“If the day of Vice President Haley ever arrives, Trump’s base should have no illusions about the flatlining vital signs of the America First moment.”
(Pedro Gonzalez)
I am a one issue person—how we handle immigration is all that matters for the future of the US as we know it.
Nikki Haley may have impressed many of you, but she was soft on refugees when the issue became a hot one in South Carolinaa few years ago, and I won’t forgive her for it.
You’ve probably seen the circulating stories about how the President might dump VP Mike Pence in favor of Haley in the coming months.
Frankly, no matter how exciting Haley might appear for some so-called conservatives, I doubt this is even in anyone’s dreams (maybe Bill Kristol’s!) right now.
Why?
I don’t know about you, but I think Pence has been a good and steady voice and apparently a competent manager of the Trump coronavirus team and it wouldn’t look good to give him the heave-ho now.
Here is a post at American Greatness by writer Pedro Gonzalez from a couple of days ago about the Haley for Veep thinking (just in case you are one of those hearing a siren song!).
Rumor has it President Trump is considering swapping Vice President Mike Pence with former American ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. “This is not a prediction,” said CNN political analyst Paul Begala, “it’s a certainty.” Haley would be a great choice—if Trump intends to utterly abandon the agenda that got him elected.
[….]
Pitting Haley against Trump would mean certain political suicide for her, but seeding her in the White House would, in a Machiavellian twist, boost her profile and afford her countless opportunities to subvert the America First agenda. From immigration to foreign policy, Haley has been no friend to MAGA.
[….]
Trump would do well to remember his own rebuke of Haley in response to her shot across the bow: “She’s very weak on illegal immigration and she certainly has no trouble asking me for campaign contributions because over the years she’s asked me for a hell of a lot of money in campaign contributions.”
Indeed, Haley is at odds with Stephen Miller on immigration, the last man in the White House who is true to the America First immigration mandate.
Sympathy in the Congo is one thing, but bringing the Congo to America is another.
When Miller brought together senior officials in 2018 to discuss a plan to reduce the number of refugees admitted to the United States, Haley was deliberately excluded, presumably for her previous opposition to drastic reductions of refugee resettlement numbers. A spokesperson said Miller’s discussion was conducted “in consultation with all appropriate government agencies.” Likely as a result of her views on immigration, then, Haley was kept out of the discussion.
[….]
Haley has all the hallmarks of someone who operates with political expediency as a rule. Appeals to emotion, comic displays of faux strength, radically different stances on the same issue depending on the times. But there remains a remarkable consistency and cunning through it all.
She has maneuvered herself into a good light with the president and his supporters, despite remaining ideologically opposed to the America First agenda. Haley has gone from being the GOP’s Obama—the quintessential anti-Trump Republican—to a favorite of Trump supporters and now a potential replacement for Mike Pence. If the day of Vice President Haley ever arrives, Trump’s base should have no illusions about the flatlining vital signs of the America First moment.
Go hereto read all of the many reasons, Haley as Vice President would signal the end of this administration’s even nominal efforts to reduce immigration numbers.
Many of us are already worried that once re-elected the President might succumb to those voices within the Republican party clamoring to open our gates wide to a steady supply of third world workers.
And, as I said at the outset, nothing else matters for the future of our great country than how we manage immigration.
Editor’s note: As RRW approaches its 13th birthday, there are over 10,000 posts archived here at Refugee Resettlement Watch. Unfortunately, it is just me here with no staff and so it has become virtually impossible to answer all of the basic questions that come into my e-mail inbox or to RRW’s facebook page every day. I don’t want to appear rude—I simply haven’t enough hours in the day.
Please take time to visit RRW (don’t just read posts in your e-mail) and use the search window in the right hand sidebar and see if you can find the information you need. Also see my series that I wrote in recent months entitled Knowledge is Powerwhich explains some basic principles of how Refugee Resettlement is carried out in the US.
And, lastly, I don’t write that much every day, so if you made a habit of reading my posts here on a daily basis, you would eventually catch on to what is happening because I do link back to previous posts as much as possible. LOL! Thank you for helping me not go crazy!
Just so you know! The Refugee Act of 1980 gives the President the responsibility to set the annual refugee cap. President Donald Trump has set the cap for this year at 18,000.
If elected Prez, Joe Biden would dramatically raise the cap higher than anything the Obama Administration ever did—to 125,000.
Increase the number of refugees we welcome into the country.
