Just because these immigrants being allowed to live and work for a few decades is a temporary good----we do not want to kill the ONLY WORLD MODEL FOR WE THE PEOPLE ----and this is what global Wall Street and the global 2% to the 1% are pushing hard to install in US cities.
WE LOVE AND SUPPORT OUR GLOBAL LABOR POOL IMMIGRANTS CAUGHT IN SLAVE TRADE CONDITIONS. We do not want to support CONTINUING AND EXPANDING THIS----which is where CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---TRUMP are going in the US and Africa. THE LEFT ACTION IS STOPPING THE BUILDING OF US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Here is the FEELING OUR PAIN neo-liberal economist Krugman----the good cop economist keeping WE THE PEOPLE and global citizens uninformed of goals of empire-building around the world and in the US. He like Thomas Friedman keep telling us global sweat shop factories are good because after killing all of each nations' local economies----people are made desperate for ANY KIND OF WORK.
'One Giant Global Labor Pool? - Bloomberg
Mar 20, 2004 ·
One Giant Global Labor Pool? Below the boiling political rhetoric, a real threat America's workers face is the potential for U.S. wages to sink to overseas ...'
In Praise of Cheap Labor
Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all.
By Paul Krugman
For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and children lived on that dump--enduring the stench, the flies, and the toxic waste in order to make a living combing the garbage for scrap metal and other recyclables. And they lived there voluntarily, because the $10 or so a squatter family could clear in a day was better than the alternatives.
The squatters are gone now, forcibly removed by Philippine police last year as a cosmetic move in advance of a Pacific Rim summit. But I found myself thinking about Smokey Mountain recently, after reading my latest batch of hate mail.
The occasion was an op-ed piece I had written for the New York Times, in which I had pointed out that while wages and working conditions in the new export industries of the Third World are appalling, they are a big improvement over the "previous, less visible rural poverty." I guess I should have expected that this comment would generate letters along the lines of, "Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job--as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour."
Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization--of the transfer of technology and capital from high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in its oppression of workers here and abroad.
But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers.
After all, global poverty is not something recently invented for the benefit of multinational corporations. Let's turn the clock back to the Third World as it was only two decades ago (and still is, in many countries). In those days, although the rapid economic growth of a handful of small Asian nations had started to attract attention, developing countries like Indonesia or Bangladesh were still mainly what they had always been: exporters of raw materials, importers of manufactures. Inefficient manufacturing sectors served their domestic markets, sheltered behind import quotas, but generated few jobs. Meanwhile, population pressure pushed desperate peasants into cultivating ever more marginal land or seeking a livelihood in any way possible--such as homesteading on a mountain of garbage.
Given this lack of other opportunities, you could hire workers in Jakarta or Manila for a pittance. But in the mid-'70s, cheap labor was not enough to allow a developing country to compete in world markets for manufactured goods. The entrenched advantages of advanced nations--their infrastructure and technical know-how, the vastly larger size of their markets and their proximity to suppliers of key components, their political stability and the subtle-but-crucial social adaptations that are necessary to operate an efficient economy--seemed to outweigh even a tenfold or twentyfold disparity in wage rates.
A nd then something changed. Some combination of factors that we still don't fully understand--lower tariff barriers, improved telecommunications, cheaper air transport--reduced the disadvantages of producing in developing countries. (Other things being the same, it is still better to produce in the First World--stories of companies that moved production to Mexico or East Asia, then moved back after experiencing the disadvantages of the Third World environment, are common.) In a substantial number of industries, low wages allowed developing countries to break into world markets. And so countries that had previously made a living selling jute or coffee started producing shirts and sneakers instead.
Workers in those shirt and sneaker factories are, inevitably, paid very little and expected to endure terrible working conditions. I say "inevitably" because their employers are not in business for their (or their workers') health; they pay as little as possible, and that minimum is determined by the other opportunities available to workers. And these are still extremely poor countries, where living on a garbage heap is attractive compared with the alternatives.
And yet, wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Partly this is because a growing industry must offer a somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the growth of manufacturing--and of the penumbra of other jobs that the new export sector creates--has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough--say, in South Korea or Taiwan--average wages start to approach what an American teen-ager can earn at McDonald's.
WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION IN ALL THESE ASIAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES WAS BETTER THEN SMALL FARMER SUBSISTENCE. WE ALSO KNOW WAGE RECORDS ARE OFTEN FORGED.
And eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps. (Smokey Mountain persisted because the Philippines, until recently, did not share in the export-led growth of its neighbors. Jobs that pay better than scavenging are still few and far between.)
The benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter of conjecture. A country like Indonesia is still so poor that progress can be measured in terms of how much the average person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking one-third of young children are still malnourished--but in 1975, the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like Bangladesh. These improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help--foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing. Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better.
Why, then, the outrage of my correspondents? Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land--or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap?
The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.
This sounds only fair--but is it? Let's think through the consequences.
First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.
And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
You may say that the wretched of the earth should not be forced to serve as hewers of wood, drawers of water, and sewers of sneakers for the affluent. But what is the alternative? Should they be helped with foreign aid? Maybe--although the historical record of regions like southern Italy suggests that such aid has a tendency to promote perpetual dependence. Anyway, there isn't the slightest prospect of significant aid materializing. Should their own governments provide more social justice? Of course--but they won't, or at least not because we tell them to. And as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard--that is, the fact that you don't like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.
In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.
I wanted to post this because it is indeed the coming problem-----for the Republican working class voters ---they are tied to the idea the global labor pool or black politicians teamed with Clinton are the problems-----when in fact all of the problems for all workers---but especially white labor stemmed from electing REAGAN/CLINTON. We need to remind everyone of this.
REAGAN was sent in to win over especially that white conservative right and left Republican/Democratic voter. He was sold as a CONSERVATIVE for this reason. REAGAN/THATCHER were NEVER conservatives---they were always far-right extreme wealth and extreme corporate power neo-liberalism---almost LIBERTARIANS. So, white male voters were the first ones FOOLED------it was sending US corporations overseas that killed our industrial employment----union and non-union----and yes, much of those jobs were WHITE MEN.
THIS IS WHAT WHITE MEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOUTING AGAINST THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. GLOBAL 1% WALL STREET SENT IN TWO WHITE MALE POLS TO TAKE DOWN WHITE MALE WORKERS----1980S-90S.
Then Bush runs as a conservative once the conservative Republicans and Democrats figured out there was nothing conservative about REAGAN/CLINTON neo-liberalism. So, Bush was sold as a conservative when global 1% Wall Street NEO-conservatives are again---the opposite of Republican conservatism---they are tag team Reagan neo-liberalism. AGAIN, IT WAS WHITE MEN VOTERS MAD NOW AT BUSH-----THAT REFUSED JEB BUSH A CHANCE THIS 2016 ELECTION.
These are the people with whom white male voters---especially right-leaning-----SHOULD BE ANGRY.
An Obama Presidency was installed because all the policies Obama pushed killed all black citizen gains-----from failing to protect their wealth---from killing MLK's legacy-----from breaking down all avenues to climb the economic ladder-----that was OBAMA----
"Every single hardship that people of color face in this country is either caused or exacerbated by the brute force of white supremacy. But the 'white working class' that cries about being abandoned doesn’t pretend to care about racial equity. Its members want the right to be as oppressive as their wealthier white masters—they just want to do it with more money in their pockets. And this nation is more comfortable with this impotent white rage than with the justifiable rage of black, Latinx and indigenous people that has burst to the fore once again."
Hillary was that woman----whose job it was to garner control of the woman voters-----the Clintons allowed that 5% to the 1% gain some wealth to keep them voting and then when global Wall Street had broken down all New Deal, War on Poverty, all US Constititutional and Federal laws protecting civil rights, civil liberties, families, children----HILLARY BAILED OUT--- leaving us Trump. No one is harmed more in these global labor pool policies then women. They are lowest on the economic ladder---IF EMPLOYED AT ALL----the global 1% and 2% of women we see are just that---they work for the rich getting richer.
WHITE MEN SHOULD NOT BE ANGRY WITH IMMIGRANTS----WOMEN-------BLACK CITIZENS----IT WAS GLOBAL 1% WALL STREET AND WHITE POLS THAT KILLED EMPLOYMENT FOR WHAT WAS TO BE A FEW DECADES OF BREAKDOWN OF ALL US LABOR AND QUALITY OF LIFE. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE INTENDED MOVE TO EXTREMISM TAKE HOLD---WE NEED A 99% VS THE 1% TO REVERSE THESE POLICIES.
