Behind the Façades in France: What expats and the mainstream media (French and American alike) fail to notice (or fail to tell you) about French attitudes, principles, values, and official positions…
"This bill is worse than doing nothing," Limbaugh said [of the May 2007 legislation to regularize the legal status of millions of undocumented immigrants]. "The thing about this that just doesn't make any sense is thar we're treating the illegals as though we are doing something wrong, as though we've been bad and we're guilty of something. We want them to forgive us."
As Larry O'Brien, one of JFK's smartest aides, once observed, there are no final victories in politics.
What America has instead is a permanent argument between Federalists and Jeffersonians, progressives and traditionalists, conservatives and liberals. This is an essential argument about human nature, and the balance between personal freedom and collective responsibility.
The presence of this debate is one of the vital signs that a society is open and free. Those who decry Limbaugh … "polarizing" ignore the fact that only totalitarian states are unipolar. Democracies are adversarial, and you don't get to choose the other side's advocates.
The senator from New Jersey claims that President Trump’s alleged “shithole countries” remark made him cry.
Yes, cry. This one-time All-American high school football
star was so butthurt over a completely uncontroversial statement that he
actually shed tears. Then he choked up again while recounting his first bout of weeping. “I hurt,”
whined Booker before pounding his fists on the bench like a small
child. “When Dick Durbin called me I had tears of rage when I heard
about this experience in this meeting.”
Booker was referring to the ultraliberal Illinois senator who claims to have been in a meeting
with President Trump when Trump said that America doesn’t need any more
immigrants from “shithole countries” such as Haiti, El Salvador, and
the entirety of Africa. He allegedly said that he would prefer
Norwegians instead.
This set off a round of denials and counteraccusations. President
Trump, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, and two
Republican senators have denied that Trump made the remarks while Durbin
doubled down on his previous accusation.
On the one hand it sounds like something Trump would say,
particularly if he were speaking off the record, while on the other hand
liberal Democrats are constantly manufacturing incidents of faux
outrage so that they can virtue signal to their base. Liberals need to
be seen as vigilant warriors fighting a never-ending battle against
“hate,” which requires an endless stream of outrages. It’s really
tiresome.
Of course when the Democrats are in outrage mode so too are the
news media—likely because there’s no clear demarcation line between the
two. In the 24 hour period after Shitholegate broke, CNN used the term on air 195 times. That’s an average of more than eight times per hour. Wasn’t there any other news to cover?
It should be noted that this whole story may still be apocryphal. The
fact that the news media present it as truth is a classic case of media
bias. One Democrat is to be believed because he’s a Democrat. Four
Republicans are not to be believed because they’re Republicans.
But if the president didn’t say what Durbin claims he said then I’ll
say it for him. Haiti is a “shithole” and everyone knows it—even Dick
Durbin, Cory Booker, and all their whiny reporter friends over at CNN.
El Salvador is also a “shithole.” So is every African nation without
exception.
That may be an impolitic thing to say but that doesn’t make it any
less true. If we intend to craft a reality-based immigration policy we
must retain the ability to speak candidly about the world as it actually
exists—particularly in closed door meetings for cripe’s sake!
That’s what closed door meetings are for. We can’t have candid
conversations if little Dicky Durbin is going to tattle to the media
every time he feels a case of the butthurt coming on.
Even liberals know that Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa are
“shitholes;” in fact, it seems to be their recurring argument for why we
need to prioritize citizens of those nations in our immigration policy.
Turning away people who are fleeing the kind of violence, corruption,
and disease found in such places would be heartless and frankly
un-American!
Then they react with righteous indignation if anyone calls them “shithole countries.” Seriously? If they’re not shitholes then their residents have no special case to plead.
[Related: What Kind of Startling Groups Might Tend to Agree with Trump About "Shithole Countries"?
…/… How about the citizens of
Haiti, the citizens of El Salvador, and the citizens of various nations
in Africa? …/… Indeed, isn't the very fact that so many of these citizens
are emigrating to America, or to the West, in the first place a pretty strong sign of
what they think, if not in those exact terms, of the regions they were
born in? …/…
(There is another, and an even more surprising, group — read the whole thing™)]
But Haitians receive preferential treatment under our immigration
policy precisely because their homeland is in shambles–and anyone who
tries to end this preferential treatment gets their hand slapped by the
liberal media.
In June of last year, President Trump openly considered ending the
“temporary” refugee status of some 50,000 Haitians who were allowed to
stay in the US after that country’s 2010 earthquake. A staff editorial
from the Washington Post explained:
“The Haitians in question have been
allowed to stay in the United States…as beneficiaries of a U.S.
government program called Temporary Protected Status. TPS extends
humanitarian relief to people from impoverished, war-torn or disaster-wracked countries who are already in the United States when calamity strikes their homelands.” [Emphasis added by Benny Huang.]