With more than 70 million displaced people in the world today, this is a moment that demands American leadership. Offering hope and safe haven to refugees is part of who we are as a country. As a senator, Joe Biden co-sponsored the legislation creating our refugee program, which Trump has steadily decimated. His Administration has reduced the refugee resettlement ceiling to its lowest levels in decades and slammed the door on thousands of individuals suffering persecution, many of whom face threats of violence or even death in their home countries. We cannot mobilize other countries to meet their humanitarian obligations if we are not ourselves upholding our cherished democratic values and firmly rejecting Trump’s nativist rhetoric and actions. Biden embraces the core values that have made us who we are and will prioritize restoring refugee admissions in line with our historic practice under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. He will set the annual global refugee admissions cap to 125,000, and seek to raise it over time commensurate with our responsibility, our values, and the unprecedented global need.
Bernie is cagier and doesn’t stipulate a cap! However, he says he will welcome 50,000 (or more!) climate refugees in addition to other refugees.
Lift President Trump’s refugee caps and live up to our nation’s ideals and international law by welcoming those displaced from their homes.
Create a new program to welcome migrants displaced by climate change, and set a floor of accepting at least 50,000 climate migrants in his first year in office.
Note to PayPal donors! I want to thank all of you who send me donations for my work via PayPal. I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, PayPal is making changes to their terms of service and I’ve decided to opt-out beginning on March 10, 2020.
I reported here in Decemberthat Burleigh County commissioners held a couple of contentious meetings on the question of whether the county would continue receiving refugees under the President’s new reform plan.
Although their decision was not exactly overwhelming, the fact that this county commission actually held a hearing to take the pulse of the community is very significant. All across the country governors and local elected officials are deciding behind closed doors. Demand public hearings!
Lutheran Social Services recently reported to the commissioners that all was quiet and few refugees were arriving.
The headline from the Bismarck Tribunefocuses on that.
However, read on.
Commissioner Brian Bitner does something rarely seen when the subject of the financial impact refugees have on the community comes up—he called out Lutheran Social Services for providing deceptive information.
Commissioner Brian Bitner, who voted against refugee resettlement, on Wednesday criticized Lutheran Social Services for including information that he said wasn’t appropriate in its proposal to continue resettling refugees.
In its application to the county, Lutheran Social Services included a 2017-18 study from the state Legislature’s Human Services Committee that cited a report provided by New American Economy, a New York-based immigration research nonprofit, in a section on the “Benefits of Refugee Resettlement.” Despite the title, the section cited data on “New Americans” — a term that doesn’t mean just refugees.
Bloomberg’s big bucks buy glossy studies and the media falls for it!
This is Michael Bloomberg’s baby! He wants cheap labor for fat cats!
He and his cohorts have been spreading their Open Borders propaganda for ten years, so you can’t trust his numbers to begin with!
This is what the Left (and rich RINO Rs) do, they publish glossy studies and everyone, including the gullible media, never questions it.
It sure looks like one county commissioner isn’t fooled!
The Bismarck Tribune continues….
“Except where otherwise noted, we define an immigrant as anyone born outside the country to non-U.S. citizen parents who is a resident in the United States,” Nan Wu, New American Economy Deputy Director of Qualitative Research, said in an email about her group’s report. “This includes naturalized citizens, green card holders, temporary visa holders, refugees, asylees, and undocumented immigrants, among others. So refugees are included when we refer to “New Americans” or immigrants in the report.”
The section said “New Americans” in North Dakota paid $36.4 million in state and local taxes, $66.9 million in Social Security taxes and $16.2 million in Medicare taxes, and earned $559.6 million of income.
“The information regarding benefits of that was not information that was relative to refugees, it was information that was pertinent to foreign-born individuals,” Bitner said. “And so I (studied) the source of the information to find out it was census data that they used.”
He added: “And in the census data they were clear that it wasn’t possible to separate out any of the categories of immigration from that information. So the refugee information that was provided to us was not refugee information.”
Where do Democratic presidential candidates stand on immigration policy?
But strangely it only reports the number of refugees each candidate wants per year for a couple of the candidates. Why the silence on some others when the numbers are available?
Remember that President Trump has the level set at 18,000 (under the Refugee Act of 1980, the President sets the ceiling/cap each fiscal year).
The Dems want to change that and have Congress set a minimum ceiling of 95,000. If the Dems win the White House, and hold the House, there is an excellent chance that will happen.
The LA Times lists numbers for only Biden and Warren:
Grandpappy of the US Refugee Admissions Program, Joe Biden: 125,000
Bernie Sandersdoesn’t set a number except that he wants at least 50,000 so-called climate refugees admitted every year. (See my climate refugee archive.)
Tom Steyeralso has not given a number that I can find but would welcome climate refugees in the mix.
I find it incredible that the Democrats want to inject hundreds of thousands of competitors into the job market who will drive down wages for American workers. Don’t African Americans and other minorities get that?
Note to PayPal donors! I want to thank all of you who send me donations for my work via PayPal. I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, PayPal is making changes to their terms of service and I’ve decided to opt-out beginning on March 10, 2020.
