Patterico's Pontifications

5/18/2019

Recent Media Reports on Immigrant Detention (UPDATED)

Filed under: Government,Immigration — DRJ @ 2:46 pm



[Headlines from DRJ]

Let’s look at immigrant detention.

Where are migrants detained in the United States?

Most come across on the Southern border — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — and most detention centers are in those states. Some of the border centers, especially in Texas, are overwhelmed and migrants are being moved elsewhere:

To San Diego: CBP Begins Flying Detained Immigrants from Texas to San Diego.

And migrants have already started arriving: San Diego receiving flights of migrant families from Texas Border Patrol for processing.

And Florida, but Florida Gov DeSantis is not happy: Florida governor warns his state can’t handle an influx of immigrants from the border.

So definitely not Florida: Trump officials not sending migrants to Florida after backlash.

Where else? Torrance County, NM, may see detention centers as an economic opportunity: Torrance County to reopen detention center .

Illinois may not: ICE detainees could not be held in private detention centers under measure heading to Illinois governor.

Are your local and state governments viewing this as an opportunity or a burden?

UPDATE 5/22/2019: Not so quick to welcome in LA/Murrieta.

— DRJ

Trump’s Influence On The 2020 Democratic Primary

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:33 am



[guest post by Dana]

Upon his announcement that he was throwing his hat in the ring for 2020, Joe Biden’s early polling numbers have consistently shown him dominating his nearly two dozen competitors. In a fractured party where many of the candidates are running from the far left lane, Biden is now viewed as the moderate Democrat. In light of this, it is interesting to consider whether candidates who have been desperately trying to outwoke each other may have actually done themselves a disservice:

It’s not just Biden’s rising poll numbers that suggest that the activist left is out of step with most Democrats; it’s the ideological makeup of the entire Democratic Party. Fifty-six percent of Democrats self-identify as “moderate” and 9 percent even embrace “conservative,” according to an April poll from the Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University. While leftist activists pine for the end of the legislative filibuster to grease the skids for partisan legislation, a December GW Politics poll found that 66 percent of Democrats said they prefer elected officials who “make compromises with people they disagree with” over those who “stick to their positions.” Only 36 percent of Republicans said the same.

[…]

The Democrats didn’t just underestimate Joe Biden’s personal appeal (at least so far), but it appears they also underestimated the size of his ideological lane. As Democrats stampeded left, with even more “moderate” candidates like Beto arguing for tearing down existing border walls, Biden was left largely alone to position himself as the ideal candidate for a whopping 65 percent of the Democratic electorate. Which of the “woke” candidates is best-positioned to challenge Biden for that enormous slice of the Democratic voting public? Meanwhile, the progressive (mostly white) wing of the primary is crowded and competitive.

Moreover, key candidates have made such extreme statements in the effort to appeal to what turned out to be the Democratic minority that they’ve rendered themselves more vulnerable in the general election. It’s hard to walk back pledges to wipe away private health insurance or tear down border walls, for example. It turns out that dreams of a united, energized progressive tidal wave may well die in the face of a more-moderate electorate that mainly seeks a return to normalcy, modest reforms, and an end to daily political drama.

Which leads to Rich Lowry wondering about the reality of Trump’s influence on Democratic voters:

What if Donald Trump hasn’t driven Democrats insane, sending them into a spiral of self-defeating radicalism, but instead made them shockingly pragmatic?

Biden’s early strength suggests it may be the latter, that the reaction to Trump is so intense that it has crossed some sort of event horizon from fevered fantasy of his leaving office early via resignation or impeachment to a cold-eyed, win-at-any-cost practicality.

If this is true, one of the exogenous factors that could appreciably increase Trump’s odds of reelection — a zany Democratic nomination contest leading to a nominee much too far left for the American electorate — may not materialize.

The commonsense play for Democrats has always been to nominate a nonsocialist with appeal to Obama-to-Trump voters in former blue wall states — if not necessarily Biden, then someone with a similar relatively moderate profile.

If hardly dispositive, Biden’s robust numbers at least suggest that this play is more likely than it seemed in the very early going, when candidates were stumbling over one another apologizing for sundry alleged offenses in the Woke Olympics.

