Tag: CPAC

CPAC 2014: Trump was out in front (virtually alone) on immigration issue

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday Ann Coulter tweeted this little walk down memory lane about the premiere (supposedly) conservative conclave held in Washington, DC each year known as CPAC.
trump_cpac14
For the record, we have written often on CPAC, but will not attend primarily because CPAC ‘leaders’ including Grover Norquist have worked hard for many years to keep discussions on immigration to a minimum and have outright banned those who want to discuss the Islamist threat to America.
Go here for our archive of posts on Grover Norquist.  BTW, while pushing his amnesty agenda, Norquist worked very closely with the office of Senator Marco Rubio in helping craft that now discredited ‘Gang of Eight’ amnesty bill, but I’m digressing.
Here is a piece (3/7/14) written by Jon Feere at the Center for Immigration Studies (tweeted by Ann Coulter yesterday) which chronicles how Trump was alone among a list of Republican leaders and Presidential wannabes in addressing immigration.

Trump was talking about our borders, our sovereignty and the future of the Republican Party long before he decided to jump into the Presidential race, and he must have been very unpopular (with the ‘leaders’ at CPAC) with this message! 

From Feere at CIS (emphasis below is mine):

Nearly every speaker at the first day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) avoided any discussion of immigration or amnesty, a sign that Republican politicians are starting to understand that conservative voters have very little interest in doubling legal immigration and amnestying illegal aliens.

Of all speakers, which included Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and governors Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal, only one speaker spent any time on immigration policy: Donald Trump. He came out strong on sovereignty and garnered strong applause for noting “we’re either a country, or we’re not; we either have borders or we don’t.” Trump also noted that amnesty is a benefit for the Democratic Party, while calling out Rubio:

When you let the 11 million — which will grow to 30 million people — in, I don’t care who stands up, whether it’s Marco Rubio, and talks about letting everybody in, you won’t get one vote. Every one of those votes goes to the Democrats. You have to do what’s right; it’s not about the votes necessarily. But of those 11 million potential voters which will go to 30 million in a not too long future, you will not get any of those votes no matter what you do, no matter how nice you are, no matter how soft you are, no matter how many times you say ‘rip down the fence and let everybody in’ you’re not going to get the votes. So with immigration, you better be smart and you better be tough, and they’re taking your jobs, and you better be careful. You better be careful.

More people willing to speak and write negatively about refugees, and mass migration generally

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

When I started writing Refugee Resettlement Watch nearly six years ago (this is my 4,001st post!), rarely, except at VDARE (and the Center for Immigration Studies occasionally), would anyone utter a word about “refugees” other than in the most reverential tones.  Refugees were the untouchables, but that seems to be changing.  Fear of the collapse of the West due to mass migration is openly being discussed.

Now, the word “refugee” is no longer sacrosanct.   Here Daniel Greenfield last week calls the migration of the third world to the first world what it is—colonization, with no end in sight.   They are coming and are not assimilating (if that’s what you have been counting on!).

The old paradigm that a country has the right to decide who enters it has been decisively overturned in Europe, it’s under siege in such first world countries as America, Canada, Australia and Israel by the creed that says it’s the human rights obligation of every nation to accept every refugee.

Given a chance a sizable portion of the third world would move to the first, a minority because of oppression and a majority because the opportunities and freebies are much better there. Even low ranked first world nations still find themselves swamped with refugees looking to move in.

International law does not assign any priority to a nation’s citizens over any person who happens to stray across the border. At the ground level that means the end of borders and the end of citizenship which is why immigration isn’t just a touchy issue in Arizona, it’s a touchy issue in Sydney, Tel Aviv and Birmingham. You can hardly open a newspaper of the liberal persuasion without being treated to another group of refugees in some troubled part of the world walled up behind fences and trying to get over to London, Sydney or New York.   [Watch for it!  Syrians next?—ed]

This sort of thing can’t be called immigration anymore, it’s a straightforward migration and it has no apparent limits. However many you take in, there will be more waiting and always burdening you with an unsolvable crisis.

Read it all!

POTUS?

Ann Coulter for President! says Peter Brimelow at VDARE

Coulter spoke at CPAC yesterday and probably assured herself a disinvite next year (just as happened to Pamela Geller)* when Coulter declared that she was a one issue voter and would support only candidates opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.

She said with no equivocation that Ted Kennedy’s 1965 mass migration strategy will kill America.  And, remember that was not about illegal aliens already in the US, but opened the doors of America to mass migration from the third world.

Check it out here at VDARE and watch her speech (in my view the most significant CPAC speech this year).

Has she assured her place in Grover’s ‘war on loud bullfrogs’ enemies list?   You betcha!

*Update!  Funny! Breitbart.com organized a panel for the un-invited including Geller and Robert Spencer—watch Spencer finger Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist!

VDARE writer tells us about CPAC immigration panel

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

CPAC for those not following Conservatism Inc. is the Conservative Political Action Conference going on in Washington this week.   It’s become a beauty contest of sorts for the Republican ruling class where movers and shakers, like ACU board member Grover Norquist (slayer of loud bullfrogs), try to get the minds right of the youthful “conservative” grassroots.

VDARE writer James Kirkpatrick pens an insightful summary of CPAC’s tepid Immigration Panel (VDARE’s title:  CPAC’s Immigration Panel—Wishful Thinking, Lies, And Attacking The Base) made up of squishes on the issue of amnesty and CITIZENSHIP for illegal aliens.

Moratorium on immigration! Or, what comes after America?

Here is Kirkpatrick’s wrap-up (emphasis mine), but please read the whole thing.  He says that getting cheap labor for businesses was an overriding theme (But, remember we told you only recently that the unemployment rate among LEGAL refugees was already at 50%, here.)  There is no shortage of immigrant labor!

Ideally, Conservatism Inc. wants cheap labor for their masters, positive press for opposing “racism,” and as few Hispanic voters in the electorate as possible. It cannot do all three, but it prefers cognitive dissonance to systematic (and politically incorrect) thought.

Near the beginning of the panel, Dr. Ayres condemned the belief that Hispanics tend to vote Democratic no matter what. He didn’t rebut it (of course) and simply gloated that whites will soon be a minority in the country their ancestors built. To those opposed to amnesty, he challenged: “What’s your plan?”

The plan is simple: an immigration moratorium, attrition through enforcement, abolishing birthright citizenship, attacking multiculturalism and rebuilding the national core.

If this fails, then immigration patriots have to ask what comes after America. As outlandish as that sounds, it bears a closer resemblance to reality than anything discussed during the immigration panel.

The tragedy of the so called “thoughtful” voices on immigration reform is not that they are liberal, or moderate, or “post-national.” It’s that these self-proclaimed sophisticates are guilty of a willful refusal to think seriously, And it shows.