Florida: Illegal Spic Killed Two Americans and Dumped Their Bodies

Daily Stormer
June 25, 2018

Juan Carlos Hernandez-Caseres.

 

Wetbacks gonna backwet.

The Goldwater:

Law enforcement in Miami, Florida say that a Honduran National who is inside the US illegally is responsible for the murder of two Americans and dumping their bodies.

Police say that 37-year-old Juan Carlos Hernandez-Caseres, an illegal alien from Honduras, was taken into custody over the weekend for the murders of both 41-year-old Ann Farrin and 39-year-old Neidy Roche, each of whom was raped and murdered before their bodies were dumped on the streets.

Last Wednesday, Farrin’s body was found in the 3000 block of Northwest 25th Avenue between Northwest 38th Street and Northwest 37th Street in Miami.

The Goldwater will not attack these women for their lifestyles, as many liberal media outlets are trying to spin these homicides as if it somehow justifies the murder of either.

No matter how these women lived, they were American citizens and they were slaughtered at the hands of an illegal alien.

During an interrogation with police, Hernandez-Caseres said that he had picked up Farrin and at some point, during his drive, he “became enraged,” punching her repeatedly in the throat and neck.

There’s also surveillance footage of Hernandez-Caseres which shows a black vehicle pulling between Northwest 38th Street and Northwest 37th Street and dumping the body of Farrin on the sidewalk.

Three months ago on March 2nd, the body of Neidy Roche was found on the sidewalk near the corner of Northwest 30th Avenue and Northwest 26th Street.

Neidy Roche.

Queen Maxine Unveils Plan to Harass Trump’s People Wherever They Go

This is going to become the norm as we approach civil war level of violence as whites defend themselves from anti-whites.

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 25, 2018

This is not adult politics, Maxine.

It really just seems kinda… niggerish, ya know?

Breitbart:

Saturday on MSNBC, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) suggested people harassing, and protesting members of the administration of President Donald Trump at stores, restaurants, and gas stations was the new reality for the United States of America.

Waters was referencing White House press secretary Sarah Sanders being asked to leave a Red Hen restaurant in Virginia this weekend.

Waters said, “I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong. I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’ This is wrong. This is unconscionable. We can’t keep doing this to children.”

I don’t really understand why no one is putting the brakes on the Queen.

Is she really just out of control?

Or do the Democrats think this is good strategy?

As I mentioned earlier today, Democrats do not have good strategists.

I think that they think that parading this kooky old Mamie around is good for the black vote.

If I was advising Democrats, I would tell them that the majority of black Americans look at this woman and see a batty old auntie who they find annoying and loud. Someone who they look for a reason to leave the house when she comes over to visit.

They will of course support her as an individual, because she’s black and they will support anyone of their own race, but I do not think she is going to inspire any black people to get on board with this agenda they are pushing, let alone inspire them to bother and go out and vote in the midterms.

I think if you did a test screening of Maxine Waters interviews with potential black voters, they would overwhelmingly change the channel when she came on, due to the aforementioned perception of her as an annoying aunt.

What they need if they want to get the black vote out is someone like Kanye West out there promoting their agenda.

Oh.

Right.

lel.

Also

Unrelated here, but isn’t this a lot worse than what I allegedly did to that alleged woman in Montana?

She is literally calling for organized mob harassment. I never did anything close to that.

Trump’s Simple Plan

This image released by the US Customs and Border Protection Office of Public Affairs shows one of the Border Wall Prototypes as they take shape during the Wall Prototype Construction Project on October 21, 2017, near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in San Diego. / AFP PHOTO / US Customs and Border Protection / Mani ALBRECHT / RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE – MANDATORY CREDIT “AFP PHOTO / US Customs and Border Protection Office of Public Affairs / Mani ALBRECHT” – NO MARKETING NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS – DISTRIBUTED AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 25, 2018

I don’t really see what more there is to say here.