If that’s not going to be the true dynamic of the race, I’m as surprised as anyone, having written often about the leftward lurch of the party. What’s extraordinary, though, is that almost every Democratic candidate might have been misreading it as well and chasing the wrong rabbit down the track.

Whether the general election ends up between these two rich, old white guys remains to be seen. As it stands now, in spite of Biden’s many liabilities, early polls focused on the general election show Biden leading Trump. Biden is reportedly going to focus on a unity v. division theme at his kickoff rally, claiming that Trump has divided the country on race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation, and that America needs a president who represents all Americans, not just Trump’s base. Although it’s still early, Trump has locked onto Biden, with his familiar lay-him-low-from-the-get-go strategy:

[S]ome Democrats, having witnessed how Mr. Trump lampooned and eventually bulldozed the Republican field in 2016, are nervous that Mr. Trump has shrewdly chosen to define Mr. Biden as the front-runner early on, identifying him as the greatest threat in a general election.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Media: Trump will/will not require E-Verify (UPDATED)

Filed under: Immigration,Law — DRJ @ 6:42 am



[Headlines from DRJ]

Breitbart: Trump [Immigration] Plan Mandates E-Verify, Protecting U.S. Jobs for Americans

But:

Politico: White House may include mandatory E-Verify in immigration proposal

McClatchy: Trump administration eyes mandatory employment checks for immigration plan

Post & Courier Op-Ed: Trump’s immigration plan has one key fault:

We have generally tried to combat the flow of low-skilled, undocumented immigrants in a manner similar to that which has failed to stem the flow of illegal drugs. We try to prop up weak economies in Central America and South America to hopefully give people less reason to come. We try to stop them at the border so they don’t get here in the first place. And we raid employers and bust them if we find they are employing undocumented immigrants, always hoping the next arrest will be the last one. And, as in the war on drugs, the supply of undocumented immigrants remains.

In both cases, basic economics teaches that as long as the demand for a good is high, people will try to supply it — even as the price rises. Some immigrants might be dissuaded from undertaking the risky journey north as news of greater enforcement trickles back to their homes, but minimum wages in the United States ranging from $7.25 to as much as $15 still lure many who face paltry pay in their own country — or no work at all. Some U.S. employers might be dissuaded from hiring workers who they suspect are not here legally, but the risk of getting caught remains low, and the short-term advantage of having cheap, readily available and compliant workers usually outweighs the risks.

The president needs to recognize this and make controlling the demand for these workers as important as interdicting their supply. As I’ve said before, mandatory use of E-Verify, the government system that checks documents provided by prospective employees that supposedly prove legal status against government records, is an absolute minimum.

Will he or won’t he?

UPDATED 5/20/2019– He won’t:

HILTON: And one thing that people have speculated about was that it might include E-Verify. Is that going to be in the —

TRUMP: So E-Verify is going to be possibly a part of it. The one problem is E-Verify is so tough that in some cases, like farmers, they’re not – they’re not equipped for E-Verify. I mean I’d say that’s against Republicans. A lot of the Republicans say you go through an E-Verify. I used it when I built the hotel down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue. I use a very strong E-Verify system. And we would go through 28 people – 29, 30 people before we found one that qualified. 

HILTON: Right. 

TRUMP: So it’s a very tough thing to ask a farmer to go through that. So in a certain way, I speak against myself, but you also have to have a world of some practicality. 

HILTON: So when people hear that, some of the people – if you like, your most (ph) – they’re described as – they’re restrictions, the people who really want to kind of cut immigration to practically nothing. They hear that and they say, “Well, this plan was written by Jared Kushner, and he’s a globalist, and it’s all letting people in.” What do you say to those? Many of them will be your supporters —

TRUMP: This is not a – yes, see, this is not a globalist plan. I wanted this to be very, very strong. You know, we did judicial reform. You saw what we did there, and a lot of people liked it, both conservative and liberal. That was probably the closest you could say to bipartisan and – because a lot of it was unfair. And by the way, it’s very tough. We have Chuck Grassley in support of it. Mike Lee is in support of it. You know, some of the strongest conservatives. 

— DRJ


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2050 secs.