‘White Working Class’ Narrative Is Nothing but a Racist Dog Whistle
Yes, they are angry. But they aren’t angry because they’re poor; they’re angry because they are white and poor—and that's not the American dream.
By: Kirsten West SavaliPosted: November 17, 2016
Supporters cheer for then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during a campaign rally at the Freedom Hill Amphitheater in Sterling Heights, Mich., on Nov. 6, 2016. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
And it’s not just xenophobic, anti-Latinx immigration sentiment. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2015, Pennsylvania had the fifth-highest number of hate groups in the United States. These groups are mostly white supremacist organizations, ranging from the Ku Klux Klan (nine) to neo-Nazis (three) to racist skinheads (six).
The state has two more KKK chapters than Mississippi; three of them are in Luzerne County. Still, the disingenuous narrative that racism is quarantined in the Deep South, and so-called white patriots in the Rust Belt just need a fair shake, persists.
Every single hardship that people of color face in this country is either caused or exacerbated by the brute force of white supremacy. But the “white working class” that cries about being abandoned doesn’t pretend to care about racial equity. Its members want the right to be as oppressive as their wealthier white masters—they just want to do it with more money in their pockets. And this nation is more comfortable with this impotent white rage than with the justifiable rage of black, Latinx and indigenous people that has burst to the fore once again.
In February of 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. talked about the “drum major instinct.” He talked about how some “white working class” people moved against their own economic best interests, instead choosing to bet on the discriminatory value of their whiteness.
The other day I was saying, I always try to do a little converting when I’m in jail. And when we were in jail in Birmingham the other day, the white wardens and all enjoyed coming around the cell to talk about the race problem. And they were showing us where we were so wrong demonstrating. And they were showing us where segregation was so right. And they were showing us where intermarriage was so wrong. So I would get to preaching, and we would get to talking—calmly, because they wanted to talk about it. And then we got down one day to the point—that was the second or third day—to talk about where they lived, and how much they were earning. And when those brothers told me what they were earning, I said, “Now, you know what? You ought to be marching with us. You’re just as poor as Negroes.” And I said, “You are put in the position of supporting your oppressor, because through prejudice and blindness, you fail to see that the same forces that oppress Negroes in American society oppress poor white people. And all you are living on is the satisfaction of your skin being white, and the drum major instinct of thinking that you are somebody big because you are white. And you’re so poor you can’t send your children to school. You ought to be out here marching with every one of us every time we have a march. Now that’s a fact.
This is what we are seeing with “white working class” Trump voters. They hope that by voting against justice—by denying the urgency of racial equity in education and health care and housing and employment needed to shatter the framework of a country built on the subjugation and murders of black, Latinx and indigenous people—that they will be more closely aligned with the wealthy white people they yearn to be. They hope that by deporting immigrants from this country—something that Democrats know a thing or two about as well—they won’t have to face job competition and their own mediocrity.
They don’t care that more white people, in need of health care, are dying from “despair”—suicides, alcohol diseases and drug overdoses—because they are being crushed in the rubble of the burning house they wanted to remain whites-only.
Yes, they are angry. But they aren’t angry because they’re poor; they’re angry because they are white and poor—and that’s not the American dream. And they will starve and they will waste away and they will die before acknowledging that the world owes them nothing simply because they were born into a world where whiteness is supposed to equal power.
We can’t negotiate with that level of white self-destructiveness.
We can’t bargain with it.
We can’t appease it.
We can’t seek common ground with it.
We fight it and hope to come out on the other side.
Mob violence against black people, like what Trump incited among his “white working class” supporters, has always been a by-product of white anxiety over the freedom and economic advancement of black people.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett taught us that. The Wilmington, N.C., riots of 1898 taught us that. The destruction of Black Wall Street taught us that.
This isn’t new.
Any strategy that is empathetic toward racism—no matter how tattered and jobless and broke it may be—is one that is dangerous for black people in this country. And any politician or party that encourages black people to “seek common ground” with a poor man’s white supremacy while we’re swinging from the economic nooses around our necks is dangerous, too.
Yes, we must build coalitions of working-class people across the racial and gender spectrum. But if their whiteness comes first, it would behoove us to give less than a damn about coddling their “resentment” and keep moving toward freedom for ourselves.
Obama came to office having ICE putting the fear into our immigrant citizens having some of the highest deportations in modern history. Obama did this to induce FEAR in immigrant communities----just as Obama allowed police brutality and killings to soar for black citizens. It was all done to create fear in two very important voting blocks for CLINTON/OBAMA WALL STREET FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL NEO-LIBERALS.