Unless we are purposefully trying to make the country less white for some Jewish or otherwise political reason, why do we not just stop the illegal immigrants at the border, tell them they can’t come in, and then let them go back to wherever they came from at their own leisure.

Or sit around in some border town drinking and whoring.

Whatever.

“You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here,” as they say.

This really, really, really is not complicated.

Anyone trying to make it complicated is lying to you.

If they were honest, they would just say “yeah, look – we’re trying to make the country browner.” Instead they give you a bunch of complicated legal mumbo jumbo.

Let’s just lay it all out there:

  1. Republicans (New Republicans, Trump Republicans, whatever) want the country to remain white.

  2. Democrats want the country to become ever browner.

Let’s just start from that point of honesty and stop it with these retarded games.

FINALLY: Trump Calls for Illegal Immigrants to be Immediately Deported

By Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 25, 2018

The plan is all coming together, friends.

Immediate deportation after illegally crossing the border is what virtually every country in the world does, and what we did up until George W. Bush.

The sickening kike media is acting like this is some outrageous thing.

Literally, it was standard practice 15 years ago, and for the entire 200+ years of American history before that.

No law was ever passed outlawing the practice, it was just replaced by George Bush with “catch and release” because he wanted to drive down American wages.

In both 1996 and 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that not even legal immigrants have a right to a trial before being deported, twice overturning a Ninth Circuit ruling.

In 2005 – that’s 13 years ago – DHS claimed that 900,000 illegal immigrants caught crossing the border every year were immediately deported – and that the reason they all weren’t is because the government didn’t have the resources.

Then during the Obama era federal judges just started baselessly claiming that somehow illegal immigrants get Habeas Corpus (a right to appear before a judge) simply because they are people – effectively ruling that the US Constitution applies to all people on earth.

However, in February of this year, the SCOTUS struck down the ruling that illegals have this right.

Right now, Trump (Sessions, technically – or, fingers crossed, Giuliani) could legally just start telling ICE to pick illegals up in their van and drive them right back across the border – or, if they catch them close enough, just march them to the Rio Grande and make them swim back. But a federal judge would order an injunction, and claim that according to the February ruling they can be detained indefinitely but cannot be deported.

Then SCOTUS would eventually rule that they CAN be deported immediately.

Of course, all of this is going to be a lot easier after the RED WAVE.

With these Tweets, Trump is just telling us where we’re going with this.

All of these idiot problems we’ve been dealing with for the last two years are immediately solved if we just start sending these people back as soon as they cross. Yes, there are different rules for “asylum seekers,” as international law applies there. But we have a right to rule on the validity of asylum applications very quickly, and we could just send a whole shitton of judges to the border to stamp “denied” on asylum forms all day long.

And then, these people will just stop coming.

Of course by the time we get to that point, they won’t be able to come, because there will be a PHYSICAL BARRIER.

Has the West the Will to Survive The Third World Invasion?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Earlier by Pat Buchanan: Trump And The Third World Invasion Of The West

“If you’re … pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart, that’s a tough dilemma. … I’d rather be strong.”

So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump’s enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.

Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. But if the children cannot be separated from the parents as they await trial, both will have to be released to keep families together.

We are back to “catch and release.”

When that welcome news hits Central America, the migrant stream moving north will become a river that never ceases to flow.

The questions America and the West face might thus be framed:

  • Is there a liberal, progressive, Christian way to seal a 2,000-mile border, halt millions of migrants from crossing it illegally, and send intruders back whence they came? Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?
  • Does the survival of the West as a civilization require a ruthlessness the West no longer possess?

Consider what our fathers did to build this country.

The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians, joined their cousins in a war to expel the French, then revolted and threw out those cousins to claim all the land to the Mississippi for ourselves.

Jefferson grabbed the vast Louisiana Territory for $15 million from Napoleon, who had no right to sell it. Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go.

Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives.

William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.

The conquest and colonization of the New World and the creation of the United States and its rise to world power required acts of aggression and war of which many among our elites are ashamed. They exhibit their guilt by tearing down the statues of the men who perpetrated the “crimes” that created America. But of these elites, it may be fairly said: they could never have built a nation like ours.