Sounds like “shitholes” to me!
The editorial went on to bemoan the cruelty of the Trump
Administration for daring to send 50,000 people back to a country that
is, by their description, “a special hardship case.” That’s a diplomatic
way of saying that it’s a shithole.
The Post also admitted that Haiti will be a “special hardship
case” for years to come:
“It’s fair to wonder whether there will ever
be, in the foreseeable future, a right time to send more than 50,000
Haitians back to a country so beset with chronic problems. The honest
answer is no…”
For once the Post said something that makes sense. Haiti will almost
certainly remain the pity of the world for as long as my unborn
grandchildren’s unborn grandchildren are alive and would still be even
if there had never been an earthquake. For that matter, the nation has
been a “special hardship case” since its birth in 1804 and probably
before that too. Haiti was, is, and ever shall be a horrible place
filled with despotism, disease, and grinding poverty. In other words, it’s a “shithole.” Saying that makes liberals
nervous, of course, because it implies that not all cultures are equal,
from which they draw their own racial conclusions. But it’s the truth.
Let’s look at infant mortality rates.
Besides Afghanistan which has the world’s highest infant mortality
rate, the top 24 highest infant mortality rates can all be found in
African nations. The top 35 nations are all African except four. Then
comes Haiti at number 36. El Salvador is number 96. Norway by contrast
is number 221.
Or we could examine per capita GDP.
Haiti’s is a mere $1,800, which makes it number 209 of 230 countries
and the lowest in the Americas. Of the 21 countries that rank below
Haiti two are small Pacific island nations and one is North Korea. All
the rest are African. Norway is the thirteenth highest.
So why all the weeping and fist-pounding about some nations
being called “shitholes?” The short answer is that liberals prioritize
their feelings above all else. Cory Booker, for example, might be a little sensitive about the term
“shithole” because it’s often associated with the state he represents in
the US Senate. New Jersey has a certain reputation as a toxic waste
dump with syringe-strewn beaches. I wouldn’t make that argument, of
course, because I know that only part of the state fits that
description. The entire Garden State isn’t like the really dumpy
sections found across the Hudson from Manhattan in places like East
Rutherford, Irvington, and Newark.
Say, wasn’t Cory Booker once the mayor of Newark? Yes, he was.
Newark also has a significant population of Haitian immigrants.
Remember the 90’s hip hop ensemble the Fugees? Two of its three members
were Haitian refugees who settled in the Newark area. Newark also has a
good sized population of Salvadorans. The Archdiocese of Newark
estimates that forty thousand Salvadorans live within its jurisdictional bounds.
But is Newark a “shithole” because of its Haitian and
Salvadoran populations? Not necessarily. Newark has never been a nice
place to live—not even before waves of Haitian and Salvadoran immigrants
arrived. Still, they haven’t done much to spruce the place up.
A better explanation would be that the Haitians and Salvadorans
landed in Newark because they were priced out of nicer communities. They
then settled right into the urban Democratic wasteland. Politicians
like Cory Booker pander to them and try to buy their votes with promises
of government goodies. These politicians never solve their problems, of
course, but that’s to be expected. If they did, what would they run on
next time?
In short, Cory Booker is offended by Trump’s alleged comments because
they strike a nerve not because they’re untrue. As the former mayor of a
“shithole” city, filled with constituents who hail from some of the
“shithole” countries Trump allegedly named, Booker takes the remarks as a
personal insult. Or at least he pretends to. In reality he secretly
agrees with the remarks, he just has to show his overwrought outrage
publicly for the sake of Newark’s and New Jersey’s sacred honor.
But the rest of us have no obligation to pretend that Haiti, El
Salvador, and Africa are nice places. They’re not. Anyone who believes
that they are can prove his sincerity by taking his next vacation in
beautiful, sunny Port-au-Prince. All others can quit the histrionics.
Ohlalaa… Imagine the howls of outrage, in America as in the rest of the world (including France?), if Melania Trump appeared next to President Donald Trump in a similar low-cut dress (merci à Évelyne Joslain) — and let's not even get into the fact of the first lady appearing with a bottle of liquor, i.e., rouge (red wine), in her hand…
Update: it appears far from unlikely that the photo is a composite… Fake News! It got us again!
That is the question asked by
rebels in African countries such as Sierra Leone before they chop off their prisoners' hands and arms, either at the elbow (short sleeves) or at the wrist (long sleeves).
Meanwhile, the Mexican government has published a list of no-go zones in its own country.
What do those things do but make, by any definition you choose, countries like that — and whatever the race or the color of the skin of their inhabitants — little more than shitholes?
Related: What Kind of Startling Groups Might Tend to Agree with Trump About "Shithole Countries"?