Then Obama and Clinton neo-liberals came back with open communities and sanctuary for immigrants---know what? They must do that to build global labor pool density for the coming installation of global corporate campuses and global factories in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Do folks know that global corporate campuses and global factories in Asian nations employ millions of global labor pool in one Foreign Economic Zone? So Greater Baltimore for example would bring millions of immigrants to fill that BLOOMBERG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE 2 NORTH AMERICA----formerly Baltimore MD USA over the next few decades.
So, our immigrant citizens need to understand from where the fear needs to come. Yes, Trump was installed to MOVE FORWARD more brutal, authoritarian, austere work and living conditions for immigrants and US citizens. Those immigrants in global labor pool from Latin America---from Asia know what these conditions look like. The problem is US CITIES BEING DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----the problem is TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT -----the problem is global 1% Wall Street capturing both US major political parties and filling our elections with fraud and rigging. Let's work together as a 99% vs 1%-----who supported the Clinton neo-liberals these few decades-----our immigrant voters. Start by getting rid of that 5% to the 1% immigrant citizen WALL STREET PLAYER.
Ask Linda Lopez------'Linda Lopez | LinkedIn
Linda Lopez. Chief, Office of Immigrant Affairs, LA Mayor's Office at City of Los Angeles. Location Los Angeles, California Industry Government Administration ' working for what has been the biggest ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global corporate neo-liberal administrations in LA-----Lopez is that 5% to the 1% -----maybe that 2% to the 1%-----shake these global Wall Street players out -----
Lopez comes out for a real threat of Trump----but says nothing about the goals of Foreign Economic Zones-----the LA area has some of the most repressive immigrant global factories already----because CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS ALLOW THEM
"We will not allow ICE to come into the school system" Linda Lopez, Chief of Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs #heretostay #undocumentedunafraid #undocumentedunafraidunapologetic #here2stay
"We will not step down or capitulate to the bullies" - Gil Cedillo, Los Angeles city council member #here2stay #undocumentedunafraid #heretostay #undocumentedunafraidunapologetic
'The UCLA study counters previous research by the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 11, which stated that Trump won 89 of the 100 counties most affected by competition from China. UCLA researchers attribute the disparity to a limited sample size of voting counties in the Wall Street Journal analysis, as well as a reliance on larger multi-county commuting zones and a trade exposure based on national level, without an analysis of exports or migration at the county level'.
It seems this article shows why general election fraud is more likely----
Trump supporters concentrated in areas less impacted by migrants and trade imbalance
UCLA research shows the candidate’s voters live in communities less affected by immigration from Mexico
Jessica Wolf | October 28, 2016
The red areas on this map show counties where Trump has high levels of support but also lower numbers of foreign-born, non-nationalized Mexicans.
Analyzing votes from the presidential primaries, and census and trade data, a new report from UCLA researchers shows that two of the prevailing messages from Republican candidate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — namely the negative effects of Mexican immigration and trade with Mexico and China on the American economy — are not significant factors in counties where he actually holds the most voter support.
The report shows that Trump’s support is concentrated in counties and commuting zones — which include urban areas as well as rural ones that share a common market — that are less likely to have significant numbers of Mexican immigrants and less likely to experience import competition from China and Mexico. Import competition typically contributes to depressed employment for low-skilled, high-pay work.
Nevertheless, economic conditions in areas where Trump enjoys his strongest support are worse than the country as a whole. In these places the average poverty rate is 15.19 percent, compared to the national average of 13.5 percent. And the average unemployment rate is 9 percent compared to the national rate of 4.9 percent.
“Our results show that, while many people in Trump-voting counties are struggling financially, trade and immigration are not to blame for those struggles,” said Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, primary researcher and executive director of the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, which studies transnationalism, immigration, immigrant remittance corridors and globalization. “We think it is vitally important that policymakers understand the realities in order to make decisions that have actual potential for improving economic conditions.”
Researchers used demographic and socioeconomic data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey from 2010 and 2014. They examined voting results from the Republican and Democratic primaries for 2,621 of the 3,007 counties in the United States.
Hinojosa-Ojeda, who is also a professor in the UCLA Cesar E. Chavez Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies, and the other researchers analyzed voting results as compared to migration patterns specific to each region, as well as exports and imports and the overall pattern of economic well-being in the areas. They applied the data both to individual counties as well as multi-county commuting zones. Results of commuting zone data closely reproduced what researchers found at the county level.