Which brings us again to the larger questions.

While our forefathers would have not hesitated to do what was needed to secure our borders and expel intruders, it is not a settled matter as to whether this generation has the will to preserve the West.

Progressives may parade their moral superiority as they cheer the defeat of the “zero tolerance” policy. But they have no solution to the crisis. Indeed, many do not even see it as a crisis because they do not see themselves as belonging to a separate tribe, nation or people threatened by an epochal invasion from the Third World.

They see themselves as belonging to an ideological nation, a nation of ideas, whose mission is to go forth and preach and teach all peoples the gospel of democracy, diversity and equality.

And this is why the establishment was repudiated in 2016. It was perceived as too elite, too liberal, too weak to secure the borders and repel the invaders.

“If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people,” said Trump Wednesday. Is he wrong?

Since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has grown apparent that the existential threat to the West comes not from Czar Vladimir’s Russian divisions returning to the Elbe.

The existential threat came from the south.

Half a century ago, Houari Boumedienne, the leader of a poor but militant Algeria, allegedly proclaimed at the United Nations:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

This is the existential crisis of the West.

Thus, Trump seeks to build a wall, turn back the intruders, and bring Vladimir Putin back into the Western camp, where Russia belongs. Thus the new populist regime in Rome blocks boats of refugees from landing in Italy. Thus Angela Merkel looks like yesterday, and Viktor Orban like tomorrow.

Trump And The Third World Invasion Of The West

“It is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” says former first lady Laura Bush of the Trump administration policy of “zero tolerance,” under which the children of illegal migrants are being detained apart from their parents.

“Disgraceful,” adds Dr. Franklin Graham.

“We need to be … a country that governs with a heart,” says first lady Melania Trump. “No one likes this policy,” says White House aide Kellyanne Conway, even “the president wants this to end.”

And so it shall—given the universal denunciations and photos of sobbing children being pulled from parents. Yet striking down the policy will leave America’s immigration crisis still unresolved.

Consider. Since 2016, some 110,000 children have entered the U.S. illegally and been released, along with 200,000 Central American families caught sneaking across the border.

Reflecting its frustration, the White House press office declared:

“We can’t deport them, we can’t separate them, we can’t detain them, we can’t prosecute them. What (the Democrats) want is a radical open-border policy that lets everyone out into the interior of this country with virtually no documentation whatsoever.”

Where many Americans see illegal intruders, Democrats see future voters.

And with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.

The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?

The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away.

And Europe’s southern border is more imperiled than ours.

A week ago, the new populist regime in Rome refused to allow a boat full of migrants from Libya to land in Sicily. Malta also turned them away. After a voyage of almost a week and 1,000 miles, 630 migrants were landed in Valencia, Spain.

Why did Italy reject them? Under EU law, migrants apply for asylum in the country where they first enter Europe. This burdens Italy and Greece where the asylum-seekers have been arriving for years.

Of the landing in Spain, Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini, a leader of the populist League party, chortled:

“I thank the Spanish government. I hope they take in the other 66,629 refugees (inside Italy). We will not be offended if the French follow the Spanish, the Portuguese and Maltese, we will be the happiest people on earth.”

If the migrants boats of the Med are redirected to Spanish ports, one suspects that the Spanish people will soon become as unwelcoming as many other peoples in Europe.

And Trump is not backing down. Monday he tweeted:

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

Whatever European leaders may think of him, many Europeans are moving in Trump’s direction, toward more restrictions on immigration.

In Germany, a political crisis is percolating. The Bavarian-based CSU, longtime coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, is now talking divorce if Merkel does not toughen German policy.

Merkel has never fully recovered from the nationalist backlash against the million migrants she allowed in from Syria’s civil war. A New Year’s Eve rampage in Cologne, featuring wilding attacks on German girls by Arabs and Muslims, cost her dearly.

