Surprise! Left Wing Uses Pressure from Below, Pressure from Above Color Revolution Tactics to Push... Comprehensive Immigration Reform

As mentioned in yesterday's quick hits, the "color revolution" tactics employed by communists consists of organized violent "protests" meant to convince the majority of the public that they're actually the minority, and that they had better let the false "majority" get what they want or else the country will burn.

Meanwhile, the "elites" of the communist movement scheme to pass laws that will appease the false "majority," pretending they are responding to a popular movement conducted by others.

In fact, they're all part of the same psychological operation. The "elites" themselves organize, fund, and promote the so-called "spontaneous popular uprisings" and then trot out the legislation and policies they pretend they've draw up to respond to the "spontaneous popular uprisings," but in fact were drafted long, long ago. The "spontaneous popular uprisings" and the boiling-frog violent insurgency are executed just to give the communist "elites" cover to pass the unpopular legislation they always wanted to pass.

It's an "inside-outside" game -- some actors pretending to be on the "outside," with government insiders appeasing these violent "outsiders," but they're all insiders. They're all communist plotters. Some are just assigned the roles of domestic terrorism, and others assigned the role of passing laws to appease the domestic terrorists.

This is exactly the same "inside-outside" game played by terrorist groups, who each have their own supposedly "clean" "political wing." The IRA had Sinn Fein, Black September had the PLO, etc. The "clean" "political wings" supposedly have nothing to do with the terrorist wing-- but everyone knows they're working hand-in-glove together.

Except for the American media, which pretends it doesn't know that antifa is the violent terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. Because they're part of the inside-outside game, too.

So it makes perfect communist color revolution sense that the "insiders" are now pushing amnesty and open borders again, this time, supposedly as a way to avoid the further violence and chaos they're allied "outsiders" are perpetrating.

Byron York:

USING THE MINNEAPOLIS VIOLENCE TO PUSH IMMIGRATION REFORM. "Comprehensive immigration reform" has failed several times in Congress. The issue is too fraught, too complex, and the parties are too far apart for a fundamentally divided House and Senate to pass far-reaching legislation.

Nevertheless, calling for "comprehensive immigration reform" remains a safe strategy whenever immigration becomes a hot topic. For example, when the public finally caught on to the fact that President Joe Biden had set off a huge rush of millions of illegal immigrants, Democrats ran for political cover. Rather than demand that Biden close the border, which they didn't want to do and would also anger their activist groups, Democrats instead called for "comprehensive immigration reform," which made them sound like they wanted to address the problem." It was a safe harbor in a political storm.

Now we are in another storm, this time over events in Minneapolis. And some politicians, including some Republicans, are again calling for immigration reform.

In an op-ed in the New York Times, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) proposes a "common-sense bipartisan solution" to the violence and disorder that have accompanied President Donald Trump's aggressive effort to enforce federal immigration law in Minneapolis.

"Congress and the president need to embrace a new comprehensive national immigration policy that acknowledges Americans' many legitimate concerns about how the government has conducted immigration policy," Lawler writes. He praises Trump's record of stopping illegal border crossings and deporting 675,000 illegal immigrants. "Any balanced immigration policy would preserve and expand on this progress -- but humanely," Lawler writes, calling on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol to "reassess their current tactics."

And then it will be time for immigration reform. "A realistic plan would provide a path to legal status -- not citizenship -- for long-term illegal immigrants without criminal records," Lawler writes. "This path would be rigorous and fair ... those who benefit would face mandatory work requirements, forgo public assistance, and pay fines and any back taxes they might owe."

Would that work? One thing we know is that this kind of talk has been going on for decades. Multiple failed attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform have taught a few lessons. The first is that Congress will not secure the border. Just not gonna happen. On the other hand, a president can do it, or not do it. Trump is doing it, but the next president could undo that progress at the border, just as Joe Biden did from 2021 to 2025.

The second lesson is that Congress will not legislate Trump-level deportation numbers. And even if it did, it would take measures to ensure that its own law is never enforced. Back in 2006, amid another immigration debate, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, mandating the construction of fencing on significant parts of the U.S.-Mexico border. The next year, it passed a bill saying that nothing in the Secure Fence Act required any actual fencing to be built.

A third lesson is that when considering a "path to legal status" for "long-term illegal immigrants without criminal records," Congress will create a set of definitions --"long-term," and "without criminal records" and "work requirements" can be very, very flexible phrases -- that ends up including virtually everybody.

Read the whole thing.

Andrew McCarthy talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded, but even he gets it:

Andy McCarthy @AndrewCMcCarthy

It has never made any sense that we owe illegal aliens a path to legal status. If people choose to come to or stay in our country illegally, why should Americans care that, by their lawbreaking, these aliens are consigned to live "in the shadows"? That's the choice they made, we didn't ask them to come. I'm fine with prioritizing criminal aliens for removal and not doing dragnets that drain resources to capture and deport every illegal alien. But that pragmatic indulgence doesn't mean we owe lawbreakers a legalization process. If you come/stay here illegally, then you willfully run the risk that you could be deported at any time. Your choice. Maybe you'll slip through the cracks forever, or maybe you'll run a red light and get caught tomorrow. Your choice, your risk, not our problem. I just don't understand why we should waste 5 minutes handwringing over a path to legal status. These are people who chose to live here illegally.

posted by Ace at 03:12 PM

| Access Comments