Less than 2 percent of the counties studied exhibited both very high support for Trump and a very high number of Mexican immigrants or very high exposure to Mexican or Chinese imports. In the report, a given variable, like the number of immigrants from Mexico, in a county or commuting zone was defined as “very high” if the value was higher in that area than it was in 75 percent of other counties or commuting zones.
Meanwhile, voters in areas that have very high numbers of Mexican immigrants and very high import competition are more likely to support either a Democratic candidate or a Republican candidate other than Trump, according to the report, which was co-sponsored by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Education and its director, Abel Valenzuela, also a professor of Chicana and Chicano studies.
Among counties where Trump received support during the Republican primary, only 16 percent had a population of non-citizen Mexican immigrants that was higher than the national median. Among commuting zones in which Trump received above average support during the Republican primary, only 39.9 percent had an above-the-median population of non-citizen Mexican immigrants.
“Trump has also argued that two major U.S. trading partners — Mexico and China — have limited domestic consumption of U.S.-made goods and hamstrung the ability of U.S. firms to produce exportable goods,” said Maksim Wynn, public administration analyst at the Institute for Research on Labor and Education. “This creates the assumption that his support base would come from counties that import the most and export the least. Our research shows the opposite is true.”
According to calculations by the UCLA researchers based on data from WISERTrade and the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 economic census, Trump supporters are more likely to live in areas that have actually benefited from net exports to China and Mexico.
Researchers found that the greater impact of imports from Mexico or China in a county or commuting zone, the more likely it is that voters in those areas supported a Democratic candidate or Republican other than Trump.
“This contradicts a core tenant of Trump’s trade-policy narrative,” Hinojosa-Ojeda said. “Though many of his supporters may be marginalized workers, trade cannot generally be blamed for that status.”
The UCLA study counters previous research by the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 11, which stated that Trump won 89 of the 100 counties most affected by competition from China. UCLA researchers attribute the disparity to a limited sample size of voting counties in the Wall Street Journal analysis, as well as a reliance on larger multi-county commuting zones and a trade exposure based on national level, without an analysis of exports or migration at the county level.
Why Democratic voters blind themselves to these ACTIONS SPEAKING LOUDER THAN WORDS. Nothing Democratic about far-right Wall Street global corporate neo-liberalism
November 14, 2016
Obama Has Deported More Immigrants Than Trump Is Saying He Will
Caitlin JohnstoneThe following article is entirely the opinion of Caitlin Johnstone and does not reflect the views of the Inquisitr.
If Donald Trump had said during his campaign that he wanted to greatly expand America’s drone program and bomb twice as many countries as his predecessor’s administration, liberals would be losing their minds right now. But according to We Are Change, that’s exactly what happened under the administration of President Obama, who is receiving a loving hero’s farewell with enthusiastic fanfare from Democrats all over the nation.
If Donald Trump had pledged during his campaign to reverse America’s trend toward nuclear disarmament and commit more than a trillion dollars to developing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, liberals would never shut up about it. Yet according to The Guardian, that’s exactly what Obama has done. And I bet you’ve never heard a Democrat make a peep about it.
If Donald Trump had promised during his campaign to greatly expand the Patriot Act, install an Orwellian surveillance program, and prosecute more whistleblowers than any previous administration, liberals would go nuts. But, of course, their hero Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner and darling of the political left, has done all of these things.
And right now America is experiencing riots and protests from coast to coast in response to the election of the horrible immigrant-deporting xenophobe Donald Trump, who said in his recent 60 Minutes interview on CBS that he plans to begin deporting two to three million illegal immigrants when he takes office.
You guessed it. Obama’s already done that.
According to a Pew Research data analysis released in August, the Obama administration deported an unprecedented 2.4 million illegal immigrants between 2009 when he took office and 2014, the last year data was available. So by 2014, Obama had already deported well above Trump’s minimum estimate of two million undocumented immigrants. Looking at the data, you can see that the Obama administration deported 414,481 immigrants in fiscal year 2014 (not even his highest year); if we assume his numbers stayed about the same we can reasonably estimate that that puts him at more than 3.2 million deportations by the end of 2016, well above Trump’s own highest estimate.
