Share This Article with a Friend!

Outsiders vs. Insiders: Even Donald Trump needs an occasional reminder of who his friends are

At the dawn of this monumental day in the presidency of Donald Trump – that marking his first State of the Union Address tonight – perhaps a look back at some of the events of the fateful 2016 campaign is in order.

Due to recent ill-advised immigration proposals put forth by the Trump White House it appears as though a little historic perspective is needed for the president and his advisors. By the looks of it Trump is seriously considering throwing his unique electoral coalition under the proverbial bus by proposing to not only legalize Mexican flagsmillions of “undocumented” individuals now comfortably residing somewhere within the boundaries of the United States, he’s also intending to grant them a path to citizenship.

While a reasonable and empathetic person could understand Trump’s desire to do so – there are certainly many humanitarian arguments in favor and Trump is a philanthropist at heart – it’s also important to remember that most of the people he seeks to help are no friends to himself or to the cause of liberty. For that reason, we peer into the recent past and reveal a little truth.

It goes without saying a good many of the fervent anti-Trump protests in 2015 and 2016 were inspired and carried out by people in this country illegally. Remember the Mexican flags, Mr. President?

Ruben Vives, Cindy Carcamo, Sarah Parvini and Shelby Grad reported at the LA Times on April 29, 2016, “Hundreds of demonstrators filled the streets outside the Orange County amphitheater where Trump held a rally Thursday night, stomping on cars, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition to the Republican presidential candidate. At least 17 were arrested...

“Activists predict that Trump would continue to evoke angry protests in California, while the presence of the Mexican flag could cause confusion among those observing from afar...

“While many may see it as un-American, the Mexican flag is actually used to express diversity within the United States, especially in California, where many are of Mexican heritage, [an] activist said.”

Express diversity? Were/are they serious? Having grown up in California I can state with authority that the omnipresent Mexican flags in Latino assemblies have nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with resistance to assimilation and a historically misguided notion that the territory should still be considered part of their home country. It’s another way to say “We were here first” and doesn’t carry much weight after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican War almost 170 years ago to the day (signed on February 2, 1848).

It should be noted Mexicans in the annexed areas subject to the treaty (including New Mexico, Arizona, parts of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming and all of California) had the choice of relocating to within Mexico's new boundaries or receiving American citizenship with full civil rights. Therefore, Mexican residents in the new U.S. states received citizenship at the time…the newcomers have no such legitimate claim. Period.

Despite this, Mexican flags are more prevalent than ever in Southern California as are Spanish language billboards and so-called “cultural” celebrations such as for Mexican Independence Day.

Is it “diverse” to observe the non-religious political holidays of a neighboring country? If so, why not Guatemalan Independence Day? Honduras? Belize? Puerto Rico? Cuba? Jamaica?

What’s any of this got to do with “diversity?” California has become the epicenter of the immigration debate largely because it’s the port of entry for a significant percentage of today’s immigrant population – legal and otherwise. If all of these folks are there merely to celebrate “diversity” then shouldn’t Chinese immigrants be just as enthusiastic about waving Mexican flags?

Once upon a time the Statue of Liberty stood beside the golden door. Now it’s a Mexican flag waved by protesters in Los Angeles…and other places too.

Needless to say the flag waving mayhem wasn’t confined to California during the 2016 campaign as red, white and green banners were also displayed at the infamous Chicago protest that ended with Trump’s people cancelling a rally. And in Missouri immigrant fueled demonstrations even featured a Trump piñata with the theme of “El Trumpo Gets a Thump-o.” Video shows children taking a good whack at a grossly distorted papier machè Trump as a Spanish speaking narrator excitedly urged them on.

Lindsay Toler of St. Louis Magazine reported on September 14, 2015, “The blown-away comb-over. The snarling grin. The raised fist with one finger extended, as though to fire someone. Even in piñata form, it’s easy to recognize Donald Trump.

“A piñata of the presidential candidate and real estate mogul, dubbed El Trumpo, was a guest of honor at this weekend’s Mexican Independence Day celebrations on Cherokee Street, one of St. Louis’ most Hispanic neighborhoods. Yaquis on Cherokee owner Francis Rodriguez built the larger-than-life monstrosity and hung it outside his restaurant for a scheduled bashing at sundown.”

At the time Trump was probably amused by such over-the-top demonstrations but now that he’s president the stakes are much higher and the jokes aren’t funny anymore. Everyone knows Trump’s leftist opposition isn’t the least bit interested in bargaining with the man who won the election – or even the Republican congressional leadership -- and has since softened his tone considerably on immigration issues, even to the extent of offering to break one of his signature campaign promises in order to grant citizenship to some illegal residents.