Among the reasons Bavarians are pulling away from Berlin is that, being in the south of Germany, Bavaria is a primary point of entry.

Virtually every one of the populist parties of Europe, especially of the right, have arisen to contest or to seize power by riding the issue of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet the progressives adamantly refuse to act, apparently paralyzed by a belief that restricting the free movement of peoples from foreign lands violates one of the great commandments of liberal democracy.

We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.

If Europe does not act, its future is predictable.

The population of Africa, right across the Med, is anticipated to climb to 2.5 billion by midcentury. And by 2100, Africa will be home half of all the people of the planet.

If but a tiny fraction of the African and Middle Eastern population decides to cross the Mediterranean to occupy the emptying towns and villages of an aging and dying continent, who and what will stop them?

Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of this issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.

But on the mega-issue—the Third World invasion of the West—he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future.

 

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

GOP Base Unmoved By MSM’s Big Lie On The Border. Build The Wall!

By John Derbyshire

Adapted from the latest Radio Derb, available exclusively on VDARE.com

If you followed the recent hysteria about our cruelty to illegal alien children on non-Main Stream Media, you’ll be familiar with the depth of nonsense and dishonesty behind it all.

You’ll know that the policy causing all the shrieking and fainting has been in place for years, long before Donald Trump showed up. You’ll have seen the old clips from not-that-many years ago of Barack Obama, ((((((Chuck Schumer)))))), and both of the Clintons telling us what a great evil illegal immigration is and how we need to take a strong stand against it.

You’ve probably also heard the numbers. You know that of the 12,000 minors detained in the six weeks of our zero-tolerance policy, only 2,000 were actually with a person claiming to be a parent. That’s seventeen percent. You probably suspect, as I and Attorney General Sessions do, that if DNA testing were to be applied, that percentage would drop into low single figures.

You likely know that Mexico, through which these Central American invaders passed, has a well-equipped U.S. embassy and nine, count ’em nine, consulates scattered across that country from Yucatan in the south to Tijuana in the north. Any Central American seeking asylum in the U.S.A. could apply at any of those places, without any fear of being separated from his children.

You probably also know that Mexico is a nation addled with criminality and corruption. Much of what happens there is dictated by crime syndicates who depend on smuggling narcotics into the U.S.A. Those syndicates obviously have a keen interest in keeping our Border Patrol busy with other matters—like, for example, detaining and processing illegal border-crossers.

As of last Friday, you’re probably acquainted with the backstory behind Time magazine’s current cover picture of a weeping tot who, according to Time, had been ripped from her mother’s arms.

The true story—uncovered by the British press, of course, not by our own worthless hacks—is that the child comes from a comfortable middle-class family in Honduras; that the child’s mother long fantasized about living in the U.S.A.; and that she at last acted on her fantasy, paying six thousand dollars to people traffickers and heading north without telling her husband, who is left in Honduras with their other three children, aged fourteen to six.[ Honduran father reveals daughter was never separated from her mother, By Daniel Bates and Karen Ruiz , Daily Mail, June 23, 2018]

The husband tells us that to the best of his knowledge child and mother have not been separated … though child and father obviously have, by several hundred miles, at the mother’s initiative.

This whole thing, this whole hysteria, is in other words bogus from top to bottom, just like all the other Progressive hysterias of recent years: Charlottesville, Russian election meddling, Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, the savage racism of asking for voter I.D. at polling stations.

If you pay any attention at all, if you care at all about actual facts, if you’re willing to privilege—pardon the word, please: it’s the correct word—if you’re willing to privilege objective truth over your own surging emotions and personal resentments, you know that it’s all one Big Lie.

It’s a usual thing for people suspected of a crime to be detained by law enforcement. If they have kids, this perforce separates them from their kids, since no humane society wants kids placed in adult detention facilities.

That’s been true in the case of U.S. citizens for ever. To say it should not pertain to non-citizens is to privilege—again, that’s the mot juste here—to privilege foreigners over our own people. And foreigners have a straightforward way to avoid this particular peril: They can stay in their own countries.