Where were the protests, liberals? Where were the safety pins? You folks who mere days ago were promising you’ll “hold Hillary’s feet to the fire” to ensure that she sticks to a progressive agenda, you never raised a finger for America’s undocumented immigrants when Obama deported more of them than any previous administration in history. And now you’re in the streets rioting and protesting because your identity politics aren’t getting tickled this year.
This is not a pro-Trump article. This is not even really an anti-Obama article. This is a “look at yourselves, liberals” article.
I despise the term “social justice warrior.” I find it infuriating that grown adults are beginning to use this pejorative cooked up by the children on 4chan to shame people for speaking out on issues of social justice and civil rights at a time when we need far more such advocacy, not less. My general response to being called an “SJW” is “Yes, I fight for social justice. Why don’t you?”
But now, looking at all these self-righteous people at these protests, using the issue of illegal immigration to puff themselves up and make themselves feel like noble warriors fighting oppression when really they’re just having a tantrum because they find the presidential election results egoically inconvenient, I almost get it. Nobody at those protests in Portland and San Francisco has ever protested anything the leader of their tribe did; they never would have dreamed of it. This is not and has never been about social justice, and it’s certainly not about “love trumping hate.” This is about identity politics, plain and simple, and identity politics and loyalties to establishments are exactly what’s going to kill our revolution if we don’t knock it off.
Look at yourselves, liberals. Please. The progressive awakening depends upon your recognizing this stuff.
I think the non-voters were in Federal courts fighting the Democratic primary systemic election frauds---so they were not surprised by general election fraud.
Here is a once strong voice for REAL JOURNALISM------Washington Post used to HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE. Now, each election more and more US voters don't vote because they know these elections are rigged. Each election media comes out to scold us-----never mentioning ELECTION FRAUDS AND RIGGING. Meanwhile, the media polling for elections becomes more and more selective because it only polls people who are willing to vote in these elections for these horrible people.
So, as in Maryland and Baltimore-----we have about 20% of eligible voters coming to the polls----when a candidate gets 83% of that vote----that is 83% of that 20%---meaning about 15% of voters. HOW LOW DO WE GO AND CALL IT AN ELECTION OR DEMOCRACY?
A lot of nonvoters are mad at the election results. If only there were something they could have done!
By Philip Bump November 16
The Fix: Where did Trump's wave of surprise voters come from?
The Fix's Chris Cillizza explains how Donald Trump beat expectations in rural areas and among Latino and black voters, propelling him to a surprising election win. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)Of America’s 320 million-odd residents, only about three-quarters are eligible to vote (mostly because they’re over the age of 18). Of the group that could vote in the presidential election, the U.S. Election Project’s Michael McDonald estimates that about 58.1 percent did — meaning that 41.9 percent of eligible Americans didn’t vote last week.
Using the most recent national splits from the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman, that means that Donald Trump was elected president with the support of fewer than 1 in 5 Americans.
So be it. That’s the system. You vote; you shape the government. You stay home, you don’t.
The Post partnered with the Schar School for Public Policy at George Mason University to survey Americans in the wake of last week’s voting. Among the questions we asked was a simple one: How do you feel about the election of Donald Trump as president? It was an open-ended question, and we noted what people said in response.
The most common sentiment was happiness and excitement, followed by those who indicated that they were upset. Many said they were hopeful (in one way or another); many expressed that they thought the results were terrible or that they were scared or worried about the result. The graph above groups responses by type, but the overall most common reply we heard was “disappointed” (which fits into that “upset” category).
Of course, the responses varied depending on who we were asking.
Trump voters were much more likely to be happy and hopeful; Clinton backers more likely to be upset, scared and shocked. Not hugely surprising.
But then we also broke out responses from those who didn’t even bother voting.
It’s a small sample size, but the responses were more evenly distributed. More nonvoters said they thought the results were terrible than expressed happiness about them, for example.
To which I say: Are you kidding me?
Some people aren’t able to vote on Election Day because they’re working or have some sort of emergency that prevents their doing so. Those people are excused from the following critique. For those who were eligible to vote but chose not to: Your opinion is bad. Voting is the price of admission for complaining about the results. Nothing’s stopping you from complaining, of course; the First Amendment protects complaints more than anything else, really. But don’t roll up to America and say “you made a bad choice” after not weighing in on that choice. It’s like showing up to dinner with a group of friends an hour in and complaining about what they ordered. Tough luck, man; eat your liver.