A winning strategy for Donald Trump and Republicans for 2020

Barring some unforeseen financial calamity, President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans can smash their way into a second term in the White House, help the GOP regain control of the House and maybe pick up a few more seats in the upper chamber.

But first, they have to be willing to walk away from "investigating the investigators" who ran the Mueller Witch Hunt. The American public is sick of that kind of skulduggery and they want their own problems solved.

The biggest problem facing voters right now is immigration reform. The Senate is perfectly poised to take that matter up, and can have a Comprehensive American Immigration Reform bill fast-tracked through the Senate just in time for the national conventions in 2020.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have to use some strong arm tactics to get a bill through committees. He will almost certainly have to nuke the filibuster (just this once). He will have to twist arms to get some of his own party to buy in.

Republicans will have to swallow giving Dreamers a path to citizenship, and maybe even creating a path for illegals who can show that they've been here since 2008, when the immigration do nothing President Obama started wasting time on reform.

A Republican Senate should have no problem requiring that all border security and asylum reforms be in place and operational before any illegal starts down any path. Security first, y'all.

The objective here is twofold:

1. Get the President and one House of Congress on record behind a measure that addresses both border security and the issue of what to do with illegals that really have no way back home.
2. Put the measure in front of Nancy Pelosi's horribly fractured caucus and Democrat Presidential candidates and make them take a stand on comprehensive immigration reform before the 2020 election.

This will make the media dance to a GOP tune for a change. Ronald Reagan did it in 1984 and there's no reason to think a media savvy Donald Trump can't do it in 2020.

Imagine Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Pocahontas Warren or Bernie Sanders answer why they don't support a plan that helps dreamers, strengthens the border and fixes the asylum mess? Imagine Democrat House and Senate incumbents facing their state or district electorate having opposed the best chance to fix the immigration mess since 2006?

But most important is the binary outcome: We get either comprehensive immigration reform or we get a second term for Trump and likely control of both houses of Congress. Then we can get the package done in time for the 2022 midterms. 

Bonus if the latter comes to pass: Slam dunk nominees for the Supreme Court Justice(s) Trump adds in his second term.

Why are Democrats so silent on the caravan marching through Mexico?

A caravan of some 7,000 Central Americans from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras is making its way through Mexico.

Democrats are completely silent. Why?

Could it be that a majority of voters want the caravan stopped? Could it also be that a super-majority of Americans believe that our current immigration enforcement is far too lax?

I think it’s both, and I think that the caravan represents an all-at-once display of what Americans rightly believe is happening at our borders. News reports have been showing us trickles of illegal immigrants; numbering in the dozens. A few hundred families separated at the border is uncomfortable. Thousands streaming towards the border is terrifying.

Democrats can’t say, “stop the caravan” because (1) President Donald Trump wants it stopped, (2) Americans overwhelmingly agree with him, (3) there’s an important election approaching and (4) they think agreeing with a Republican President and a majority of voters will kill their chances of winning an election.

Never mind that our border is about to be assaulted by an invasion force. Never mind that allowing it to penetrate this country has long lasting deleterious effects on our sovereignty and safety. Never mind that the invaders really are poor folks trying to reach a better life who have been manipulated by extreme left organizers like pawns on a gameboard.

Human suffering and destabilization of America aren’t important considerations when it comes to seizing power and undoing the 2016 election.

Let'em Eat Cake!

One thing about the Obama regime--they really know how to throw a party, don't they?  Last night, they held a swanky state dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his wife, Margarita Zavala.  The dinner was prepared under the supervision of star guest chef Rick Bayless, who served up high-end Mexican cuisine on the Clinton china and the Eisenhower porcelain.  But the real throw-down came later:

---

"I know we just had a very formal dinner," Obama said as guests reassembled in a tent on the South Lawn for dessert and after-dinner entertainment. "But we heard that this was the place for the real party."

And party they did, to the music of guitarists Rodrigo y Gabriela and then to the sounds of an artist whom Obama referred to as "somebody some of you may have heard of — named Beyonce." And, yes, her husband Jay-Z was in the house too.