“But they’re desperate!” wail the hysterics. “Their countries are so messed up! And it’s OUR FAULT they’re messed up!”

The first thing to be said about that is, that a very great many countries are messed up. Billions—that’s “billions” with a “b”—of people live in messed-up countries. A handful of outliers excepted, all countries are messed up except the few established and majority-populated by Ice People—Europeans and East Asians.

Getting and keeping a not-messed-up country seems to be a difficult, an extraordinarily difficult achievement. Not even Ice People can always pull it off. For a non-messed-up country, iciness is necessary but not sufficient. Russia is quite badly messed up; so is China. Check out Albania. Check out North Korea. Being an Ice People country doesn’t guarantee you’re not messed up, nor vice versa, but that’s the way to bet.

As for the notion of it being our fault that Central American countries are messed up, I don’t buy it. For one thing, messed-up-ness is the normal state of affairs for countries not populated and run by Ice People, as just stated.

Take Latin America. It’s hard not to notice that the general level of messed-upness down there is greatest where Ice People are least numerous. The southern “cone” countries—Chile, Argentina, Uruguay—with mostly Ice People populations, have their problems, no doubt; but none of them is Guatemala or El Salvador. They are the least messed-up Latin American countries.

How is that? Did we evil Gringos just forget to go and mess them up? Please.

I’m put in mind of the reply the Mexican made to the Texan when Tex asked why Mexicans are always so mad at the U.S.A. and blame us for everything. The Mexican’s reply, according to P.J. O’Rourke: “You stole half our country. And not only that, Señor, you stole the half with all the paved roads.

And then, if your country messed up my country, why would I spend my family’s savings and risk life and limb to break into your country, the great messer-upper?

One of the blessings of living in Central America is that if you are dissatisfied with your country, there are lots of countries close by you can flee to for refuge. A citizen of Honduras is closer to Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Panama, Colombia, and the Bahamas than he is to the U.S.A., and not much further from Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil.

Refuge-wise, he’s spoiled for choice. Why would he want to come here, to the Great Satan, with all our cruelty and racism and xenophobia and white supremacy and toxic masculinity?

Mrs. Hernandez, the mother in the Time magazine cover story, doesn’t seem at all mad about Uncle Sam messing up her country.

Listings of the Four Cardinal Virtues generally put prudence at number one.

In the realm of the National Question—the question of what kind of nation we wish to be, and of what kind of nation we wish our children and grandchildren to inherit—prudence is surely appropriate.

If getting and maintaining a non-messed-up country is as difficult at it seems to be, and as dependent as it seems to be on a healthy supermajority of Ice People, prudence consists in a strict attention to demographic stability and the avoidance of wild demographic experiments.

With all my heart, and with as loud a voice as I can raise, for the sake of my children and their children, I urge prudence upon our nation’s leaders.

But what our nation’s leaders are actually doing is … nothing much.

There are plain political reasons for this. Some of them, some of those reasons, have been the motivations behind this week’s hysteria over illegal aliens. Others are more longstanding and baked-in to our system.

Our national legislature is quite finely balanced between the two big parties. The Senate is Republican by 51 percent; the House is Republican by 54 percent (55 percent if you factor in currently vacant seats). Under these circumstances, with midterm elections just twenty weeks away, both parties are of course strategizing like crazy.

The Democrats’ strategy is to run out the clock: doing nothing either positive or negative while striving to make President Trump look as bad as possible in the eyes of their base—GoodWhite ethnomasochists and racial minorities. The Main Stream Media are totally on board with this, and pushing the strategy for all they’re worth.

That’s what this week’s hysteria has been about. Random comment from a random media shill, this one actually Charles Blow [Email him] at the New York Times June 17th:

Trump is lying, as he often does. This barbaric policy is an outgrowth of his own personal cruelty … This practice of family separation must end, and Trump and every other politician who was silent about it or worse, endorsed it, must be held to account at the ballot box.[Trump and the Baby Snatchers]

That puts it as plainly as you could want. Trump is an evil person! Vote Democrat!

