Polls show that a majority of Americans support enforcement of immigration laws, ending sanctuary policies, reducing immigration and making it merit-based. These views have manifested themselves in recent voting patterns, particularly among Republican and Independent voters.
To those who are part of America’s elitist class, the views of voters and the response from people seeking elected office can only mean one thing: “That dynamic underscores Trump’s success at eroding resistance in the GOP toward his racially infused nationalism,” writes noted political commentator Ronald Brownstein in The Atlantic.
Brownstein’s article notes – or more accurately, laments – positions in favor a secure border fence and opposed to sanctuary policies are increasingly embraced by Republican candidates for office. “If there was a major GOP candidate in these primaries who did not loudly declare their support for building Trump’s border wall, I didn’t see it. Likewise, every major GOP candidate pledged to crack down on so-called ‘sanctuary cities,’ which limit their cooperation with federal immigration-enforcement officials, and several pledged to constrict legal immigration.”
Could it be that people who support border security and an end to policies that result in deportable criminals being put back on the streets hold these views because they believe such policies make good sense for their country and communities? Nah. To the elitist class, such views are hallmarks of reprehensible character flaws (or worse). Nor does it occur to the elitist class that such gross and disparaging condescension toward those whose lives are affected differently by illegal immigration is a major reason why the guy they love to hate is president.
Interestingly, to Brownstein and other elitist pundits, the equally stark political dynamic within the Democratic Party isn’t worth so much as a mention, never mind an essay in The Atlantic. Even though large percentages of Democratic voters support border security and oppose sanctuary policies (because they are stupid and dangerous), one would have to look long and hard to find a Democratic elected official or candidate who advocates for those positions.
It was not that long ago that the majority of Senate Democrats voted to construct a border fence and supported immigration enforcement. The fact that the party’s position on immigration has been co-opted by a radical fringe – to a point where the Deputy Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) turns up at a May Day parade sporting a tee shirt that reads (in Spanish), “I do not believe in borders” – or that the DNC uses inflammatory rhetoric to characterize even routine immigration enforcement is not the least bit troubling to the elitist class.
Of course to the comfort of folks like Brownstein, and to the continued frustration of voters who handed the GOP control of both houses of Congress, there is a huge disconnect between what candidates for office say on the campaign trail and what they do once they get to office. We’ve all heard these promises before from Republicans (and, not so long ago, from Democrats), and where has it gotten us?
6 Comments
Business as Unusual?
Numbersusa summed it for me….thinking out of the box and being innovative on immigration law enforcement in this NWO anarchy means simply enforcing existing immigration laws on the books. What a joke.
Pingback: AG Sessions’ Allegedly Unprecedented Creation of Precedent | ImmigrationReform.com
Pingback: Plain and Simple, The New Yorker Publishes Hate Speech | ImmigrationReform.com
The typical major-media commentator of today is closely aligned with the political elite and its shadowy understratum, the “permanent government” / “deep state.” Thus it comes as no surprise that a columnist for The Atlantic, a sharply left-of-center publication in its own right, would dislike President Trump’s agenda in all particulars. The cited column speaks of immigration and border control, but I have little doubt that were Brownstein queried about Trump’s deregulatory agenda, his pro-fossil-fuel-exploration agenda, his America-First foreign policy, or his endorsement of the recent tax cut bill, he would be just as opposed to any or all of them. To do otherwise would mark him as a maverick, and therefore unacceptable in a community that demands (and subtly enforces) conformity to its orthodoxies. Got to protect the ol’ career, don’t y’know.
California Rich Elite Open Border Party Wants to Take Your Gas Car from You
And make you drive electric by forcing you to pay for Chinese Solar Panels on Single Family Homes….to allow the electric grid to support hazardous Lithium Battery charging. Lithium Batteries require a manufacturing process that spews toxic heavy elements worse than Mercury over land masses the size of Rhode Island….destroying it like a nuclear meltdown spews radiation.
Overpopulation spews more sewage drainage into the oceans, speeding the extinction of all seafood by 2050 National Geographic recently reported.
Mother Earth Magazine [far left MSM] recently alleges a dog is equal to 3 gas powered Hummers in Carbon Footprint BTW. So overpopulation is the real problem then, but not addressed?
Wow. Brownstein isn’t fit to be writing anything on politics. He says if there was “a major GOP candidate who didn’t loudly declare their support for building Trump’s wall, I didn’t see it.” He only sees what he wants to see. Here’s Jeb Bush in 2015 about the wall: “it’s not defensible, in terms of a practical policy.”
So was Jeb not a “major GOP candidate”? Did he not oppose everything Trump proposed on immigration? Was there not a clear choice for primary voters? Did not Jeb wash out early with only bare minimum, at best, support? Brownstein, liar or know-nothing? Your choice.