Obama declared it his mission to get Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his wife, Margarita Zavala, out on the dance floor along with himself and first lady Michelle Obama. But reporters were ushered out before the after-party ever got to the dancing stage.

---

CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller tweeted this morning that the party went well into the night.

While the President, First Lady, Beyonce and Jay-Z partied it down, the Dept of Labor was preparing a ghoulishly bad report on jobless claims for the week ending May 14, bringing the media's most oft-used adverb back into play:

---

The number of workers filing new applications for unemployment insurance unexpectedly rose last week for the first time since early April, suggesting the labor market recovery has hit a stumbling block.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 25,000 to a seasonally adjusted 471,000 in the week ended May 15, the highest level since the week ended April 10, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

---

Why is this report so bad? Because it shows that last week's job losses wiped out virtually all of the recent progress the jobs market has made since early April. It is a major setback, because it shows that the jobs market really hasn't improved much at all since Obama pathetically promised a "laser-like focus" on jobs and economic recovery. In fact, analysis of the labor market shows that the weekly jobless claims data only represent "noise" along a trend of rising, not falling, unemployment. The economy may be growing, but the growth rate is ever so slight and there is absolutely no real good news for jobseekers.

But that doesn't stop the Teleprompter in Chief from throwing swanky parties for foreign dignitaries and joining those dignitaries in misrepresenting our individual state laws. The Obama regime doesn't care one whit about what's going on with the man on the street.  Our economy is not producing jobs because the administration won't reduce the burden on American businesses.  Instead, it has rammed through a $1+ trillion healthcare scheme whose surprises are still being found.  It has backed comprehensive financial "reform" that basically makes every company that hedges risk "a bank."  It repeatedly signals that higher taxes and more regulation will be floated.

And, while American business reduces uncertainty by scaling back or putting expansion on hold, the White House parties on, dude!  Let'em eat cake...

Extra Point:  Wait?  What?  Bayless served up Mexican food? Does that mean Calderon will return the favor with Wagyu burgers, should Obama make it a round trip?

Arizona's Federal Lands Problem

A caller on the Rush Limbaugh show mentioned today that the Department of Interior owns much of the land on the Arizona border with Mexico, and that the National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments and National Wilderness Areas are off limits to ICE immigration patrols.

Desert Invasion has more details, including documentation of how these once-pristine areas are being devastated by drug dealers and criminals.

From the April 15 issue of the Arizona (Tuscon) Star:

---

Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House want to give Border Patrol agents total access to public lands where they currently must adhere to some restrictions.

The move is the latest fallout from the March 27 killing of longtime rancher Robert Krentz on his land northeast of Douglas.

The legislation would prohibit the Department of Interior from restricting Border Patrol activities on public lands. Currently, land managers can create rules regarding access to certain areas to protect land, wildlife or historical sites.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, justified the legislation based on the fact that the person who killed Krentz likely fled into Mexico through the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge.

The refuge is 17 miles east of Douglas on the Arizona-Mexico border.

At the 2,309-acre wildlife refuge, the Border Patrol is allowed to patrol on foot or on horseback, but its vehicle access is limited to emergencies and to administrative roads, according to a May 2009 letter from Benjamin Tuggle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife regional director, to Robert Gilbert, then the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector Chief.

San Bernardino refuge manager Bill Radke could not be reached for comment Wednesday. But rancher Wendy Glenn confirmed that those rules still exist. Her 15,000-acre ranch surrounds the refuge.

At a news conference in Washington, D.C., Bishop and other lawmakers accused federal land managers of "hiding behind the law" to place wilderness or endangered species ahead of border safety. "It's unforgivable," he said.

---

Going back to my trusty GIS application, Mapwindow, I created a layer showing federally owned or controlled properties along the Arizona - Mexico border and it took my breath away:

Click the image for a larger view.  More than two-thirds of the border is federally owned, and much of that is off limits to ICE!


Extra Point: If the GOP takes the House of Representatives in November, the Bishop Bill should receive top priority. If any immigration bill comes before the House this summer, Bishop should seek to have his bill submitted as an amendment. We can't close the border when the government won't cooperate with itself!

Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- Conservatives or Heretics?

