro-Wall Street lawmaker in the modern history of the Democratic Party.”
“I mean, that’s amazing. Think about it. You have a candidate in Hillary who is running on a pro-war platform about what she did in Libya, about what she’s doing in Syria, about the toppling of the Egyptian regime and the military of course took back control, who’s running on a pro-wall Street, pro-war agenda. That’s not the right fit for the Democratic Party or the country.”
“OK, let’s not discuss, I don’t want to argue Benghazi with you. I know there’s a lot of pieces there,” Baldwin said. “Just back though on the question as to whether or not [Clinton] thinks Donald Trump is qualified, can you directly respond to that?”
Miller replied, “Well, like I said, Bernie Sanders is correct and Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president.”
Baldwin followed up again, “Do you think Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president?”
Laughing, Miller said, “Of course not. See, look at her judgement. Hillary Clinton went to war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton’s decisions in Libya unleashed an operating base for ISIS that will be a scourge of terrorism against the entire Western world. Hillary Clinton’s platform is, I want to start wars in the Middle East and then import all the refugees into the United States and other countries without knowing who they are. That is a recipe for disaster.”
* Stephen Miller has a bit of shitlord in him, the hint he showed during the lacrosse incident. I almost pity that someone like him was probably a little too caught up in Student Government during his time at Duke instead of using his time to really lead a pushback against administrators
It’s sad, we did have Greeks as student government presidents and even Greeks in a few of the important posts, but the guys who did this shit reminded me a lot of the standard cucks of the Republican party. A lot of Dean Vernon-ing going on regardless.
I almost want to say it’s better that he was a wasted talent during his college years. He might have gotten too much ass and not be motivated enough to do this stuff.
* Trump and some of his spokesmen have mentioned this but none have gone into it in juicy detail: Much is made of Hillary’s “experience”, i.e., the manifold opportunities she has been given to demonstrate her worthiness to hold high office, largely as a result of her marriage to a successful politician. But more important is how abysmally, terrifyingly badly she has performed every time she has been given such opportunities. I think Trump’s campaign ought to make a list and recite it at every possible opportunity from now until November.
I have posted this elsewhere but it’s worth repeating:
A partial, chronological list from the public record of instances of Hilary Clinton’s corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:
(1) Failed DC bar exam;
(2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
(3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas’s first “lady”;
(4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
(5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
(6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
(7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
(8) Lost a “sure thing” presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
(9) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long “special relation” between the UK and the USA;
(10) A bit later her incredibly stupid “reset button” gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
(11) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called “Arab Spring” which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
(12) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
(13) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
(14) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteligence sources [people may have died as a result];
(15) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her “foundation” had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.
Posted inAmerica, Steve Sailer|Comments Off on ‘HRC: Invade the world, invite the world, and tell all the world’s men to use the women’s restrooms.’
The report, which you can read in its entirety here, badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server and whether she complied fully with the laws in place governing electronic communication. And it virtually ensures that Clinton’s email practices will be front and center in Donald Trump’s fusillade of attacks against her credibility and honesty between now and Nov. 8.
The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.
The report says Clinton, who is the Democratic presidential front-runner, should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.
Clinton used an inappropriate method of preserving her documents. Her approach would not have been approved if it had been requested by a more junior member of the State Department staff. The report also suggests that despite a Clinton aide’s insistence that the method of preserving her emails had been submitted to a legal review back in 2010, there is no evidence that such a review took place. And, here’s the kicker: Clinton refused to sit for a formal interview.
Oomph. Double oomph. Heck, that might merit a triple oomph.
This is a bad day for Clinton’s presidential campaign. Period. For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder. No one will come out of this news cycle — with the exception of the hardest of the hard-core Clinton people — believing she is a better bet for the presidency on May 25 than she was on May 23.
Posted inHillary Clinton|Comments Off on WP: Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got much worse