Whereas his enemies previously stuck to railing about “tone” and hoisting Trump-inspired artwork for kids to give a good “thump,” now they’re continuing to maintain he’s a racist and motivated only by a desire to keep non-white people out of the country. This is far from the truth -- and the fallacy would be exposed simply by reading his proposals. Democrats don’t care about reason or rationality; they want blood…and votes.

United States citizenship is a special privilege conveyed by the Constitution to those who qualify under its generous provisions. The noble prize of citizenship shouldn’t be cheapened by allowing people who subverted the law to attain it from political elites more interested in “compromise” than they are in principle.

Angelo Codevilla, an immigrant himself, wrote eloquently at American Greatness, “Reflect on what low regard for citizenship—a share in ruling America—one must have to confer it on a class of people in an attempt to make a political deal. Think about the disparity between the consequential, irrevocable gift and the hope to meet a threshold of votes that Senate rules can change on a whim. The grand hope is that the Democrats may agree to money for some miles of a ‘big, beautiful wall’ along the Mexican border, so that the president may pretend to his less intelligent supporters that, by voting for him, they have preserved America’s integrity.

“But illegal entrants will find it a trifle. Most already come in big batches through the border’s most fortified parts. Ask them how it’s done. The going rate for a no-frills but safe trip, usually in an 18-wheeler, they tell you, is about $4,000 a head—half of which the traffickers pay to the Border Patrol. More important, future border crossers will know that, under the new precedent, so long as they bring with them somebody under 18, they’ll be able to count on citizenship sooner or later. Democrats have already started counting the votes.”

Once again, these people aren’t your friends, Mr. President. A wall is a great thing but it won’t solve the issue permanently. Much more is called for. As a country we must locate the future lawbreakers, monitor them and if prudent, deport them.

The U.S. government needs a means of keeping track of every single person in the country. It pains my libertarian soul to suggest such a thing but in this day and age of politically correct immigration policy (that the Democrats seek to foist on the country through legal fiat or simply by de facto non-enforcement “sanctuary city” reality if they don’t get their way), there’s simply no other way to pre-determine who’s here for the right reasons and who isn’t.

By “keeping track” I’m not proposing an electronic ankle bracelet fitted for every American – and certainly not a computer chip implanted in anyone’s brain – but instead suggesting requiring some form of proof of legality (tamper-proof social security numbers?) for the newcomers when seeking even basic services. Penalties for violators should be meaningful, substantial and enforced.

How well could someone maintain an existence if they were compelled to provide proof of legality to obtain a cell phone service or electric power or gas for heating? How difficult would it be to devise a system whereby someone would need “official” sanction to turn the lights on?

Such measures wouldn’t solve the problem entirely either. One “legal” member of a household could sign up for its non-legal members, for example, but the point is to make it much more arduous for illegal aliens to remain in the country without the authorities being aware of them. Of course the existing E-verify system needs to be a requirement (it makes too much sense – that’s the primary reason why Democrats are so dead-set against it).

Donald Trump and Republicans should not be concerned about granting amnesty to people who aren’t their friends. From a demographic standpoint alone it already looks bleak for the GOP. David French wrote at National Review, “Since the rise of Trump, the existence of a GOP generation gap has been painfully clear to anyone who spends any time around Republican voters. In my experience, the mid-forties are the cutoff. Republicans I meet who are younger than me are far more likely to dislike Trump or to be Trump skeptics. Republicans older than me are far more likely to reserve a first-class seat on the Trump Train.

“Now there’s evidence that rather decisively backs up my experience. Axios commissioned a poll of Republican voters to determine whether they want to see Trump challenged in the GOP primary. The generation gap is larger than I thought…”

French subsequently provides the lopsided results of the poll and then adds his take on why younger Republicans aren’t taking to Trump like older folks have.

It’s food for thought. Younger voters are much more susceptible to believing the ruminations of the establishment and through peer pressure disliking someone or something just to look “cool.” It was much the same way years ago when Ronald Reagan was president. He was too old and conservative and would get us into a nuclear war with the Soviets, right?

Young Republicans may or may not eventually come around on Trump but it’s highly unlikely he’ll gain many supporters among the leftist illegal alien crowd no matter what he says tonight. History proves they aren’t his friends. Therefore there’s little to be gained by reversing Trump’s campaign promise to deal with the immigration problem.

Share this