On Tuesday, Florida Senatorial candidate (and current front-runner) issued a statement on Arizona's tough new immigration law.  Here is the full text of his statement:

"Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America's blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.


"States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona's policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don't believe Arizona's policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion,' are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

"I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states' requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now - securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants."

Contrary to the media and lefty site spin, there is nothing here even approaching a 'denunciation.' It is a very carefully worded statement that walks a very fine line.

Later, in an interview with Politico, Jeb Bush, the still-popular former Governor, had this to say about the new law:

"I think it creates unintended consequences. It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well.

"I don't think this is the proper approach."

That strays a little farther off the reservation, doesn't it?

The body of the nation's immigration law was horribly broken by the Hart-Celler INS Act of 1965, and more than five decades of pathetic enforcement and outright neglect have made illegal immigration a major problem. While Rubio and Bush has publicly declared support for a policy of enforcement that strongly disincentivizes employers and employees from gaming the legal system, Bush has joined his brother in calling for comprehensive reform, including amnesty for illegals already living in the US. 

It bears noting that both Bush and Rubio are products of Florida politics. Florida has a large Hispanic population. Rubio himself is a second generation Cuban, and Bush's wife is Colombian. While much of Florida's Cuban population leans Republican, there is a strong independent segment and a sizable Democrat bloc as well. Bluntly: You don't win elections in Florida without Hispanics.

By the same token, Republicans don't win elections in Florida without conservatives and right-leaning anglo independents. Cast in this light, both statements make sense.  Rubio's conservatism is on display. Bush's Compassionate Conservativism II sounds just like that of his brother.

The only approach to the nation's illegal immigration policy is law-and-order first.  It is not the arms-wide-open amnesty approach favored in 2007 by John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George W. Bush, and Ted Kennedy, resurrected and expected to see the Senate floor this summer.

I applaud Arizona's attempt to wrestle the enormous problem faced by state and local officials.  The rules of naturalization are an enumerated power granted to Congress by the US Constitution, but what is a state to do when the federal government abdicates the responsibility to reasonably execute that power? If the Congress also failed to establish a standard of weights and measures, thus throwing commerce into chaos, should a state be able to attempt restoration of order by establishing its own systems?

Both Rubio and Bush are correct that a federal reform effort is needed, and needed badly.  But Rubio is the only one of the two calling for the right approach and thankfully, he's the only one running for the US Senate.

Extra Point: Take a wild guess at who was one of Hart-Celler's biggest supporters, way back in 1965?

McCain, Kyl want troops on U.S.-Mexico border - Washington Times

Yesterday, The Washington Times ran a story on Senators McCain and Kyl expression of support for putting "troops" on the border to help quell the rising tide of violence:

McCain, Kyl want troops on U.S.-Mexico border - Washington Times

Some bloggers and tweeters immediately jumped on the idea--mistakenly thinking that armed, trained National Guard troops would be federalized and sent to the border to back up border patrol agents. Apparently, those people didn't read the whole Times story. Buried near the end was a recount of a similar episode in 2006, when the Bush Administration sent troops on the same mission. How'd that work out? Well:

In 2006, facing accusations from Congress that he had been lax on border security, President Bush deployed the National Guard to support the Border Patrol in the Southwest, with mixed results.
Some National Guard troops built infrastructure or handled clerical tasks to free up Border Patrol agents. In other instances, Border Patrol agents had to be assigned as bodyguards to protect Guard units, many of which were not allowed to carry loaded weapons. Border Patrol agents called the assignment "the nanny patrol."

"Mixed results" is putting it generously. It was a huge waste of resources and resulted in no real increase in border security. The reason? The same law that face plants the stupid "special army unit" hoax perpetrated earlier this month: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

The men and women of the active duty armed services and federalized National Guard troops are forbidden from taking an active role in law enforcement activities. About the only way we're going to see federal troops patrolling the border is if the United States declares war on Mexico. That's not gonna happen, boys and girls.

Nor is there gonna be any scary "special army unit" deploying within the United States to help prevent "civil unrest" before the November elections. I swear, some people really do believe in Black Helicopters...

Extra Point: Would it be too much to ask for a little intellectual consistency?