Trump immigration plan destroys the Democrats long phony narrative
President Trump has presented an immigration plan that most of America would be glad to support. That puts the Democrats in a box. They have spent the last year implying that Trump and the Republicans want to deport the Dreamers or would never consider a path to citizenship. Those narratives have never been true and now they are totally destroyed.
Most Americans want to end the Democrats policy of open borders. They are glad to see the so-called diversity (lottery) visa program — which is the product of identity politics — terminated and they support limiting chain migration to the immediate family. Democrats will lose public support if they fight those issues. Of course, that does not prevent House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from using the worn and tattered racist card against the concept of merit-based immigration. To Democrats, the ethnic background (and likely voting habit) of an immigrant is more important than the benefit they bring to America.
Trump trumped the Democrats by presenting a plan that extends Dreamer status to 1.8 million technically illegal aliens who have spent virtually all their lives in America. That more than doubles what Democrats have been proposing. Trump took away the Democrats citizenship argument by endorsing a path to citizenship.
The Trump plan and popular opinion leave little room for Democrats to mount opposition. That leaves only THE WALL as an issue for Democrats to pursue their obstructionist resistance. Democrats create a straw man argument by opposing a fictional 1000-mile long steel and stone structure rivaling the Great Wall of China. Trump had stated that protecting the border would be done with a combination of wall, fencing, natural barriers and increased human and technical surveillance.
Democrats also have a credibility problem – or a hypocrisy problem – based on so many past statements by Democrat leaders supporting and funding walls. News clips of former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, President Bill Clinton, Senator Diane Feinstein, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others all sound like ringing endorsements of the Trump proposal – down to the last detail.
The Democrats best shot – and it is not a good one – is to charge the Republicans of holding the Dreamers hostage to get the wall. But, are they prepared to vote down legalization for Dreamers – making themselves the obstructionists?
As with the ill-advised government shutdown, the Democrats will learn that a major portion of their own base – especially within the Hispanic community – will be more than happy to give the President his wall if it means legalization for Dreamers and a path to citizenship.
In past commentaries, I have expressed my strong belief that the Dreamers will be provided with permanent legal status. The only question is how much chaos and drama the Democrats and the media will create between now and then.
Davos another successful foray overseas – but how can you know?
While the elitist press avoids significant coverage of President Trump’s overseas visits, it does seem to have a premeditated intention to report only extraneous issues that can be spun into negative narratives. Mostly, however, the liberal press ignores Davos to obsessively focus on the Mueller investigation and their month of coverage of the months of no new news coverage of the hypothetical firing of Mueller.
Even as the President was engaging in important high-level meetings, the never-Trump news industry was myopically focusing on the Mueller investigation with agonizingly prolonged coverage devoid of actual news.
President Trump has had very positive meetings with heads of state and major business leaders. His meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu further bonded the two historic allies, underlined the importance and commitment of moving the United States embassy to Jerusalem (taking it off the negotiating table) and confirming a portion of the Trump doctrine regarding the Palestinians – no negotiations, no money.
The President’s meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May was very significant. May publicly assured the world that the US-Anglo alliance was as strong as ever and that she and Trump remain personally friendly. This was underscored by her invitation for Trump to visit the United Kingdom in the near future — pulling the rug out from under the media narrative that Trump has irreparably damaged the relationship.
Since Davos is primarily a business conclave, Trump was in his milieu. He made a very strong case that the improved U.S. economy was good for the world – good for all those major companies that have facilities and workers in America. Just as the 2008 recession in America impacted the world, the soaring US economy is boosting economic vitality across the globe.
Trump made a very persuasive case that his America First policy was appropriate and no threat to other nations or other business. He said he is a “cheerleader” for America just as others are cheerleaders for their nations or companies. Sounds like common sense.
And what prevented coverage of Davos?
The answer to that question is … anything that focused on the anti-Trump narrative. In this case, it was a combination of regurgitated old news and concocted new news. The most recent fact-challenged report was initially surfaced by the New York Times (of course). It held that based on unnamed sources at least once removed from the actual conversations (malicious gossip) that Trump “ordered” the firing of Mueller seven months ago. They claimed as fact (without real evidence) that Trump ordered, not discussed, but ordered the firing of Mueller eight months ago.
They also report that White House Counsel Don McGahn said he would resign if such a directive was issued to the Justice Department. If you believe the McGahn portion of the story, it seems unlikely that Trump actually issued such an order since McGahn did not resign, and no such directive was ever given to the folks in charge of the Mueller investigation. The media conjecture about Trump conjecturing about firing Mueller way back in June was widely reported at the time. And yet the elitist press presented an old nothing new news story as … hang on to your hats … a blockbuster, late-breaking development and even “proof” of obstruction of justice. It was media hype and deflection from the substantive news of the day – news that that was not sufficiently damaging to Trump.
Mueller should not have taken the job
Two things can be true at the same time. Special Counsel James Mueller may be a very fine person AND he may have made a mistake in taking the job. His appointment immediately raised legitimate questions because of his personal friendship with former FBI Director James Comey, who is hell-bent on bringing down the Trump presidency and has played a very partisan role in attempting to accomplish that mission.
Another problem is that Mueller was head of the FBI at a time when Hillary Clinton (and Bill) seemed to be getting favorable treatment. This at least creates an appearance of conflicts of interest.
Mueller’s defenders claim he did the right thing by removing Peter Strzok from the Special Counsel team for his extremely pro-Clinton, Anti-Trump remarks and actions. But, the removal also suggests that Mueller did the wrong thing in appointing him to the team in the first place. The firing of Strzok also puts the lie to the argument that he was merely expressing his rightful opinion. Obviously, Mueller was sufficiently troubled by those text messages between Strzok and his FBI paramour to summarily fire him.
While all the aforementioned have been batted back and forth like a shuttlecock, there is a less public and yet more important reason Mueller should have declined the post.
You will recall that the compelling reason for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself was because of his role as a participant or at that time a potential witness to germane events. Since Mueller was interviewed to succeed Comey as the head of the FBI, he and President Trump engaged in a private conversation that makes Mueller a potential witness – same as Sessions. Did the President talk to Mueller about the Russian investigation? Did he tell why he fired Comey? Did he place any conditions on a possible appointment? Was there anything in that conversation that inculpates or exculpates the President? If Mueller was not the Special Counsel, he would certainly be interviewed as a person with potential critical knowledge.
Michelle Obama got a lot of fawning news coverage when she said, “When they go low, we go high.” Apparently, Morning Joe’s perennial panelist and branding expert Donald Deutsch did not get the memo. In supporting the left’s strategic effort to get Republican leaders to break with Trump, Donnie (as he is referred to on show) sunk to an unimaginable low by referring to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan as “cockroaches” who should come out from under their rocks to attack the President. Donnie seems to have all the branding skills of a street thug.
Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and political issues. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, and he has served as a consultant to the White House under Presidents Nixon and Reagan. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress and lectured at Harvard University, Northwestern University, Florida Atlantic University, Knox College and Hope College. An award winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at email@example.com.