…/… How about the citizens of
Haiti, the citizens of El Salvador, and the citizens of various nations
in Africa? …/… Indeed, isn't the very fact that so many of these citizens
are emigrating to America, or to the West, in the first place a pretty strong sign of
what they think, if not in those exact terms, of the regions they were
born in? …/…
[There is another, and an even more surprising, group — read the whole thing™]
In any case, the raison d'être of this post is that in view of the narrative of the leftists — that, unlike us other clueless, heartless, and racist neanderthals, they have the hearts and the compassion to see the virtues of the immigrants as well as the dignity of the countries they belong to —
there are a number of essential questions that need answering, questions that they never seem to have paused to consider.
Again: the narrative is that liberals, unlike conservatives, are all-around compassionate, tolerant, and internationalist-minded, as eager to provide help to immigrants, legal or otherwise, as they are to interact with other nationalities and, say, to bring aid to Third World countries.
So this brings up the following questions:
• If immigration is such a wonderful concept, one indeed that will bring hope and change (sic) to the United States, why would immigration not be just as benevolent to all other countries in the world as well? In other words, what I am getting at is, why doesn't this lead you leftists to support precisely the opposite of keeping all the illegals in America, i.e., sending the immigrants home as a good thing (!) since, somewhere, somehow it will prove to be a boon to those nations, what with the very fact of immigrants moving to those (in this case, to their own) countries can only bring untold riches to said nations?!
• Indeed, if the Dreamers are such paragons of virtue, and if it is so evident that all of them go on to become productive citizens, Valedictorians, heroic soldiers worthy of the Medal of Honor, etc, why not let said jewels, why not encourage said archetypes to, go home in order to make their own countries great again?!
• If foreign nations are not shitholes at all — but even more if… they indeed are so (!) — in other words, whatever the status of the countries, won't they benefit even more than America allegedly does from all these Übermenschen returning home to engage in their diligent work and to improve the lot of all the others?
• Won't a return to their home countries prove to be a boon to said individuals as well, in view of the fact that, apart from being super-menschen, they return home with international experience, not least with English as a first language, and therefore with the capacity to get the juiciest jobs in their communities?!
• To conclude, think of the immigrants (become emigrants) and the countries that they return to (immigrants again): Isn't it manifest that everyone benefits from this?! (Everyone but los Estados Unidos; but they are obviously racist trash profiting, and having always profited, from white privilege; so los Americanosdeserve to suffer from the absence of all those wonderful immigrants!)
While we all ponder these questions, let me add as an aside that I read on the web that the Democrat Party can be summed up by what they call (and think of) various people — native-born American citizens are called Deplorables; illegal immigrants are referred to as Dreamers. There you have it in a nutshell…
Peter Mayle, the bestselling author of A Year in Provence is dead at the age of 78 after a brief illness.
The genius of Mayle’s breezy, entertaining
writing lay in his ability to make readers believe that every day in
Provence was like a lazy Sunday, even as he detailed the days when he
could barely get through the doorway because of incompetent contractors,
or the days when the mistral winds made it impossible to leave that doorway
writes
Bethanne Patrick, who heads her lithub piece with: For Peter Mayle, Retirement Became the Career
For once, I am in disagreement with
Benny Huang. For one thing, I just got an email from the White House enjoining people to
"Tell Senate Democrats that YOU -- the American voter -- will ALWAYS remember the day that Democrats put illegal immigrants before American citizens."
That may not mean much, some skeptics will scoff, but as far as I am concerned, the immigration deal did not go through, and I may be naïve, but I am wont to believe that when Trump made his DACA offer, he pretty much realized that the Democrats would turn it down. In that case, wasn't the offer for future political use, being able to spin (rightly) how open he was to compromise in contrast to how closed the Democrats were?
Was the Donald really going to give in to the Democrats or was he
playing high stakes poker, "knowing" that the opposing player would walk
away? Well, it may be wishful thinking, but in any case, I would think that Benny Huang would agree that we should at least hope that he is wrong and that I am right. Anyway, Benny Huang's warnings deserve to be heard, just as conservatives' warnings with regards to the Trump administration's Jeff Sessions regarding eminent domain deserve to be voiced:
There’s an old truism that says that Republicans win elections but
Democrats win policy fights. I was reminded of this adage last week when
President Trump hosted a televised negotiation session with congressional Democrats in which he seemed to concede everything on the issue of immigration—with nothing in return.
… At one point in the meeting Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) posed a
question that was moronic on its face. “What about a clean DACA bill now
with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform
procedure?”
That sounds quite reasonable. Why don’t we just give the minority
party its greatest wish on the condition that we later haggle over
“comprehensive immigration reform?” That handy phrase is just code for
an ever broader amnesty. Where exactly is the up side to this deal for
anyone who isn’t enamored with the idea of being swamped with even more
of the third world’s problem children?