Godwin’s Law—which states, just to remind you, that as an internet discussion thread grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler approaches certainty—has been much in evidence in this week’s hysteria: so much so, in fact, that even some of the Open-Borders people have felt moved to protest.

Here for example was ((((((John Podhoretz)))))), an old-school Jewish immigration sentimentalist and race denialist:

Hitler wanted all Jews dead. Trump wants non-Americans who are here in violation of US law out of the United States. Dislike that all you wish. I do. I do not think this is the right policy. But it’s not the systematic elimination of the Other.

Stop cheapening the Holocaust to score political points, June 22, 2018

Which might be a bit more persuasive if ((((((Podhoretz)))))) had not himself done a bit of Holocaust-cheapening five months ago when he compared either Presidential advisor ((((((Stephen Miller)))))) or our own Steve Sailer—it’s not clear which—to Joseph Goebbels.

Still, it’s a sign of how crazy things have gotten that even ((((((Podhoretz)))))), a neocon’s neocon, thinks the Godwinization of our public discourse has gone too far.

That’s congressional Democrats and their MSM shills. What about congressional Republicans?

Well, there have been signs of sentient life in the House of Representatives. Yes, the Goodlatte Bill was voted down on Thursday, but it got 193 GOP votes, that’s 82 percent of the House Republicans who voted—much better than forecast. Praise and blessings from Radio Derb to all 193 of those House Republicans; a pox on the 41 Republican Nays (except those who, like Rep. Steve King, were voting against the Amnesty provision that the bill was trying to trade for patriotic reforms).

Speaker Paul Ryan himself did not vote. This is customary and not at all remarkable.

Ryan does, however, seem to have taken that better-than-expected 193 vote count to heart. He’s been working up a bill of his own, a much cuckier, more donor-friendly bill. He’d planned to bring his bill to a vote this week right after Goodlatte’s, but that vote has now been postponed to next week so that Ryan can jiggle the bill a bit to make it more acceptable to the 193. [House Rejects Hard-Line Immigration Bill and Delays Vote on Compromise, By Thomas ((((((Kaplan)))))) and Nicholas Fandos, The New York Times, June 21, 2018]

There is very little prospect that Ryan’s jiggling will make this second bill anything other than what it currently seems to be: a huge mass Amnesty for alien scofflaws garnished with some vague, easily-reversed promises on border security and internal enforcement. That’s what GOP donors want, and that’s what Ryan will give them. After all, six months from now he’ll be working for them openly, full-time, as a lobbyist.

The Senate is as usual immigration-shy and effectively inert. Even if Ryan’s bill passes the House, it will die in the Senate. Everybody, including Paul Ryan, knows this.

So it’s all kabuki theater. Democrats want to go into the midterms saying to their base that the President is Hitler; Republicans want to go in saying to their base that, heck, we know you want something done and we tried to do something, we really did, but there are just too many darn Democrats in Congress to get anything through.

The actual mood of the Republican base seems to be strongly pro-enforcement, even after this MSM blizzard of stories about howling toddlers being ripped from their mothers’ arms. The strong vote for the Goodlatte Bill reflects this: GOP congresscritters have been hearing from their constituents.

My own thumbnail gauge of GOP voter sentiment is, as I mentioned last week, the Letters columns of the New York Post, which I have reason to believe actually reflect the feelings of readers of this conventionally center-right newspaper in a not-very-Republican region.

The Post actually ran an editorial about border detentions as the hysteria got under way, taking quite a stern line against President Trump’s policy. [Stop breaking up families at the border, June 17, 2018] I waited patiently to see what the Letters column showed.