Give us what we want now and in return we’ll have talks about how you can give us even more of what we want later.
Sounds fair.
Not to be outdone, President Trump deftly replied:
“We’re going to
come up with DACA, we’re going to do DACA, and then we can start
immediately on phase two which would be comprehensive.”
“Phase two” will never happen if it isn’t part of this bill. It has
to be quid pro quo, not one side’s quid for a very unlikely quo at an
unspecified later date.
The Democrats have been running this scam since time immemorial and
it always turns out the same way. Republicans capitulate on everything
in return for a promise that Democrats will yield on something else
later. Democrats always break their promises and pat themselves on the
back for doing so.
… What Trump is essentially saying is that he will sign anything. He
will ask for nothing in return and he won’t use the power of an
impending veto as leverage. He’ll just trust everyone to do the right
thing.
That’s not “winning,” which is what this man promised. It’s unconditional surrender.
My only consolation is that the president has gifted me an “I told you so” moment. I knew this man had no principles and I said as much. Caving to the Democrats was not a question of if but when.
As I wrote in August 2016:
“If Trump were to be elected president…
nothing will change in this country in regard to immigration, illegal or
otherwise. The lawless open border will remain lawless and open, the
Border Patrol we pay to pretend they’re enforcing the law will continue
to play make-believe, and the rule of law will continue to be a big
joke. Don’t believe me? Donald Trump admitted in the same FOX News
interview that his policy would be a continuation of
his two predecessors. ‘What people don’t know is that Obama got
tremendous numbers of people out of the country. Bush, the same thing.
Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws.
Well, I’m going to do the same thing.’”
For making this accurate prediction I was accused of being an amnesty
shill, a despicable Never Trumper, and a corporate lackey—none of which
is true. I’m as tough as anyone on the question of illegal immigration.
The law is the law and illegal aliens broke it. Send them all home. In
regards to legal immigration I am a firm believer that we Americans
should be able to pick our immigrants based on our best interests not
what’s best for our prospective guests. My criteria would exclude anyone
who is likely to become a ward of the state or to displace an American
worker.
The backlash I experienced was intense enough to make me wonder if
conservatives were falling prey to the same cult of personality so
common among liberal Democrats. People on “my side” were matching the
Democrats’ foolish idolatry with their own.
It wasn’t as if our only choice was between Trump and an actual
amnesty shill like Lindsey Graham. We could have nominated, for example,
Senator Ted Cruz, who is also not a member of the WWE Hall of Fame.
Cruz led the revolt against the lousy Gang of Eight “pathway to
citizenship” deal.
As Cruz said in 2013:
“Unfortunately, all of the concerns that have been repeatedly raised
about this bill remain: it repeats the mistakes of the 1986 immigration
bill; it grants amnesty first; it won’t secure the border; and it
doesn’t fix our broken legal immigration system.”
In other words, the Gang of Eight bill was a dud because it contained
all of the same elements that we’ll likely see in whatever bill comes
across Trump’s desk this year. The only difference is that Trump will
sign the 2018 version of the Schumer–Rubio monstrosity. He’ll sign
anything.
Amnesty now in exchange for the faint possibility of enforcement later? Sold!
The reason we’re in this no-win situation is because some
conservatives have succumbed to one of humanity’s worst vices: idolatry.
After eight horrible years of Barrack Obama they were looking for a
messiah and they found one in a shady businessman and life-long liberal
Democrat named Donald J. Trump. …
This idolatry was never more apparent than when one of my favorite
political writers, Ann Coulter, published a book titled “In Trump We
Trust: E Pluribus Awesome.” … The title was an obvious takeoff
from the national motto but with Trump’s name blasphemously replacing
God. Has there ever been a more ridiculous title? Trump is not my God
and I don’t consider trust in politicians to be a virtue. Ann’s fan girl
enthusiasm was repellent.
Luckily, she seems to be coming around.
… All I can say is that I warned her.
She should have known that Donald Trump operates based on interests
rather than principles. He’s a living, breathing example of why
principles are so important. It isn’t enough for a candidate to say the
right things, he has to mean it.
Donald Trump clearly didn’t and for that we’re all worse off.
Benny Huang knows that I was as skeptical about Donald Trump during the election cycle as he was/is, and if I have changed my mind, it is only because of being pleasantly surprised by the facts again and again — Neil Gorsuch, Jerusalem, climate change exit, ISIS whuppin', the ObamaCare mandate repeal, the tax bill, putting trust in the military, etc… Like I said, I may be engaging in wishful thinking, but most of my own I told you sos have been (mercifully) proven wrong and I am starting to trust, I am hoping, that Donald Trump has been seeing through the Democrats and has been playing (admittedly) high stakes poker with them, as he has before. Let us hope that I am right…