That editorial ran on Sunday, June 17. Monday, June 18, nothing. Tuesday, June 19, seven letters. Five of the seven were hysterical. The words “ripping,” “ripping,” “kidnapping,” and “ripped” showed up in four of the five. Godwin’s law of course kicked in, quote from a Manhattan letter-writer: “I now feel like I’m living in Nazi Germany,” That’s from the heart of New York City, current mayor Comrade Bill “Honeymoon in Castro’s Cuba” de Blasio.

Even then, though—on Tuesday, as the hysteria was cresting—two of the Post’s seven reader letters were non-hysterical. One blamed the illegals for putting their children at risk. Another calmly suggested using FEMA facilities—Federal Emergency Management Agency—to house the detainees.

Friday the Post ran another batch of readers’ letters, nine this time. Only one followed the hysterical line. Incredibly, it refrained from invoking Godwin’s Law; but it did include the phrase, quote, “ripped from their mothers’ arms,” The other eight wanted better border control and scoffed at the hysteria. Seven of the eight supported current policy. The eighth opposed it from the right, deploring, “President Trump’s executive order flip-flop,” which the writer blamed on Ivanka and Melania.

I don’t say this is definitive, certainly not any kind of scientific survey. Those letters do show, though, that even here in New York—the beating heart of Left-liberal lunacy and Republican cuckery—there are plenty of people not taken in by the hysteria.

I agree, by the way, with that eighth New York Post reader that Trump’s Executive Order was a blunder. The policy that caused all the hysteria—separating kids from their parents or pretend-parents and keeping them in HHS facilities for a few days—was perfectly legal, defensible, and humane. What’s supposed to happen now? We put the kids in Border Patrol lock-ups? How is that better?

The logic is inescapable. An adult who crosses the border without authorization is liable to arrest and detention, quite rightly so. If there are children with him, those children need to be detained and cared for, too; though since it’s the adult who broke the law, not the child, this is a child-care issue, not a law-enforcement issue.

00alienwinsIf child-care detention in HHS facilities is unacceptable, and detention of children in Border Patrol lockups with their parents is unthinkable, the only possibility is to let the kids go. So thousands of children—including a lot of teenagers and likely some adults posing as teenagers —with no proper claim to U.S. residence, have gotten it. And when the accompanying adult really is the child’s parent, they’ll get to stay too.[‘Unaccompanied Migrant CHILDREN’ Arrive at NY Airport -Appear to be GROWN MEN With SCRUFFY BEARDS and Shaving Kits (VIDEO), Gateway Pundit, June 23, 2018]

Our courts will make sure of that. Our courts are in fact a big part of the problem. Michelle Malkin many years ago stated the Prime Directive of immigration jurisprudence: “It ain’t over until the alien wins.” That will probably be the governing factor in the fate of these Central American border-jumpers going forward.

A friend who knows much more about our laws and Constitution than I do tells me that Congress could in fact bar the federal judiciary from considering these cases.

That’s nice, supposing my friend is right and I’ve understood him correctly; but the chance of Congress actually doing anything that imaginative, or that patriotic, is so small you’d need an electron microscope to see it. So this idea is like—to leap to the other end of the cosmic scale—is like the Heat Death of the Universe: kind of interesting, but not actually relevant to anything likely to happen in our lives.

The President could anyway have spared himself all the wrangling his administration’s in for with the judiciary, and could also have spared us this last few day’s screeching hysteria, by just doing what he was elected to do: build an effective border barrier.

It’s not that hard. Israel’s done it; Hungary‘s done it; Saudi Arabia and India have done it. China did it two thousand years ago.

What, you want to tell me we can’t do it until Congress appropriates the funds? I don’t believe it. I understand about checks and balances, but the President doesn’t have that little power. If we can bomb wedding parties in Afghanistan without a Congressional declaration of war, surely we can put up a decent border barrier.

This has been Trump’s greatest failure. Those of who voted for him, campaigned for him, and turned out on freezing winter mornings to show our support for him, need to keep telling him this.

Build the damn wall, Mr. President! BUILD THE DAMN WALL!

 

2010-12-24dl[1]John Derbyshire [email him]